Hitting your kid...

[Verboten]

That's an impressing time span for a contradiction.

Why should we "consider cultural differences"? That something is the norm in a culture is completely irrelevant to a discussion of it being right or wrong and should definitely not make that particular norm safe from criticism or debate. Genital circumcision is an example of this.

Did you just equate circumcision with swatting a kid on the butt? Because that's what it looks like.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

That's an impressing time span for a contradiction.

Why should we "consider cultural differences"? That something is the norm in a culture is completely irrelevant to a discussion of it being right or wrong and should definitely not make that particular norm safe from criticism or debate. Genital circumcision is an example of this.

Physical punishment is not an "either/or proposition" like genital circumcision, where you can know exactly what is taking place just by the label of "genital circumcision". There is an extremely wide continuum of such punishments.

And in terms of the cultural norms, I question how someone who comes from a culture where such punishments are non-existent or extremely rare can have an adequate foundation so as to know that all such punishments are worse than non-physical punishments. If you haven't seen it much (or at all), and haven't seen how children respond to it, how do you know it is worse?

[peterbound]

That's an impressing time span for a contradiction.

Why should we "consider cultural differences"? That something is the norm in a culture is completely irrelevant to a discussion of it being right or wrong and should definitely not make that particular norm safe from criticism or debate. Genital circumcision is an example of this.

Hot fuck, you're bringing out all the hits aren't you?

[The Warmth of Winter]

I did in no way equate circumcision with spanking. I'm saying that just because it's a cultural thing doesn't make it safe from criticism.

[Zoë Sumra]

The difference is in the severity and intent. "Spanking" does not produce any lasting physical harm. It is a bit of pain that ends a few seconds after the spanking. ...

Abuse is when the hitting does physical damage, and/or is done with a frequency and injustice that the child is living in constant fear.

Yet as both BFC's experience of other people (in his role as policeman? Maybe you can't answer that if it's so, BFC, but maybe you can answer it if my supposition is wrong) and Minaku's personal experience appear to bear out, there are parents who can't tell where that magic line you invoke falls. And as long as there are such parents, which is more important: maintaining the structure of physically punishing children, or protecting kids from what we both agree is abuse?

[Tears of Lys]

Hot fuck, you're bringing out all the hits aren't you?

Didn't I tell you this was a great thread?

[Lyanna Stark]

Please refrain from passing judgement upon others or implying that someone is violently lashing out at their children because of their own emotional state. This is a highly divisive topic but there is no need for this.

How am I passing judgement exactly? I clearly stated these my own thoughts on the subject and my own opinions. If you feel judged then that will have to be on your own head. I did not make an ad hominem attack on you at all. I even added as an extra clarification that I don't really care much about other parents, not care for them and that I only think two things: a, dont hit your kid and b. dont feed it shite.

I also did not say that people need to "violently lash out". My main gripe is actually with planned physical punishment as I think that is the most abhorrent thing, which should be fairly clear if you read my post instead of feeling victimised.

Please go back and check the post where *I* was singled out as a thoughtless, non caring parent instead. Guess what? I don't feel victimised by that, even though some might be in my position. I have a kid and I know that every day as a parent brings around new difficult situations, hence why I have very few rules I apply to other parents and even then, I tend to feel rather lenient as I know most people do their best and nobody is perfect.

And as a lot of people have pointed out before and I did not fully understand until I became a parent myself: Once you have a kid, you will understand these things AND you will mellow. If nothing else because the sleep deprivation will murder anything else in you.

The truth is still that you gain nothing by physical punishment and spanking and doing without works just as well. Arguing against it really becomes arguing against it because "this is the way it used to be and the status quo = best". There is no logic in that position without this being admitted.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

And as long as there are such parents, which is more important: maintaining the structure of physically punishing children, or protecting kids from what we both agree is abuse?

How many kids have been fucked up by bad parenting that didn't involve physical punishment. Does that mean that non-physical forms of punishment should be eliminated as well?

The idea that "some parents can't draw the line when it comes to corporal punishment so there shouldn't be any corporal punishment" makes no more sense than saying "Some parents can't draw the line when it comes to non-corporal punishment so there shouldn't be any of that either."

[Balefont]

How many kids have been fucked up by bad parenting that didn't involve physical punishment. Does that mean that non-physical forms of punishment should be eliminated as well?

And there you go again with the false logic.

[The Warmth of Winter]

How many kids have been fucked up by bad parenting that didn't involve physical punishment. Does that mean that non-physical forms of punishment should be eliminated as well?

I think it depends on you definition of non-physical punishment. To me "punishment" of any form is wrong whether it's verbal abuse och physical violence.

Edit: The difference, according to me, is that there are forms of non-physical reprimanding that are OK and harmless while all forms of physical reprimanding is wrong even if you do not take it "too far".

[Relic]

How many kids have been fucked up by bad parenting that didn't involve physical punishment. Does that mean that non-physical forms of punishment should be eliminated as well?

I get what you are saying (even tho it doesn't make much sense), but it does nothing to convince me. Aside from a rare smack on the butt or across the knuckles i just don't see how sustained negative reenforcement via hitting benefits a child. Might as well make them wear a shock collar if you want to use fear and pain as a teaching tool.

My mother was...emotional...and liked to use the belt as a way to curb what i would deem youthful enthusiasm, so i suppose i am biased to some extent. However, my sister has two beautiful little kids and i can not, for the life of me, even imagine hitting either of them for misbehaving. I'm a 30 year old adult who knows "better" and it is up to me to impart whatever wisdom or lessons i might have to teach these children in the gentlest way possible.

[Prince Alexander]

How many kids have been fucked up by bad parenting that didn't involve physical punishment. Does that mean that non-physical forms of punishment should be eliminated as well?

The idea that "some parents can't draw the line when it comes to corporal punishment so there shouldn't be any corporal punishment" makes no more sense than saying "Some parents can't draw the line when it comes to non-corporal punishment so there shouldn't be any of that either."

I can much sooner subscribe to the idea that certain people should be outright prohibited from bearing children (say, if they can't pass a licence exam), than the idea of big brother policing people's parenting techniques. Physical or not physical (within reason) hasn't got much to do with how a kid will turn out.

[Greywolf2375]

To me hitting is using your hand/item to hit another person on a part of their body with the intend to hurt.

For me, that is the difference. When my mother spanked me it was not with the intention to injure me, nor did she injure me in the slightest.

[Balefont]

I get what you are saying (even tho it doesn't make much sense), but it does nothing to convince me. Aside from a rare smack on the butt or across the knuckles i just don't see how sustained negative reenforcement via hitting benefits a child. Might as well make them wear a shock collar if you want to use fear and pain as a teaching tool.

My mother was...emotional...and liked to use the belt as a way to curb what i would deem youthful enthusiasm, so i suppose i am biased to some extent. However, my sister has two beautiful little kids and i can not, for the life of me, even imagine hitting either of them for misbehaving. I'm a 30 year old adult who knows "better" and it is up to me to impart whatever wisdom or lessons i might have to teach these children in the gentlest way possible.

Agree with everything.

Except about the part about you being 30. :P

[ZombieWife]

I get what you are saying (even tho it doesn't make much sense), but it does nothing to convince me. Aside from a rare smack on the butt or across the knuckles i just don't see how sustained negative reenforcement via hitting benefits a child. Might as well make them wear a shock collar if you want to use fear and pain as a teaching tool.

My mother was...emotional...and liked to use the belt as a way to curb what i would deem youthful enthusiasm, so i suppose i am biased to some extent. However, my sister has two beautiful little kids and i can not, for the life of me, even imagine hitting either of them for misbehaving. I'm a 30 year old adult who knows "better" and it is up to me to impart whatever wisdom or lessons i might have to teach these children in the gentlest way possible.

It's posts like this that I take far more seriously in this kind of debate. Spanking IS very rare for us. Now, for those who RELY on it, I do have an issue with that. A strong issue. Negative reinforcement is so incredibly harmful. I gotta quote Dr. Phil. I'm sorry. I know, I know.

But, he basically says that it takes 1000 "atta boys/atta girls" to overcome one incident of negative reinforcement. Now, I'm not sure that number is legit, but I get his point and it's a rule we try to live by here. The only times I have spanked have been in situations where I absolutely HAD to get my child's attention: running out into the street, putting a finger into an electrical socket, etc.. After telling my kid 20 times, "do NOT put your finger in that hole," and having her try to do it anyway, yeah, the spanking was the thing that finally worked.

Even then, you feel like a failure, even though she stopped fucking with the electrical sockets and hasn't run out into the street in over a year. I visit a parenting board and of the 50% of the moms who said they would NEVER spank, most of them ended up doing so at one point. I can't tell you the number of posts I saw that looked like this:

"Jack wiggled away and tried to run out into the busy parking lot and I grabbed him by the arm and gave him a swat on the butt. Oh God. How could I do that?"

My biggest gripe here is that people are throwing around words like "violence" and "abuse" very carelessly. I think we can all agree that we have different opinions of what "violence" and "abuse" are, but the black and white stuff is daunting. Consider situation. If a "swat on the butt" might keep your child from doing something harmful again, is it more important for you to be "correct" in your beliefs or is it better for you to have a living, breathing child?

I know this is a severe example, but these things do go through my mind as a parent. I'd rather disappoint every single person on this message board if it meant my child didn't run out into the damn street again. No, it doesn't mean I'll beat my child with a wooden spoon or slam his/her face into the wall. But, it means that sometimes I opted to give a swat on the butt. And yeah, it sucked. I didn't run out and party it up with my chick-posse and ask for congratulations on how badass of a mom I am.

I guess that's why I liked Relic's post. He isn't trying to shame people or guilt them into acting or believing a certain way. I found his reply thoughtful and honest and not so "cut and dry" as some of the others. There seems to be an element of common sense and the acknowledgment of "shades of gray" on this.

(Note: not all of this was directed at Relic! It just spurred the response and ideas. On another note, sorry you had to endure that, Relic. That f**king sucks.)

[Kalbear]

In the end, when you are spanking your kid for almost getting burnt, what is it for? To "protect" the kid? Or to act out your own fear and frustration?

You're doing it to teach them that doing what they were doing is going to cause pain, and you're substituting the pain of the hot stove and potentially a very damaging pain with lasting repercussions with a temporary pain. You're attempting to associate 'stove' with 'pain'.

And pain is very often a good teacher provided that you're associating it right away.

Yes, you can teach most things pretty much with the same efficacy without physical abuse. It's absolutely the case. What you can't do is do so quickly.

Also note that for some people it's simply a lot more effective than what they can do otherwise. That isn't to say that it is more effective - just that it is more effective for that person, probably because they don't have the other tools as a parent.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I get what you are saying (even tho it doesn't make much sense), but it does nothing to convince me. Aside from a rare smack on the butt or across the knuckles i just don't see how sustained negative reenforcement via hitting benefits a child.

If it is that sustained, then I'd agree.

The point that I think keeps getting overlooked is that any form of punishment necessarily is causing some pain, either emotional, physical, or both, to the recipient. And there seems to be an unproven assumption, on the part of some, that whacking a kid across the ass causing greater overall pain/damage than sitting a kid in a time out for an hour, or doing some other non-physical punishment. Without regard to the effectiveness of the punishment, the frequency with which it is applied, etc.

And that just strikes me as an extremely odd assumption. I was spanked rarely, and only when I did something that I knew was really wrong. It made an impression upon me, not just because of the physical part, but the emotional part of my parents doing something that much out of the ordinary. It made such an impression on me that I learned very quickly to avoid that behavior. As a result, that behavior was a lot more rare, so I was punished much less often because the technique was effective as my parents used it.

I know a lot of other parents, and I know of kids who routinely get put in time-outs, etc., on an almost daily basis. Well, what does that do to a kid? Being exiled apart from everyone else as if there is something really wrong with them, with that level of frequency? To sit and stew in that other room and build up resentments? If a slap on the butt, or at least the fear of that slap, would be more effective at discouraging that behavior, and wouldn't need to be imposed nearly that often because of that effectiveness, isn't there a legitimate case to be made that it is causing less overall harm?

I think it is very difficult to talk about this in the abstract and come up with hard and fast rules, because all parents and kids are different. What works with some kids doesn't work with others, and some parents are just better at getting their points across than others. The whole leadership/charisma/force of personality thing varies between parents the same way it does among adults overall.

[Isalie]

Three good things about this thread.

* I never knew there was such a difference of attitudes between Sweden and USA on this issue, it's somewhat baffling.

* The number of people who have only spanked their child when it was about to be run over by a car, not judging or w/e, I've used different methods concerning this issue though, and my daughter always holds my hand at parking lots.

* The arguement that since verbal abuse exists as well, spanking is justified.

I fully understand that the people advocating spanking loves their children as much as the next guy, it just seems so alien to me to spank my children, the way I imagine it, they would be shocked, hurt and scared or if they were older, perhaps just humiliated.

[TerraPrime]

I know a lot of other parents, and I know of kids who routinely get put in time-outs, etc., on an almost daily basis. Well, what does that do to a kid? Being exiled apart from everyone else as if there is something really wrong with them, with that level of frequency? To sit and stew in that other room and build up resentments? If a slap on the butt, or at least the fear of that slap, would be more effective at discouraging that behavior, and wouldn't need to be imposed nearly that often because of that effectiveness, isn't there a legitimate case to be made that it is causing less overall harm?

This scenario is begging the question. Your hypothetical is constructed to show that time-outs are not as efficient ("has to be used more") than corporeal punishment, and then you want us to draw the conclusion that spanking can be better than time-outs?

No can do.

[The Warmth of Winter]

For me, that is the difference. When my mother spanked me it was not with the intention to injure me, nor did she injure me in the slightest.

I think Lady Lufa meant the intentions are to make it hurt as opposed to injure. But I might've interpreted it wrong.