Hitting your kid...

[Nukelavee]

I'd be more impressed with the gentle Swedes if not, for, y'know, vikings.

Breaks the trust of a two year old? Wow, wait until they figure out how often their parents lie to them, or break promises.

Sometimes, this thread reads like PETA meeting.

eta

Mormont, but isn't also for "your" side to prove spanking turns out "worse" children than yours? And, to be fair, shouldn't "your" side also accept that the other side isn't using spank as a euphimism for "beat"?

I can honestly only remember getting spanked 2 times in my life, possibly 3. That hardly sounds like a casual use of violence, does it?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Wrong question. The question is, are they equally well-behaved, etc?

Well, that's one of the questions. Which again, hasn't yet been proven one way or the other.

This is an important point, because there is no way that the argument should be about 'why not smack kids?' The argument should, unquestionably, be about 'why smack?' It is down to the advocates of smacking to show that there is some reason for it.

Why? Unless there is something about corporal punishment that is inherently worse than non-corporal punishment, what difference does it make? Once again, there is that assumption that there is something objectively "worse" about corporal punishment that requires additional justification. I mentioned above that this may just be some kind of projection -- parental squeamishness rather that an assessment of how the kids themselves perceive it. But it seems that a lot of people think it is self-evident that corporal punishment is somehow "worse". I don't think that's the case at all, and I'm basing that on my own personal perspective as a kid, and from the perspective of others I know regarding when they were kids.

To be fair, various claims have been made in this thread trying to show that there is some reason, something that smacking does that alternative punishments can't. The only problem is that none of these claims can be stood up in practice. (This includes the 'instantaneous' claim in your post. Sorry, but that's weak sauce. Smacking is not the only way to instantaneously administer discipline.)

Okay, I'm game. What's the alternative that takes no longer from beginning to end, and that imparts the same degree of punishment?

[Ormond]

Have you ever held down your own child while she/he had a vaccination? Then you know how GODAWFUL that is and how absolutely heartwrenching. Your child trusts you implicitly and to be the one who has to hold it still while it gets an injection, even if you know it's for a good cause is terrible. Just plain and simply terrible. I know a lot of parents who hate it so much they con grandmothers and what not into taking the kid instead since they can't face it.

Sorry about making two responses to the same post, but I've been thinking about this on the way to work and wondering if this isn't also a cultural difference between Sweden and the USA.

I certainly have heard many American parents comment about how much they hate having to hold their children when they get injections or have other painful medical procedures, and that it makes them cry themselves. (As I said above, I observed my own sister doing this.)

But I don't recall ever having heard an American parent say that this bothers them so much that they actually try to "con a grandmother" or someone else into taking the child in for the shot. Now I have not interviewed a lot of parents of small children about this issue, so I don't know if this really doesn't happen in the USA. So if Americans who have had kids who are reading this thread themselves tell me that this actually does often happen in the USA, I stand to be corrected. But my first impression is to think that would be exceedigly rare in the USA.

I am interested in this discussion partly because one of the courses I teach is Cross-cultural Psychology, so I am trying to understand how the different attitudes toward corporal punishment fit in with other differences between Swedish and American culture. One other thing about Swedish culture that seems to be true from what I have read and heard is that it is one of the most "anger-in" cultures in the world. Even among adults, anger is usually not expressed openly and "not speaking to someone" as a reaction to being angry with them is more common in Sweden than it is elsewhere. So I wonder if going along with that, if Swedish parents are actually less able to deal with loud emotional outbursts from their children than Americans are, and if part of the huge distaste for corporal punishment in Sweden is that parents there would actually be more distressed by doing something that would be likely to lead to a loud emotional reaction in a child than American parents.

I must say that one thing I have learned from teaching Cross-Cultural Psychology is how all sorts of different methods of child-rearing (or doing anything else) are actually equally effective. As FLOW points out, several of the Swedish posters on this thread seem to jump to the conclusion that persons who were ever hit by their parents in any way as a child will grow up to be maladjusted and to have bad relationships with their parents. This certainly is not the case; most Americans who have been physically punished by their parents much more than I myself would ever approve of are nevertheless well-adjusted productive adults who have good relationships with their parents and other family members.

On the other hand, the conclusion that some Americans jump to that Sweden must be full of juvenile delinquents who are running around rudely disrupting others' lives and getting into dangerous scrapes all the time because they never got spanked as kids is just as false. From what I know about Swedish culture, it wouldn't surprise me if the average Swedish child is in fact less likely to be rude or disruptive than the average American child.

Again, there are many different forms of child-rearing that lead to positive outcomes. Most children are resilient and end up as fairly well-adjusted adults in spite of differences in styles of discipline, as long as the large majority of their interactions with their parents are positive -- something I'm sure is true for most parents in all cultures around the world.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Sorry about making two responses to the same post, but I've been thinking about this on the way to work and wondering if this isn't also a cultural difference between Sweden and the USA.

I certainly have heard many American parents comment about how much they hate having to hold their children when they get injections or have other painful medical procedures, and that it makes them cry themselves. (As I said above, I observed my own sister doing this.)

But I don't recall ever having heard an American parent say that this bothers them so much that they actually trying to "con a grandmother" or someone else into taking the child in for the shot. Now I have not interviewed a lot of parents of small children about this issue, so I don't know if this really doesn't happen in the USA. So if Americans who have had kids who are reading themselves tell me that this actually does often happen in the USA, But my first impression is to think that would be exceedigly rare in the USA.

I am interested in this discussion partly because one of the courses I teach is Cross-cultural Psychology, so I am trying to understand how the different attitudes toward corporal punishment fit in with other differences between Swedish and American culture. One other thing about Swedish culture that seems to be true from what I have read and heard is that it is one of the most "anger-in" cultures in the world. Even among adults, anger is usually not expressed openly and "not speaking to someone" as a reaction to being angry with them is more common in Sweden than it is elsewhere. So I wonder if going along with that, if Swedish parents are actually less able to deal with loud emotional outbursts from their children than Americans are, and if part of the huge distaste for corporal punishment in Sweden is that parents there would actually be more distressed by doing something that would be likely to lead to a loud emotional reaction in a child than American parents.

I must say that one thing I have learned from teaching Cross-Cultural Psychology is how all sorts of different methods of child-rearing (or doing anything else) are actually equally effective. As FLOW points out, several of the Swedish posters on this thread seem to jump to the conclusion that persons who were ever hit by their parents in any way as a child will grow up to be maladjusted and to have bad relationships with their parents. This certainly is not the case; most Americans who have been physically punished by their parents much more than I myself would ever approve of are nevertheless well-adjusted productive adults who have good relationships with their parents and other family members.

On the other hand, the conclusion that some Americans jump to that Sweden must be full of juvenile delinquents who are running around rudely disrupting others' lives and getting into dangerous scrapes all the time because they never got spanked as kids is just as false. From what I know about Swedish culture, it wouldn't surprise me if the average Swedish child is in fact less likely to be rude or disruptive than the average American child.

Again, there are many different forms of child-rearing that lead to positive outcomes. Most children are resilient and end up as fairly well-adjusted adults in spite of differences in styles of discipline, as long as the large majority of their interactions with their parents are positive -- something I'm sure is true for most parents in all cultures around the world.

Dammit, I always feel like Dad just came in the room and imparted loads of wisdom whenever you post, Ormond.

[Greywolf2375]

See, that's what I would say about (properly implemented) time out. It's instantaneous, directly connected to the bad behavior, and gives an immediate opportunity to demonstrate good behavior.

I, for one, was spanked, and I even "turned out fine," as they like to say, but, still, I never, ever want to be the type of parent who spanks my children.

So you don't want to be a good parent? Because there are good parents that spank their children.

I get the feeling also that what "spanking" means varies and that variation isn't helping in the discussion - it seems like some view spanking as only being 180 degree arm swing at full force with the intent to injure the child and others view it as an overall action (one swat on the butt) but no middle ground.

A spank to me is the last option a parent should have in their quiver and take it out only in the most extreme circumstances. .

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So you don't want to be a good parent? Because there are good parents that spank their children.

I get the feeling also that what "spanking" means varies and that variation isn't helping in the discussion - it seems like some view spanking as only being 180 degree arm swing at full force with the intent to injure the child and others view it as an overall action (one swat on the butt) but no middle ground.

A spank to me is the last option a parent should have in their quiver and take it out only in the most extreme circumstances. .

And there are good parents who don't. I think drawing hard distinctions when it comes to things as varied as individual children, individual parents, and punishments is very difficult. Sometimes, there is more than one way to skin the proverbial cat, and no single method is necessarily better or worse than some others.

[mormont]

Mormont, but isn't also for "your" side to prove spanking turns out "worse" children than yours?

No. Why on earth would it be?

If no actual difference in effectiveness can be demonstrated between using smacking and not using it, then what we have are two strategies that are effectively equal, or at least indistinguishable, in terms of how they work. But one still involves hitting a child, and the other does not. These two things are not the same, morally or in any other way. It's simply not tenable to pretend that the default in this case should be anything other than 'not hitting', surely?

And, to be fair, shouldn't "your" side also accept that the other side isn't using spank as a euphimism for "beat"?

I think the 'beating' involved here is of a straw man. That's not the way most of those arguing against smacking are doing it. But yeah, sure: if you also accept that smacking is often used as a euphemism by 'your' side, and that the distinction here is not binary but one of degree. Smacking is a form of hitting, even if it's not the most serious form.

Unless there is something about corporal punishment that is inherently worse than non-corporal punishment

Well, of course there is. That's a pretty strange thing to say. You're suggesting that an adult hitting a child is morally equal to making them do a time-out? If that's your view, really, we're starting from such different assumptions that I don't think we can even have a constructive discussion.

I'd also point out that you would be in a small minority. Half of our society is built on exactly that assumption - that physical punishment is not morally equivalent to other forms and should be avoided where possible. That's why we don't have public floggings, for example.

Okay, I'm game. What's the alternative that takes no longer from beginning to end, and that imparts the same degree of punishment?

I'm baffled by the suggestion that 'from beginning to end' matters. As long as the punishment is immediate, there is a clear link: why would when the punishment ends matter, so long as it is not so distant in time that the child forgets what they're being punished for? (And if you think that could happen in a second, even to a toddler, I'm afraid you're woefully uninformed about children's cognitive development.) You'll have to justify any claim that because a smack is over in a second, it works better than a two-minute time-out, or having the TV turned off, or even a verbal telling-off.

[Zoë Sumra]

Again, there are many different forms of child-rearing that lead to positive outcomes. Most children are resilient and end up as fairly well-adjusted adults in spite of differences in styles of discipline, as long as the large majority of their interactions with their parents are positive -- something I'm sure is true for most parents in all cultures around the world.

And do most of those children end up as fairly well-adjusted adults because they stay in the approximate culture in which their upbringing - including methods of punishment - were founded? It's something to ponder.

FLOW and others who advocate spanking: do you really consider spanking to be something that is "over immediately"? Do you really feel that it is an immediate expression of parental disapproval? I certainly don't associate it with anything such, more with a parent remaining angry for a long period of time thereafter.

[Greywolf2375]

And there are good parents who don't. I think drawing hard distinctions when it comes to things as varied as individual children, individual parents, and punishments is very difficult. Sometimes, there is more than one way to skin the proverbial cat, and no single method is necessarily better or worse than some others.

Couldn't agree more - it was poorly said on my part, but that was my point.

[The Warmth of Winter]

Sorry about making two responses to the same post, but I've been thinking about this on the way to work and wondering if this isn't also a cultural difference between Sweden and the USA.

I certainly have heard many American parents comment about how much they hate having to hold their children when they get injections or have other painful medical procedures, and that it makes them cry themselves. (As I said above, I observed my own sister doing this.)

But I don't recall ever having heard an American parent say that this bothers them so much that they actually try to "con a grandmother" or someone else into taking the child in for the shot.

I, as a Swede, have never really heard of a parent being that bothered by those kinds of situations but that could be explained with me not being parent. I can, however, completely understand that parents feel that strongly or are that uncomfortable with those situations, as I'm sure many can. Do I feel more strongly about it than Americans? That's a really interesting question and normally I would say that there probably isn't any difference. But after reading this thread I think I feel safe actually answering "yes" to that question. Not implying that Americans don't care (obviously) but that Swedes, like you propose, perhaps are more emotionally sensitive towards seing you child in distress.

I must say that one thing I have learned from teaching Cross-Cultural Psychology is how all sorts of different methods of child-rearing (or doing anything else) are actually equally effective. As FLOW points out, several of the Swedish posters on this thread seem to jump to the conclusion that persons who were ever hit by their parents in any way as a child will grow up to be maladjusted and to have bad relationships with their parents. This certainly is not the case; most Americans who have been physically punished by their parents much more than I myself would ever approve of are nevertheless well-adjusted productive adults who have good relationships with their parents and other family members.

I think you're wrong here actually. I believe we Swedes have a problem with the action of violence itself, the act of inflicting pain whatever the consequences, positive or negative. And this is something I'd say is the biggest cultural aspect. I am admittedly a pacifist myself, but I honestly think that even some of the people I know who enjoy getting into fights etc. would, by pure reflex, take an immediate stance against physical punishment. Why this is, though, is up for debate.

[Prince Alexander]

Wrong question. The question is, are they equally well-behaved, etc?

This is an important point, because there is no way that the argument should be about 'why not smack kids?' The argument should, unquestionably, be about 'why smack?' It is down to the advocates of smacking to show that there is some reason for it.

I'm not really an advocate but to me it seems pretty simple:

Most kids are dumb and can't be reasoned with up to a certain point. A smack is the sharpest and most obvious punishment to express your disapproval of them trying to shove their sibling inside a stove.

They are not fully formed people yet. Why apply this ridiculous argument "oh I'm not spanking my boss" or "oh I'm not spanking my neighbor" or "oh I'm not spanking my spouse(too bad, btw, you really should)", to kids? The reinforcement norms applicable to adults don't apply to kids. How much more simple can that be? A parent's job is to make sure the kid grows up to be a healthy, intelligent, respectful and productive individual. If that's fully their intent, who the hell are you (not you Mormont, generally, people who teach others how to parent) to say they are doing it wrong, when you have zero proof?

P.S. Once again, not an advocate, no I don't beat children, bla bla bla. Yes, I'm aware that even well intentioned parents can make mistakes, but unless you have a study with significant enough sample size to bring to the table (which will be bloody irrelevant by the time you gather data, due to societal changes), how can you know it's a mistake?

[Verboten]

I never got the concept of grounding to be honest. You take away your kids toys or their laptop and make them mow the lawn or clean the house, but locking your kid away in a room where they have all of their toys, all of their books and, most likely, an internet connection just seems like its punishment in name only.

[TrueMetis]

I never got the concept of grounding to be honest. You take away your kids toys or their laptop and make them mow the lawn or clean the house, but locking your kid away in a room where they have all of their toys, all of their books and, most likely, an internet connection just seems like its punishment in name only.

If that's what you're doing then you're doing it wrong.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

If no actual difference in effectiveness can be demonstrated between using smacking and not using it,

If you're the one saying that corporal punishment is never proper, then it is your burden to prove there is no difference in effectiveness.

But one still involves hitting a child, and the other does not. These two things are not the same, morally or in any other way. It's simply not tenable to pretend that the default in this case should be anything other than 'not hitting', surely?

THAT is the disagreement.

Let me just toss this out there for an example. Let's say you have parents who have used corporal punishment. I would agree, for the sake of argument, that it a punishment of greater intensity that most alternatives. it is not unreasonable to assume that a punishment of greater intensity, and the threat that this punishment may be used again, draws clearer lines and is more persuasive in terms of commanding obedience than other methods. As a result, because of the rare but effective use of corporal punishment early on, the need for future disicipline may be significantly lessened. "I'll get my ass beat" if I do that may be a greater deterrent than "I'll have to sit in my room for an hour" if I do that.

Now, maybe you can get the same behavior at the end with time-outs and other forms of punishment. But you may have to apply those punishment with much greater frequency than corporal punishment. And no matter how strongly you may assert that there is some self-evident moral difference between those two methods, I don't think it is that clear at all.

I'd rather punish my kids less often and more severely than be punishing them more often. And I felt the same way as a kid. And sometimes, it was the fear of that corporal punishment that led me not to do things I otherwise might have done. Hence, no punishment at all. Of course, this is coming from someone who han't spanked his daughter in at least 7-8 years, and my son for at least 3-4.

I think the 'beating' involved here is of a straw man. That's not the way most of those arguing against smacking are doing it. But yeah, sure: if you also accept that smacking is often used as a euphemism by 'your' side, and that the distinction here is not binary but one of degree. Smacking is a form of hitting, even if it's not the most serious form.

In my region, the most common phrase is "my parents would have beaten my ass if I did that". Frankly, I think the color is added mostly for effect.

Well, of course there is. That's a pretty strange thing to say. You're suggesting that an adult hitting a child is morally equal to making them do a time-out? If that's your view, really, we're starting from such different assumptions that I don't think we can even have a constructive discussion.

Well, there you go. You think making a kid go sit in a room doing nothing for a couple of hours, and doing that with some frequency, is morally superior to the more rare slap on the butt. So, I guess we have those different assumptions.

I'd also point out that you would be in a small minority. Half of our society is built on exactly that assumption - that physical punishment is not morally equivalent to other forms and should be avoided where possible. That's why we don't have public floggings, for example.

That's not the assumption, and it's a flawed example. An adult spanking a child is not viewed the same by most people as whipping an adult's back in public for committing a crime. Or do you have some polls showing that Americans view corporal punishment of a child by a parent the same way they do public floggings?

I'm baffled by the suggestion that 'from beginning to end' matters. As long as the punishment is immediate, there is a clear link: why would when the punishment ends matter, so long as it is not so distant in time that the child forgets what they're being punished for?

Well, I'm baffled by the suggestion that as long as the child knows why they're locked in their room, whether you put them in there for 15 seconds or 7 hours doesn't matter.

[Balefont]

Let me just toss this out there for an example. Let's say you have parents who have used corporal punishment. I would agree, for the sake of argument, that it a punishment of greater intensity that most alternatives. it is not unreasonable to assume that a punishment of greater intensity, and the threat that this punishment may be used again, draws clearer lines and is more persuasive in terms of commanding obedience that other methods. As a result, because of the rare but effective use of corporal punishment early on, the need for future disicipline is lessened.

And who does this quicker method benefit more? The kid or the parent beause it takes less time and less patience to do it the quicker more intense way?

Now, maybe you can get the same behavior at the end with time-outs and other forms of punishment. But you may have to apply those punishment with much greater frequency than corporal punishment.

Yeah, so suck it up, dad, and be prepared to be consistent and patient with your child as you teach them right and wrong.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLOW and others who advocate spanking: do you really consider spanking to be something that is "over immediately"? Do you really feel that it is an immediate expression of parental disapproval? I certainly don't associate it with anything such, more with a parent remaining angry for a long period of time thereafter.

If that is the case, I think it is being done wrong. In most cases, anyway.

The best way I can say it is that it is essentially a more intensive punishment than the alternatives, which means that it doesn't need to be applied for as long to be effective. If a child does something really bad, and I think someone upthread gave an example of tricking another poor girl into drinking some horrible, then you might couple corporal punishment with something else, like going to your room, that lasts for a longer time. But I think the alternative to that, without the corporal punishment, is that you have to really lengthen the other forms of punishment to make them proportionate to what has been done. How long do time-outs or reductions of privileges last for in cases where the kid has been a real stinker?

In any case, the point is that corporal punishment, if used correctly, should make the duration of the total punishment much shorter, precisely because it is more intense.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

And who does this quicker method benefit more? The kid or the parent beause it takes less time and less patience to do it the quicker more intense way?

I'm not at all sure it benefits the parent, because most parents don't enjoy hitting their child.

Yeah, so suck it up, dad, and be prepared to be consistent and patient with your child as you teach them right and wrong.

Why do you assume that a child would prefer multiple, repeated instances of non-corporal punishment to a single instance of corporal punishment? Is the aversion to corporal punishment based on a an objective assessment of its effects on a child, or just on the parents' own squeamishness?

[Tears of Lys]

If that is the case, I think it is being done wrong. In most cases, anyway.

The best way I can say it is that it is essentially a more intensive punishment than the alternatives, which means that it doesn't need to be applied for as long to be effective. If a child does something really bad, and I think someone upthread gave an example of tricking another poor girl into drinking some horrible, then you might couple corporal punishment with something else, like going to your room, that lasts for a longer time. But I think the alternative to that, without the corporal punishment, is that you have to really lengthen the other forms of punishment to make them proportionate to what has been done. How long do time-outs or reductions of privileges last for in cases where the kid has been a real stinker?

In any case, the point is that corporal punishment, if used correctly, should make the duration of the total punishment much shorter, precisely because it is more intense.

That was me :blush: . I probably was grounded for a period of time too, but it's the formal "spanking" that I remember.

Again, I'm not advocating it by any means. I wouldn't do it myself. (Hopefully, I'd have had a better child!)

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

That was me :blush: . I probably was grounded for a period of time too, but it's the formal "spanking" that I remember.

Well, do you think it's fair to say that it served its purpose, then?

Again, I'm not advocating it by any means. I wouldn't do it myself. (Hopefully, I'd have had a better child!)

I have to say that using corporal punishment on your kid is difficult. Nobody wants to be that image of the bad parent beating their kid. And I think it is entirely possible that some people can't/shouldn't do it. But it sounds like the one time you got it, it was very effective at conveying a message, and you remember the underlying cruelty to this day. So it sounds to me like your parents used it right.

[Eyron]

Also being a Swede, I have never heard of anyone having their own parents take the child to get a vaccination to get out of the discomfort. It could be that it is not something one likes to admit, so that could explain I haven't heard of it but I don't think it's the common case.

I think you're wrong here actually. I believe we Swedes have a problem with the action of violence itself, the act of inflicting pain whatever the consequences, positive or negative. And this is something I'd say is the biggest cultural aspect. I am admittedly a pacifist myself, but I honestly think that even some of the people I know who enjoy getting into fights etc. would, by pure reflex, take an immediate stance against physical punishment. Why this is, though, is up for debate.

I agree with this, it is the act of violence as a form of punishment (even in a very mild form) that is the problem. I come from a family that enjoys watching and practicing boxing and MMA so I am not brought up in a pacifist environment, but a fight between consenting equals is one thing, an adult hurting a child quite another.

_____

For the record I don't think spanking automatically leads to maladjusted adults, or that the relationship must be bad between parent and child. I think spanking is unnecessary to teach your child to avoid harmful situations and in principle that any form of corporal punishment is wrong.

I don't think a parent that once or twice deliver a swat on the behind in a desperate situation, in shock from seeing their child almost hit by a car for example, is a bad parent. We sometimes react instinctively, but I think it should be avoided as much as humanly possible. Using it methodically as a way to teach you child the harsh lessons of life, or doing it repeatedly when the child angers you, those are the cases that I can't agree with.

Also good to know for the interested, it is not just corporal punishment that is illegal here, psychological abuse is too. So parents here are very motivated to find other means to teach their children lessons. Calling a child abusive or degrading names constantly, other psychological forms of torture and repeated starving are not accepted either.

ETA: My parents sometimes wouldn't let me have dinner until I had calmed down or apologised. There was never a case where I was not allowed dinner if I admitted that I had done something wrong and sincerely expressed that I was sorry and understood why they did this. One of my parents used to come up to my room and talk after a while to see if I had understood and to explain, and to hear my side of it too. I went to bed without dinner once or twice when I was a teenager and just to stubborn to admit anything. It didn't harm me in any way, and I have always felt grateful that they had such patience and willpower to put up with my tantrums.