Hitting your kid...

[Tears of Lys]

Or... did you? If I check your pantry now, will I find cans of lobster and crab meat, hmmm?

Okay, Warden! I'll spill the beans! I did it! And I'll do it again!

I do have a few cans of crab meat in my cupboard - all bought and paid for. :smug:

I have thought of a suitably cruel and unusual punishment that had my parents thought of it, would have kept me on the straight and narrow. Taking away a favorite book. There's the answer! Parents just have to get sneakier.

[Verboten]

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

I don't have kids, but apparently a lot of parents are doing it wrong then.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

You're equating intensity with physical pain inflicted. That's not the end of definition of intensity, surely? Can you think of no ways for a parent to escalate the non-corporal punishment to match the severity of the misbehavior? Or is it that in your mind, only physical pain is capable achieving a result?

A spanking is about more than just the physical pain. I can't think of a non-corporal punishment that provides the same intensity. Well, I'll try....how about saying "you're a bad kid, we all hate you, and wish you'd never been born?" I mean, I imagine that would be a fairly intense thing to say to a kid.

If you don't like that, what's your idea?

That's an odd way of arguing. If it works for you, so then, it must be a good method?

No. But if it worked for me, it must not be a bad method in every instance, because my own experience (and I'm obviously not alone in this thread) disproves that. You guys are the ones arguing that corporal punishment is never okay, so you make it an easy argument to refute.

How would you know that if your parents had opted to not use the threat of a physical pain as a deterrent and used some other forms of discipline methods instead that you would have done all those things that you had refrained from doing?

How do you know I wouldn't have? SInce you're the one saying corporal punishment is always wrong, it's not up to me to say it's always the better result. You're the one who has to show it is always worse.

In any case, I know that it did accomplish the goal, and that it didn't do any harm. On that basis alone, why isn't it okay?

And in my household, there was no threat of beating after I was 5. My mother promised to not hit me, no matter what, because she said that I was now old enough to be reasoned with and she expected me to behave. I behaved, for the most part, because it would bring shame to my parents for me to act irresponsibly. Several times my friends were about to do stupid things, like planning on throwing eggs on the car of a hated teacher, and I skipped out because I knew how mortified my parents would be to find me behaving like that. When I did misbehave, the punishment was a few stern words of how disappointed they were in me and then be left alone to reflect on it. So I guess we're 1 : 1 in terms of anecdotes about which style of parenting is effective?

Er, but what about before 5? I mean, if you were subject to corporal punishment until after 5, and you turned out to be a good kid, doesn't that put you on my side? Btw, that is not at all uncommon among people who use corporal punishment -- that it ends long before other methods of discipline do. I mean, I don't know of anyone who spanks their 17 year old.

That's a bait-and-switch. You're talking about intensity and arguing that a concentrated dose of physical pain can be more preferable, so it really is no longer a "swat on the butt" thing like you would for a toddler trying to push his fingers into an electrical socket.

No, I look on that as two different things. For a toddler who doesn't understand right and wrong, a slap on the fingers and a "no no no" is simply a way of communicating the point to someone with limited understanding. When you're talking about what I'd consider a "spanking", you're talking about a child who did know better but decided to do it anyway.

Levels of pain that is memorable leave welts. Anything less is just an annoyance.

Disagree. Kids will often start crying even before they actually get swatted just because they know it is about to happen. And the reaciton will often be really disproportionate to the amount of actual pain inflicted. It is the whole event, the ritual, humliation, etc, that provides the intensity, not just the physical force of the spanking.

What good is your intensity argument if the child will stop feeling the sting after a couple of minutes?

You could make that argument about any punishment, including a time-out. The memory of the punishment can last even if the direct consequence of the actual punishment does not.

[litechick]

My seventh grade social studies teacher had a paddle. I forget whether he referred to it as the 'board of education.'

Boys who had earned harsh disciplinary action were given the option to take one blow from the paddle instead of writing 500 sentences. It was some kind of man training, as if the teacher was saying "OK, you're 12 years old, the testosterone is starting to flow and you privately suspect that you are a badass. Here's your chance to find out."

I don't recall any stigma associated with choosing the alternate, non-violent punishment because there was no doubt in anyone's mind that that blow would hurt. He would take them to the boy's bathroom, which was just on the other side of the wall from the classroom. We could hear the blow.

The one I remember best was the biggest 7th grade badass we had. He may have provoked the punishment deliberately, I can't say for sure. When he returned to the class he kept his countenance pretty well but his face was extremely pale.

I can't draw any larger concept lessons from this because it worked in that specific class, with that teacher, at that age. I would never suggest that this educational tool should be implemented anywhere else but I also will not say that it was wrong.

[Nukelavee]

Terra - I don't know if it is an invalid or unfair example to use, I know it's an extreme worst case, and I know playing at the dam was something grounding never cured.

But isn't that sort of thing exactly what parents hope to prevent, worst case scenario's of all sorts? From me testing out the light socket warnings, to playing with matches, and on - You want to stop the child from commiting those acts, before they get hurt.

You punish a child for lieing or stealing, not just because you dissapprove, or it's a big deal, at home, but because you want them to learn that lesson where a simple grounding or spanking is at stake, not jail, or worse.

Personally, I think its unfair to present FLoW's arguement with your "must be lasting pain", to paraphrase, considering nothing he has said actually shows that's what he meant.

[Ser Tom]

I had my arse scelped when I was a kid and frankly It didn't do me any harm and was always justified. In comparison a good friend of mine never received any sort of parental chastisement as a kid and it hasn't done him any favors. He acts like the fucking poster boy for douch bags at times and I think if he'd been taught to take responsibility for his actions as a kid he'd be a better man for it.

Yeah I know, I find myself sitting in the pub wondering why I'm still friends with him. Makes me think of Kippling.

[Lyanna Stark]

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.

Not a problem at all, but unfortunately, this happened in the UK, so may be more applicable to a general European mindset, perhaps? I don't know. I was actually surprised at it myself, since even thought I hated holding my daughter down for the injections, I could not imagine not being there with her either.

Yes, and actually, it isn't so bad. Our doctor is great about distracting the kids - has the nurse make funny faces, etc., and it's over before they realize it has been done. Then they get a sticker. To them, at least right now, Doctor = sticker and toys, which pretty much makes it the best place ever. We had more trauma trying to get them to LEAVE the doctor last time we had to go on a sick visit (there was a toy there they didn't have that they were very interested in).

If it's a single one then no, it's not too bad, but at least in the UK there is one "round" where they get three. Three different injections. Two in the first leg and one in the second. It's really really not pleasant and I felt awful. Logically I know that it is for her own good and I would never not do it, but to go through it was a nightmare. Plus she reacted with a rather bad fever a bit later on as well, so it was overall just something I am glad I don't have to do again.

You know, I really am someone who thinks a lot of American parents use spanking too often. I really ONLY think it's a reasonable thing to do when you are talking about the "immediate one swat on the bottom when the toddler has been doing something dangerous." I think other forms of discipline are better in all other situations.

But I guess as an American, even a psychologist, the rhetoric above just seems unrealistically over the top. I simply don't believe that the "one swat on the bottom for running into the street" is actually going to "break the trust" of a two year old. I don't think that someone who does this is a "monster" and I find using that sort of language to describe it to be hyperbole.

But a monster is how I feel about myself. In a situation where I feel angry or annoyed enough to swat or spank my child, just thinking that thought makes me feel like yes, a monster. It feels like in my head, I have turned into someone who would hurt a weaker loved one near me, and that is unacceptable to me. I do not want to become that person.

Whether or not a swat will break the trust in the long run, probably not, but it does not change the fact that for a person like me, it would be a huge landmark event, since it would mean a total moral turn around for me, that I'd have to view my whole personality in a different light, if that makes any sense.

No, I look on that as two different things. For a toddler who doesn't understand right and wrong, a slap on the fingers and a "no no no" is simply a way of communicating the point to someone with limited understanding. When you're talking about what I'd consider a "spanking", you're talking about a child who did know better but decided to do it anyway.

I have an EXTREMELY stubborn two year old. Stating "NO" strongly enough is enough, no need for swatting or slapping. They may be small, but they're not stupid.

The problem is of course the tantrum she'll throw afterwards, but that's another matter entirely. :)

[KAH]

A bit of a tangent, perhaps, but it does touch on both the attitude to use of violence and parental behaviour, so what the hey;

When my SO grew up, she got a practical lesson on standing up for herself, administered by her mother. She was in her kindergarten years, playing with the other kids in the sandbox IIRC. One of the neighbour boys proceeded to hit her so hard that she ran home crying.

Her mother, one of the gentlest people I've ever met, asked what had happened. My SO told her, and upon hearing it, her mother gently but firmly explained to her that she was not allowed inside before she had gone back to the boy and gotten back at him for what he did to her. And then the door was closed.

My SO wiped her tears, hefted her plastic shovel in her tiny fist, went back and hit the boy in the head with her shovel so hard that HE ran away crying. *

My SO's mother said that closing the door on her crying daughter was one of the hardest things she ever have had to do in her life, but she felt that teaching her child to stand up for herself was a vital lesson.

What do you think?

The lesson imposed is one of violence, although not administered by the parent herself, but my SO could certainly have ended up getting more beat-up from following up on the mother's demand. But personally, I think she was not wrong. It's a lesson that would probably have served me better than the 'never get into fights' lesson my own mom gave me, IMO.

* The story does not quite end there. Later that evening, the father of the boy with the boy himself in tow, knocked on the door of my SO's parents, and accused my SO of hitting his boy. Upon hearing her explanation, the father turned his gaze on the boy, and asked him sternly if this was true. The boy could not do anything but nod weakly, upon which the father exclaimed: "Uh-huh, he failed to cover that part of the story!" And dragged the boy with him home.

Naturally, some smugness ensued.

[Sci-2]

Seeing as I almost smashed a brick against an older kid's back to stand up for myself but was stopped in time by my cousin, I can say that was one of the more dangerous things your SO's mom did.

A better lesson would have been teaching self-defense over "don't get into fights".

[Sci-2]

I had my arse scelped when I was a kid and frankly It didn't do me any harm and was always justified. In comparison a good friend of mine never received any sort of parental chastisement as a kid and it hasn't done him any favors. He acts like the fucking poster boy for douch bags at times and I think if he'd been taught to take responsibility for his actions as a kid he'd be a better man for it.

Yeah I know, I find myself sitting in the pub wondering why I'm still friends with him. Makes me think of Kippling.

Why Kippling?

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

I trust my mother more than I can describe. I have Aspergers syndrome, much like your daughter, but everyone is different. She only spanked me when I was doing something dangerous to myself or others, such as running into the street while a truck was barreling towards me or trying to shoce a fork into an electrical socket or hitting my sister in the head. Then she explained very calmly why such behavior was bad and apologized for scaring me, but the situation was just that severe. I cannot stand it when people yell at me though, so she tries to not do that.

Highlighted is the key to this thread, and is why its drawing such strong emotions. Children are individuals, not pets, and they all react different to different treatment.

Simple.

Personally I was beaten regularly as a kid and it fucked me up. I would probably differentiate between what happened to me and 'spanking' though.

[Minaku]

How about learning self-defense? It sounds like she was doing nothing to provoke being hit. Kids hit all the time. Violence comes rather naturally to them.

I think 5 is a bit young to be having that lesson, but I think it's a pretty hilarious anecdote. My husband was a little kid when he was small and bigger kids were always picking on him until he took matters into his own hands. Then they quit picking on him.

I was a pretty small and skinny myself, but I never got into physical altercations, only verbal. I guess my shimmering aura of badassery and secret ninja skills deterred them. Honestly, I wish I could have used a physical solution to those terrible girls who tormented me in the sixth grade.

[KAH]

Seeing as I almost smashed a brick against an older kid's back to stand up for myself but was stopped in time by my cousin, I can say that was one of the more dangerous things your SO's mom did.

A better lesson would have been teaching self-defense over "don't get into fights".

Well, when I think about it, I believe she specified the means of getting back at the kid to my SO (said plastic shovel), but the point is well made.

As for self-defence, she did later train judo for at least five years.

[Balefont]

Our daughter trained with us in martial arts and it helped her on so many different levels. :)

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

edited very cool story

One of the objections to corporal punishment is that it teaches kids that violence is a solution. The truth is that violence is sometimes the best solution to stopping a greater evil, whether it is bullying, violence against others, etc. The key point is that there is a difference between violence that is deserved/justified, and violence that is not.

A parent who uses unjustified violence against a child in the form of a beating is clearly teaching the child something wrong. On the other hand, a child who justifiably deserves to be punished, and is punished with corporal punishment, is not learning a negative lesson. They are learning that in the real world, there is justice, and that they can be held accountable harshly for doing wrong.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

If it's a single one then no, it's not too bad, but at least in the UK there is one "round" where they get three. Three different injections. Two in the first leg and one in the second. It's really really not pleasant and I felt awful. Logically I know that it is for her own good and I would never not do it, but to go through it was a nightmare. Plus she reacted with a rather bad fever a bit later on as well, so it was overall just something I am glad I don't have to do again.

Total digression, but it's the same here, including the fever. The doctor told us to watch for it and have infant tylenol on hand. Which we did, and which worked. And I had to do it one with one baby and immediately thereafter with the other, so six shots in total. Again - didn't bother me at all, and didn't seem to bother them much either. (The polio oral vaccine was worse actually, and forget about getting them to sit still long enough to be measured). It may be the cultural differences pointed out above. It may be that I had to give myself at least one shot a day for the entire duration of my pregnancy so that I was innured to the idea. It may be that I've got pretty chill kiddos (though I find that hard to type after being up half the night :)) Who knows, but I certainly don't look back on their vaccinations to date with any sort of horror.

[TrueMetis]

One of the objections to corporal punishment is that it teaches kids that violence is a solution. The truth is that violence is sometimes the best solution to stopping a greater evil, whether it is bullying, violence against others, etc. The key point is that there is a difference between violence that is deserved/justified, and violence that is not.

Violence in response to violence is different than violence in response to somebody doing something you think is wrong.

A parent who uses unjustified violence against a child in the form of a beating is clearly teaching the child something wrong. On the other hand, a child who justifiably deserves to be punished, and is punished with corporal punishment, is not learning a negative lesson. They are learning that in the real world, there is justice, and that they can be held accountable harshly for doing wrong.

Except where else is corporal punishment allowed? Corporal punishment isn't considered justifiable once you reach age of majority in any western country.

[Ken Stone]

For those who are on the "Violence is always wrong" side here, what about violence as a reward? Let me explain. I have a 5 yo son whose favorite game is "fight". He was struggling to learn some words for school and we were working on them every night. On the night that he got them all right, I picked him up, slammed him on his bed and proceeded to punch him in the ribs while he was hitting in the head and face. Of course I wasn't hitting him as hard as I could but I was hitting him harder than many people spank. He was laughing the whole time.

So I guess what I am trying to say is intent is everything, right? Violence to teach a lesson? Not cool. Violence as a form of bonding? Cool.

[Ormond]

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.

Do you really think that either Americans who move to Sweden or Swedes who move to the USA after becoming adults are "less well-adjusted"? I don't think living in a culture that has different ideas about corporal punishment than the one you are raised in is going to create any important psychological difficulties for otherwise well-adjusted persons.

[mormont]

I've not had time to post a response to some of the things folks have said in reply to me, but I think we are getting at the single point of difference from which most of the disagreement stems. As Ormond says, there is a cultural difference here. At heart, that difference is this: to most of those against smacking, it is a moral issue. We believe that it is morally wrong to hit people. I'd like to say 'use physical violence', which is a perfectly accurate description, but I know some would object to this and say that smacking isn't physical violence. Technically, it is: but I understand that they object to the emotional and moral associations of the term.

Now, the other side also believe, on the whole, that it is morally wrong to hit people (although, of course, we must qualify that: this is not a statement that there are no circumstances under which you should ever hit people, let alone that there are no circumstances where it can be understandable and forgiven). But they believe that disciplining children is an exception to the general rule. To them, it's therefore not a moral issue.

The rest follows. If you believe that the general rule applies, you're going to insist on seeing justification for smacking, and insist that without that, it's wrong in principle to smack. If you don't, you're going to want to see proof that smacking is harmful before you accept that it is wrong.

The problem is that, to me, the idea that disciplining children is an exception to a general moral rule about hitting looks very much like an unexamined assumption based on acceptance of the status quo. I don't mean that people who hold that belief have never thought about it at all: I mean that they have approached the issue assuming that there is a reason that this belief exists, and looked for such reasons. But those reasons don't really hold up to a close examination that starts without assumptions. What, on the face of it, is the justification for this exception?

Various suggestions have been made: the trouble is, they all boil down to practical advantages that are supposedly inherent to smacking. In fact, none of them are actually achievable only by a smack. But when this is pointed out, the pro-smackers simply revert to the assumption that smacking is OK until proven otherwise.

I'll be clear: I'm not saying that the prohibition against hitting is a simple, binary thing, that all forms of hitting are equally bad, that it can never be justified, etc. etc. What I'm saying is that there is such a prohibition and I can't see any reason for an exception for children's discipline. I'd also like to be clear that I accept that, by and large, the people who disagree with me come from a place where culturally, they honestly believe smacking isn't a moral issue (although it would be a gross simplification to say that it's a Euro/US culture thing). But that cultural difference isn't a justification, it's an explanation. And I believe that the issue isn't simply a moral one: if there were a strong practical argument, that could trump the moral argument, no doubt. But I've yet to see one.

tl;dr - yeah, you might well honestly believe that smacking kids isn't a moral issue and doesn't require justification: but you're wrong. It is and it does.