Hitting your kid...

[Kalbear]

Maybe you only needed the soap without the whack.

What is the actual difference between the two? both are physical punishments. Both cause temporary discomfort but no actual damage. Both are done as an immediate reaction to something.

You shouldn’t hit the people you’re supposed to love and protect. On the list of people you should hit, your own children should be at the very bottom. After your boss, traffic participants, public figures, certain fantasy authors, random mothers in supermarkets, your family, and your spouse, in no particular order. Since you’d hit none of those people, you shouldn’t hit your children either.

The primary difference between all of those people and your child is that your child is not necessarily completely able to understand perfectly things like consequences to their actions or even the explanation of said consequences (IE, they may not understand things like death or danger).

[lady narcissa]

My parents used a variety of punishments on me as I was growing up. I was a handful apparently as they intended to have 6 children but had me and said NO MORE! Sometimes I was spanked with a yardstick. Sometimes I was not allowed to have ice cream. A lot of times I was given extra chores. Once my mom took away some of my toys and gave them to charity. Another time I was not allowed to go to Alaska on vacation with my cousins. Basically it was a little of everything and they tried to find a way to punish me for bad things in a way that would most effectively get the nature of what I had done across to me at whatever age I was at that time. Sometimes spanking was the most effective method to do so. I have no problem with spanking and if I had children would use it...along with a whole other range of punishments like my parents did.

I had no experience with time out...I think my parents favored putting me to work as a punishment as opposed to letting me sit silently which they knew I would enjoy. That being said, it doesn't seem to be too effective on my friend's children. For example, the other night I was at a friend's house and I witnessed her 5 year old smack her 6 year old sister as she grabbed her brownie off her plate. The 5 year old then proceeded to shove her sister's brownie in her mouth and eat most of it before being sent to the corner for 30 minutes of quiet. Afterwards I asked the 5 year old if she was sorry for what she did. "Nope!" she told me. "The brownie was yummy. I wanted another one. It was totally worth it." Would a spanking solve this behavior problem? Probably not. But not being allowed to have treats like brownies for the next month might.

[Balefont]

Unnecessarily divisive, Balefont. If it makes you feel better, I advocate not hitting children, too.

My dear, it was not a poke at all men, just an observation that of the people in this thread, it appears more men than women are okay with spanking as form of discipline or that the option appears higher on their list of methods. I probably should have said men from the US.

Of the women here who have not out and out said "no way", most, if not all, said that it would be the very last option if the option were in their "toolbox".

It wasn't a distinction I was looking for it just appeared as a pattern.

[Happy Ent]

The primary difference between all of those people and your child is that your child is not necessarily completely able to understand perfectly things like consequences to their actions or even the explanation of said consequences (IE, they may not understand things like death or danger).

I understand the argument, but I fear that the primary difference is that the child won’t hit you back.

Look, there are entire countries where child abuse is forbidden by law and just doesn’t happen. It’s not as if children in Sweden are being spanked at home instead. [1]

Since Swedish children are not being hit by cars more often, or habitually burn their hands on stoves, the argument for violence from potential reduction of threat can’t be very strong.

[1] Yeah, I know it differs by immigrant culture. Terrible. But that doesn’t change my argument.

[LuisDantas]

Do you think it is okay to hit your kid?

Empathically not. I'm with Alice Miller all the way on this matter.

Hitting a child is essentially the same as telling her that she must choose between respecting herself or respecting the authority figure who hit her.

[Ken Stone]

What do you think you would be like if you hadn't ever been beaten or hurt by a trusted beloved parental figure as a child?

Well, he probably wouldn't be Republican.

Or a lawyer.

:P

I'm curious, people with kids - do you have positive and negative reinforcement? I've wondered if

rewarded

rewarding a child for good behavior and punishing them for the bad would be more effective.

I try very had to keep it upbeat and positive in the home. I prefer to live in a family where people are constantly making each other laugh and supporting each other. Spanking doesn't really fit into that paradigm.

We've had threads on here before about the role of parenting and it really seems like it doesn't matter. Spank your kids, don't spank them, whatever. You aren't going to make them more or less adjusted or successful adults. So if you just leave all that behind, the question really becomes "what type of family life do I want to have?" and "what type of relationship do I want to have with my children?" Do you I want them to remember me as a source of positivity and love, or do I want them making excuses for me on a random forum some day "Yeah my parents hit me but I had it coming. It totally wasn't abuse."

[Kalbear]

Look, there are entire countries where child abuse is forbidden by law

and just doesn’t happen

. It’s not as if children in Sweden are being spanked at home instead. [1]

You don't think so?

You really, honestly believe that everyone in Sweden just doesn't spank their kids at all, or doesn't do any child abuse whatsoever? Huh. Interesting. Weren't you the one that told me that I mistake what 'ought to' with what 'is'?

Ultimately I suspect that the answer is that hitting a child one way or another, most of the time, is an effective tool for discipline but is not necessarily the most effective tool for discipline for any given thing. But sometimes it may be. I'm simply not willing to take it off the table if I feel it's necessary. I'm going to do my damndest not to, but I won't refuse to do it if nothing else is working.

Note that this really only applies to me when I really don't have a choice. If it's 'smack my kid in public because he's crying' or 'leave the public area' that's a choice.

[Balefont]

Well, he probably wouldn't be Republican.

Or a lawyer.

:P

I try very had to keep it upbeat and positive in the home. I prefer to live in a family where people are constantly making each other laugh and supporting each other. Spanking doesn't really fit into that paradigm.

We've had threads on here before about the role of parenting and it really seems like it doesn't matter. Spank your kids, don't spank them, whatever. You aren't going to make them more or less adjusted or successful adults. So if you just leave all that behind, the question really becomes "what type of family life do I want to have?" and "what type of relationship do I want to have with my children?" Do you I want them to remember me as a source of positivity and love, or do I want them making excuses for me on a random forum some day "Yeah my parents hit me but I had it coming. It totally wasn't abuse."

Excellent post, ken.

[Happy Ent]

You don't think so?

You really, honestly believe that everyone in Sweden just doesn't spank their kids at all, or doesn't do any child abuse whatsoever? Huh. Interesting. Weren't you the one that told me that I mistake what 'ought to' with what 'is'?

No, and I even put a footnote in there to acknowledge it. There are also wife beaters in Sweden, for example.

But wife beating and child beating are the same in the sense that they are criminal and socially unacceptable. It’s simply not done, just as you and I wouldn’t have a serious discussion about the possible merits of spousal abuse. (Even though we both know that it exists.)

In summary, there is a good argument to be made for a drastically lower frequency of spanking in Sweden than in, say, the US. Yet I assume that the stove burn ward at the local hospital is not filled to the brim, nor that Swedish children say fuck to their grandmother more often.

[Kalbear]

Yet I assume that the stove burn ward at the local hospital is not filled to the brim, nor that Swedish children say fuck to their grandmother more often.

Yeah, this goes with what Ken said, and even if there was a positive correlation between child spanking and preventing accidents it would be very difficult to determine based on all the other factors - economic status, # of parent figures, number of siblings that were also minors at the time, stress situations outside of the home, etc.

I would be surprised if there was less spanking in Sweden than the US. It's not as if anyone in the US advocates it as a good way to discipline children. Or even more reasonably, I'd bet that there is about the same amount of spanking amongst middle class swedes and middle class US citizens (at least as far as their children go)

[The Warmth of Winter]

The primary difference between all of those people and your child is that your child is not necessarily completely able to understand perfectly things like consequences to their actions or even the explanation of said consequences (IE, they may not understand things like death or danger).

Which I would argue makes it more OK to hit all those people instead of the child, not the other way around.

[Mya Stone]

But again, whatevs. I'm not a spanker and you'll never convince me to be a spanker. I will always consider spanking lazy parenting.

Hmm...

I wouldn't say that. You know that I employ the "SuperNanny" time out methodology in my house. It works. It really does. But Mav has done 2 things that I have spanked him for. One is running out into the street, and the other was almost setting a fire on my stovetop. And you know what? He always holds my hand in parking lots now and he doesn't ever go near the stove top when someone is cooking.

Was it because I used a spanking as a punishment? I don't know. But I know that it is ingrained in him now moreso than something that he receives time outs for on a daily basis. (Talking back or arguing, mainly. Hahaha.)

By the way, I double dog dare you guys to call me a bad parent because of this.

[Happy Ent]

Or even more reasonably, I'd bet that there is about the same amount of spanking amongst middle class swedes and middle class US citizens (at least as far as their children go)

For the record, I think this is largely correct. (In particular if you restrict to European ancestry.)

[Sci-2]

Hmm...

I wouldn't say that. You know that I employ the "SuperNanny" time out methodology in my house. It works. It really does. But Mav has done 2 things that I have spanked him for. One is running out into the street, and the other was almost setting a fire on my stovetop. And you know what? He always holds my hand in parking lots now and he doesn't ever go near the stove top when someone is cooking.

Was it because I used a spanking as a punishment? I don't know. But I know that it is ingrained in him now moreso than something that he receives time outs for on a daily basis. (Talking back or arguing, mainly. Hahaha.)

By the way, I double dog dare you guys to call me a bad parent because of this.

I don't think you're a bad parent for that, those are things I got spanked for as a kid as well. Optimistically I'd like to believe that positive behavior can be reinforced sans violence, but I think things that can hurt a child make one wonder about the efficacy of time outs and such.

Much rather be spanked than run out into the street until a car hits me.

[Happy Ent]

Much rather be spanked than run out into the street until a car hits me.

Ever are men deceived.

How is this argument not a prime example of gaming ambiguities, of rationalising behaviour ex post facto, so as to sell our selves to ourselves in a more flattering light?

I used violence towards the person I’m supposed to love and protect from violence. Not because I was weak, or afraid, or stressed.

No, I used it for its own good. I hurt it, and in so doing I became a better person, for the violence saved the child. Unless I betray my child’s trust, it will get hit by a car!

To make this cognitive dissonance into a chord, I advocate the moral imperative that violence is never a solution to the self-same child.

Why are they deceiving themselves so?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So you get hit and gagged with a bar of soap for using a common word as a small child. Seem like an excessive use of force to me.

Well, when I was 8, kids didn't use the F word around their grandmother. There was a brief second when I thought it was cool, until my mom found out. The thing that made her spanking effective was that she did it very rarely, and it made me realize how much that F bomb must have hurt my mom for her to spank me like that.

What do you think you would be like if you hadn't ever been beaten or hurt by a trusted beloved parental figure as a child?

Well, I was never beaten, and though I was occasionally spanked, those leave just about zero memory on me in terms of being "hurt". I have a general recollection that if I did anything really out of line, especially in public, I'd be in some serious shit when I got home. As a consequence, I tended to act a bit more civilized.

[Sci-2]

HE, I do agree with you to an extent, but I have a hard time accepting that my five year old spaztastic self which had repeatedly been told not to cross the street without looking both ways would have taken stern warnings into consideration.

Mind you, note that I was spanked right after I was almost run over.

"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."

[Mya Stone]

Ever are men deceived.

How is this argument not a prime example of gaming ambiguities, of rationalising behaviour ex post facto, so as to sell our selves to ourselves in a more flattering light?

I used violence towards the person I’m supposed to love and protect from violence. Not because I was weak, or afraid, or stressed.

No, I used it for its own good. I hurt it, and in so doing I became a better person, for the violence saved the child. Unless I betray my child’s trust, it will get hit by a car!

To make this cognitive dissonance into a chord, I advocate the moral imperative that violence is never a solution to the self-same child.

Why are they deceiving themselves so?

Well, HE, I didn't hurt him. I didn't beat him. I swatted his backside. There was no lasting marks - unlike, let's say, a car were to hit him going 35MPH as they tend to do on my road.

Also, I have had a talk with him about this in the past. He has been told since he was a toddler that streets are off limits. This was a last resort for me. It wasn't me beating him into submission. For fuck's sake.

[Kalbear]

No, I used it

for its own good

. I hurt it, and in so doing I became a better person, for the violence

saved

the child. Unless I betray my child’s trust, it will get hit by a car!

To make this cognitive dissonance into a chord, I advocate the moral imperative that violence is never a solution to the self-same child.

Which is really odd coming from you given your love of scientific study. You'd think you'd just link the various things that correlate decreased brain function, higher risk of antisocial disorders, higher risk of crime and no clear indication that the pain caused actual change in behavior. I'm shocked you'd go to the notion of morality when you're quoting Bakker. You're losing your game, dude.

[TerraPrime]

It wasn't me beating him into submission. For fuck's sake.

You doing it wrong, Maia. You need to pin his shoulders to the mat and don't let go until he slaps the mat. That's the only way you can win.