Hitting your kid...

[alguien]

There's a world of difference between punching someone in the face and slapping them, but both would likely get you charged for assault.

Actually, I don't see much difference between slapping or punching an adult in the face. ETA: In that, its a bad thing to do.

Strangely, I do see a difference between a random stranger and one's own children. ETA: And also between a spanking that child on the butt or slapping and punching them the face.

[Verboten]

When I was a kid, my dad's first line of defense against three unruly kids was push-ups.

Any arguing, smart-mouthing, back-talking, eye-rolling, rudeness, cussing, etc, we got 10 push-ups. If we argued about those 10, we got another 10 on top of those. After that, if we wouldn't do them we were sent to sit in the downstairs half-bath for 30 minutes. Once the 30 minutes was up, we would have an opportunity to do the 20 push-ups. If we refused those, we were grounded to the bathroom until bed time.

My mum used household chores instead of push ups. We were the most efficient housekeepers in the world.

[Balefont]

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.

My dear, I already agreed with the "dire, dangerous circumstances with very young children" swat. Relax. :)

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Sigh. If your main concern as a parent is if your child whining about you a random internet forum, then you're going to seriously have some hard time as a parent.

And can we watch the random throwing around of the word "abuse" for parent who spank? There's a world of difference between punching your child in the head and swatting them on the butt.

Any form of discipline is going to involve doing something the child does not like, and there are plenty of children who suffer mental abuse from parents who never touch them. Does putting kids on guilt trips, playing the martyr, or every other non-corporal method of punishment guarantee the child will not suffer some "damage" from that as well?

[Galactus]

Any form of discipline is going to involve doing something the child does not like, and there are plenty of children who suffer mental abuse from parents who never touch them. Does putting kids on guilt trips, playing the martyr, or every other non-corporal method of punishment guarantee the child will not suffer some "damage" from that as well?

Because A is bad does not mean that B and C cannot also be bad. Your logic is flawed.

[Lord O' Bones]

It's not as if anyone in the US advocates it as a good way to discipline children.

I'm struggling to believe this was even typed, let alone gone unchallenged. I know a dozen people in my own family that do.

[Balefont]

Any form of discipline is going to involve doing something the child does not like, and there are plenty of children who suffer mental abuse from parents who never touch them. Does putting kids on guilt trips, playing the martyr, or every other non-corporal method of punishment guarantee the child will not suffer some "damage" from that as well?

So then obviously spanking must be okay considering there are other forms of "damage" that don't involve the use of physical force. :rolleyes:

[Verboten]

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.

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

First of all 'European' does not equal white and these sentences disturb me. The only thing all ethnic groups share is the belief that they raise their children in the best manner.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Because A is bad does not mean that B and C cannot also be bad. Your logic is flawed.

No, it isn't.

Unless we assume no discipline or punishment at all, then dismissing one form of punishment because it might harm a child is irrational unless we know that the alternatives are better. That has not been established. Instead, people have just assumed that non-corporal punishment can't harm a kid.

[Nukelavee]

Again, what FLoW said.

Btw - it was generally my mother that delivered any punishments. Dad was reserved as the "big" threat (and I got one spanking from him in my life). Later, we discovered... Dad, in spite of being scarey in theory, is a softie.

Mom, on the other hand? Well, let's just say she had a game when she was bored called "pretend you don't know your own children for a few hours". Christ, Mamie and I hated that game. I mean, sure, it's possible 2 four year olds could wander up to the wrong house, I mean, there were two houses on our street....but, yeah, spanking was so much more traumatising.

[smegma]

I didn't spank my daughter, but her father did (we are divorced). It was really tough not to cause she was a high-energy, stubborn, and extremely strong-willed kid. But I made the conscious decision not to spank, although I don't think parents that do are abusive. Still, it didn't translate as most think it would - she used to listen to me better than him. Now I'd say that the tides have turned a bit, but that's more of he being a teenage girl and me being more of a nagging force than actually listening to her father better.

[Balefont]

One of the big reasons I made a conscious decision to not spank was because I never wanted to make a mistake in the heat of the moment and then regret it afterwards (like my father). And then I'd have to apologise and explain that I was wrong and that mommy should have handled things better and then I'd run the risk of her losing trust in me to do the right thing by her. Although when my father apologised and promised to never spank me again, I loved him all the more for admitting what he did was wrong. He never spanked me again.

By telling myself never means never, I force myself to stop and think of a different course of action.

[kairparavel]

My father once told me that he never felt worse than when his father told him he was disappointed with him. Hm.

My experience is only my own but I know the difference between spanking and beating as I experienced both growing up. My father actually stopped with physical punishment (he spanked til I was about 9 or 10) because as I got older, he was doing it more and more out of anger. A smarter child would take that to mean something, but not me. I was lippy and surly with my mom (modeled after my father's interactions with her) and when she'd try and spank me or slap my face I'd laugh at her and ask if that was all she had. I spent a lot of time in my room grounded, which I guess is a form of teenager time out. All that taught me was to lay about and sleep and read books. When I was feeling outrageously daring and/or uncontrollably angered and I was surly and lippy with my father, that's how I found out the transition from a spank to a beating. It only happened a handful of times when I was 17-19 but it was enough to damage our relationship to almost beyond repair. Thankfully we did in my mid to late 20's just before he died.

But what would have been a suitable punishment for me? I didn't act out too much and actually took a lot of the burden of punishment away from my younger sisters by saying I did it. Overall, I was a generally nice kid who was a major pain in the ass. Always testing, always pushing the envelope just a little farther to see where the line was. Hypothetical six year old is the same way. 'Don't sit with your feet on the table. Put your feet down. Down now! Do you want your dinner? You'll be sent to time out without dinner if you don't put your feet down? Down! Ok, away from the table.' and a big production begins as she sulks and wails dramatically all the way to her room. Eventually she's allowed to come back down, but only if she promises to be good. I don't think that child has ever gone to bed without dinner, but she still puts her feet up on the table and rocks her chair. And so does her little sister and brother in imitation. In my estimation, you know what will curb that kind of behaviour? Sadly, pain. Telling the kid she might hurt herself isn't going to do anything. Kids fall down all the time. How bad could falling off a chair be, right? They don't know til they know. And the brief pain from a quick spank is better than the pain of cracking her head on the floor when the chair finally rocks backwards, or perhaps even worse injury. But what do I know? I'm not a parent. I was just a child once, is all.

Also, I think language is a big barrier in this discussion. I don't mean Tower of Babel. I just mean terminology.

hit. beat. abuse. submission. humiliate. violence. If I suggested time out or letting the kid act out til they got tired was lackadaiscial, lazy or soft, I'd get reamed. If the idea of spanking your child or any child is unfathomable, I accept that. But using those terms in regards to spanking is to me as unreasonable as suggesting someone is a lazy or ineffective parent for sending their kid to Club Corner for a tropical few moments with that ficus tree.

[TerraPrime]

'Don't sit with your feet on the table. Put your feet down. Down now! Do you want your dinner? You'll be sent to time out without dinner if you don't put your feet down? Down! Ok, away from the table.' and a big production begins as she sulks and wails dramatically all the way to her room. Eventually she's allowed to come back down, but only if she promises to be good. I don't think that child has ever gone to bed without dinner, but she still puts her feet up on the table and rocks her chair. And so does her little sister and brother in imitation. In my estimation, you know what will curb that kind of behaviour? Sadly, pain.

I beg to differ.

First, offering threats that you cannot follow through is a good way to encourage bad behaviors, not curb it. So don't send the kid to their room without dinner unless you're really prepared to starve them for a meal. I'd say actually that fasting for 1 meal is not an issue, if that's what you want, but don't make a threat and then not follow through.

Better yet, don't threaten at all. You can correct the behavior in different ways, like for instance giving the child something that they have control over so they don't feel the need to assert control by pushing limits. Let them choose the glasses to be used during dinner, or how to set the silverwares, or let them help with preparing the dinner, etc. Giving children a sense of control, and a sense of being respected as a member of the family, should go a long way to reducing their acting out.

[Ormond]

Really? I wasn't aware of that. I suppose there is the stereotype of the "black mama" swatting an unruly kid, but I've always thought that was something of a positive stereotype of a strong woman who cares about what happens to her kids.

Here's one quick link to an article discussing some aspects of this in regard to social workers.

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5001834763

One of the most relevant sentences in the above is:

It has been argued that the confusion of African American child rearing techniques with abuse is at least partially responsible for the fact that African American children are grossly over represented in the foster care system across the United States (Pinderhughes, 1991:599; Everett, et al., 1991:2).)

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

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?

At this time, I'm not expressing any opinion for or against spanking. However, I do think you're trying to win the argument by disingenuously framing the debate. A more common moral tenet, which has widespread general application far beyond that of raising children, is that's it's okay to do a little harm if it results in a greater good. The "minimalist" arguments for spanking that are being presented here amount to just as much - better to get smacked on the bottom than get hit by a car, or getting your hand burned, or getting electrocuted. I make no judgments as to the necessity or efficacy of spanking as opposed to other methods of behavior correction, but that's the argument, and as far as it goes, it seems like a facially valid one.

[AverageGuy]

There's a world of difference between punching someone in the face and slapping them, but both would likely get you charged for assault.

My parents spanked me a few times growing up. They did not beat me once. They did not abuse me once. I'm with alguien. I can't picture myself spanking kids if I ever have them, but I find equating spanking and beating to be either intellectually dishonest or a wholly different definition of terms.

[Kalbear]

Oh wow, SkepticallyVegan is back? Damn. Now I know the floobs are taking over the place.

Also, second the notion that you must backup your threats or you must not make them. You must make them understand that there are consequences and then carry out those consequences no matter what. Consistency is a huge part of parenting. It also sucks.

[kairparavel]

Also, second the notion that you must backup your threats or you must not make them. You must make them understand that there are consequences and then carry out those consequences no matter what. Consistency is a huge part of parenting. It also sucks.

If only children were consistent! :)

You and Terra are right though. And for everytime there's no follow through, there's twenty times it is. I think the struggle is more about sending a child to bed without dinner than anything else. And it does suck, and I've only babysat.

[Minaku]

I think such data is inconclusive and largely irrelevant. Even if there was a positive effect to child beating or spousal abuse they’d still be wrong. My children are the last people I should use violence against.

Again, the argument against pinching the secretary’s ass or squeezing a friendly boob at a con are not made from lasting marks cause or psychological trauma inflicted.

Kalbear struck him, fiercely enough to send him rolling across the hard stone.

The Happy Ent scrambled back to position and wiped the blood from his nose. But he felt little fear and even less regret. The blow was a lesson, nothing more. On Westeros, everything was a lesson.

Kalbear regarded him with utter dispassion. “Bakkerquoting is weakness, young Ent. It arises from the passions and not from the intellect. From the darkness that comes before.”

“I understand, Kalbear.”

Okay HE I don't always agree with you, but this was freaking hilarious.

Happy Ent stood, shoulders squared against the assault. The sting of injustice was a fire in his blood. He gathered himself.

Death came swirling down.