Do you think spanking is OK? Lawmakers voted against banning parents from spanking

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Moose

Violence is not taught in my house by any stretch of the imagination. Punishment on the other hand is.

When violence is a punishment, you're just playing semantics.

There is nothing left but diplomacy if the parents are so anti-spank.

False dillema--there's PLENTY left.

 

The way you discipline a child is by making concrete, solid (i.e., no diplomacy) consequences, and following through with them. There are nonviolent ways to do so.

 

When you hit your kids, they grow up and hit their kids. It's called a cycle of abuse.

[Pookette]

I don't think a swat on the butt every now and then will harm a child. That's my personal opinion -- I was spanked occasionally as a child and I don't think it harmed me at all. I KNEW when I was spanked that I did something to deserve it and consequently avoided the behavior that got me the spanking in the first place. It was a good deterrent and I don't feel I'm an abused child. Same with my brother.

 

However, I don't think it is effective at all when done multiple times a day. A girlfriend of mine will spank her child all damn day long and he's still a little terror. But that's the environment she grew up in so that is being followed through with her children.

 

There's a fine line between spanking and beating a child. Not all parents are able to discriminate between the two.

 

I'm not a parent yet. I'm not opposed to spanking but I would try other alternatives first and then maybe swat a butt or two for misbehaving.

[MassiveAtom]

Originally posted by Pookette

I don't think a swat on the butt every now and then will harm a child. That's my personal opinion -- I was spanked occasionally as a child and I don't think it harmed me at all. I KNEW when I was spanked that I did something to deserve it and consequently avoided the behavior that got me the spanking in the first place. It was a good deterrent and I don't feel I'm an abused child. Same with my brother.

 

However, I don't think it is effective at all when done multiple times a day. A girlfriend of mine will spank her child all damn day long and he's still a little terror. But that's the environment she grew up in so that is being followed through with her children.

 

There's a fine line between spanking and beating a child. Not all parents are able to discriminate between the two.

 

I'm not a parent yet. I'm not opposed to spanking but I would try other alternatives first and then maybe swat a butt or two for misbehaving.

 

So when you did something wrong it was okay for you to be physically violated?

 

So then lets just extrapolate that. If I do something wrong, say rob a liquor store. It okay fo me to Punched in the face?

 

Or hey, how about if I spit on the sidewalk, illegal in Chicago, I can be kicked in the nads.

 

Or wait, if I forget to pay a parking ticket I should be completely willing to accept a flogging with a cat-o-nine-tails?

 

Hey no, this is the most reasonable. If my daughter mouths off to me, I should fully expect that at the tender age of 2.5 she'll nderstand that she deserves to have her physical boundaries, some which havent even formed yet, violated in the most abrubt and confusing ways.

 

Yeah, this violence thing is really helpful.

 

mA

[dyermaker]

MassiveAtom--right on.

 

It's not just that you're making good parenting choices. I could care less if it were only about you and your choices.

 

It's that your kids will grow up and make good choices. And their kids. And their kids.

[blind_otter]

People have this bizarre way of thinking sometimes, in relation to children. That's why I think parenting classes should be mandatory.

 

It's as if children are mini-adults capable of the cognitive processes necessary to reason out consequences and **** like that. They can't. Neurological development continues throughout life. IN fact, the last area of the brain to fully develop controls logical thought and reasoning.

 

AS an adult you can handle a lot. Your brain learns how to automatically rationalize things in a completely subconscious manner. Oh, I'm "fine", other people should be able to handle it. But if you look at your life, you're not "fine" - we are all dysfunctional in one way or another. Anyone who claims to be happy all the time is definately at least delusional or a compulsive liar.

 

It's funny how people complain about ever escalating violence in the world.

 

I know from personal experience and group therapy and books out the yin yang, that when you are repeatedly exposed to violence, it dulls you to its effects. I certainly have. I've been beaten by grown men in my adult relationships and had no reaction whatsoever. I have it engrained in my mind that this is tolerable. Hell, this is life.

 

No one wants to be told how to parent. But I think it's necessary sometimes. There's no handbook it's trial and error, and no one ever wants to admit their errors.

[skatermom]

Originally posted by dyermaker

MassiveAtom--right on.

 

It's not just that you're making good parenting choices. I could care less if it were only about you and your choices.

 

It's that your kids will grow up and make good choices. And their kids. And their kids.

 

 

Amen !!

My 5yo daughter, when we talk about how some kids are spanked and how it teaches nothing .... said to me..

If you dont spank us and we talk and respect the family, then we will not grow up and hit our kids either.Now if she gets it, why is it so hard for adults.Lots of ways to teach without hitting someone.

[Bronzepen]

Originally posted by MassiveAtom

So when you did something wrong it was okay for you to be physically violated?

 

So then lets just extrapolate that. If I do something wrong, say rob a liquor store. It okay fo me to Punched in the face?

 

Or hey, how about if I spit on the sidewalk, illegal in Chicago, I can be kicked in the nads.

 

Or wait, if I forget to pay a parking ticket I should be completely willing to accept a flogging with a cat-o-nine-tails?

 

Hey no, this is the most reasonable. If my daughter mouths off to me, I should fully expect that at the tender age of 2.5 she'll nderstand that she deserves to have her physical boundaries, some which havent even formed yet, violated in the most abrubt and confusing ways.

 

Yeah, this violence thing is really helpful.

 

mA

 

 

Well I like to think it's not Draconian when it comes to spanking.

 

Let's take your example of spitting on the sidewalk.

 

First time you spit, it's explained to you why it's wrong to spit. (Reason)

 

Second time you spit, you are told not to do it again (Warning)

 

Third time you spit, you receive a fine (punishment).

 

Fourth time you spit, well maybe you deserve to be kicked in the nads (spanked).

 

After fourth time, then your child needs counseling or ritalin, maybe both.

 

 

Some children will get it by the first or second time. Others will never get it.

 

Not all children are the same.

[dyermaker]

First time you spit, it's explained to you why it's wrong to spit. (Reason)

 

Second time you spit, you are told not to do it again (Warning)

 

Third time you spit, you receive a fine (punishment).

 

Fourth time you spit, well maybe you deserve to be kicked in the nads (spanked).

 

After fourth time, then your child needs counseling or ritalin, maybe both.

That's kind of a haunting description of the bad parent. Ritalin is not the answer for misbehaving kids. Giving reasons is actually not the best parenting strategy, because it sets a precedent of having to justify their actions. Violence is never good parenting. The people who defend spanking are people who have done it, or do it--it's that simple. They don't want to give up something they think is okay.

 

The way you parent is as follows: Provide concrete, appropriate consequences, and follow through with them.

[Anais]

When you hit your kids, they grow up and hit their kids. It's called a cycle of abuse.

This is so correct. Back in Europe my daughter played with a child. In the family of this child 10 years old girl was hitting 6 years old sister. 6 years old in turn was violently hitting 2 years old sister.

 

I couldn’t understand where such violence comes until I got to know from some other people that mom hits kids with belt.

 

I spanked my 7 years old few days before and cannot forgive myself. I did it first and last time. I don’t punish her too. I just find a way to explain her and usually it works.

 

I have been punished (not violently) few times as child and can remember the pain till now.

[rtobiejr]

Originally posted by savethedrama4yrmama

A lot of people are saying here that kids over the age of 12 or so should no longer be spanked. I remember about that age was my last spanking and it was horrible, embarassing. What is it about puberty, or that age range, that makes spanking no longer appropriate? Any ideas?

 

The development of thinking faculties. A four year old cannot truly reason, but an adolescent should be able to understand very clearly what is involved when he or she chooses not to comply with the parent's wishes.

[rtobiejr]

Originally posted by blind_otter

It's funny how people complain about ever escalating violence in the world.

 

I think it's important not to be simplistic in our approach to a problem. I think escalating violence is the result of many variable factors-- among them, the prevalence of increasingly gory and gruesome video games, movies, books, music.

 

Maybe it's the parents who don't spank their children, but allow them to sit for hours playing Grand Theft Auto III, who should ask themselves "Am I creating in my child an insatiable appetite for violence?"

[dyermaker]

It's the video game's fault.

 

Parents who hit their kids have kids who grow up and hit their kids, almost 100% of the time when left untreated.

 

Parents who let their children play games where you beat people to death with baseball bats rarely end up with kids who grow up and enter a lfie of crime.

[Bronzepen]

Originally posted by dyermaker

That's kind of a haunting description of the bad parent. Ritalin is not the answer for misbehaving kids. Giving reasons is actually not the best parenting strategy, because it sets a precedent of having to justify their actions. Violence is never good parenting. The people who defend spanking are people who have done it, or do it--it's that simple. They don't want to give up something they think is okay.

 

The way you parent is as follows: Provide concrete, appropriate consequences, and follow through with them.

 

 

 

Bad parenting? Ritalin is not the answer? It's not the answer but one answer of many.

 

Giving reason is a way of explaining to a child what they did was wrong. When a child misbehaves for the first time you explain to them why it's wrong. There is not precedent for justifying action. Your making no sense.

 

How can you "provide concrete, appropriate consequences and follow through" if the child doesn't even know it did something wrong until you explain it to him??

 

You CAN'T give a rule book to a child with consequences because a child just won't absorbe all the rules. Let alone one.

 

OK, let's follow your parenting skills for the moment.

 

Let's say that you "appropriate consequences, and follow through with them." but the child just does it again.

 

What do you do then? Keep following through? Only to have the child do it again??? In other words, the child just deals with your consequences and just continues to do what it wants. Then what??? Spanking, counseling, ritalin, alternative therapy??? Who knows.

 

 

You can try to be diplomatic with a child but you may have to go to war.

 

 

Your methods may work....but then again it may not.

 

Your answer is one answer of many.

 

Every child is diffrent.

[ConfusedInOC]

I agree with it. My mom used it ONLY WHEN ABSOLUTELY necessary. Today's kids are getting spanked enough if you ask me. That's why they grow up not respecting anyone or anything.

[skatermom]

Originally posted by ConfusedInOC

I agree with it. My mom used it ONLY WHEN ABSOLUTELY necessary. Today's kids are getting spanked enough if you ask me. That's why they grow up not respecting anyone or anything.

 

 

You dont think you can teach respect without hitting them ?You can teach them right from wrong, respect, kindess, manners from day one without hitting.Kids are alot smarter than people give them credit for and really just want the same things adults do, love and respect.

[ConfusedInOC]

Originally posted by skatermom

You dont think you can teach respect without hitting them ?You can teach them right from wrong, respect, kindess, manners from day one without hitting.Kids are alot smarter than people give them credit for and really just want the same things adults do, love and respect.

 

No, I do not think you can teach kids respect without giving them an ultimatum for their behavior. You can only "talk" for so long before they tune you out.

 

Not all kids want love and respect. Not all kids are the same. SOME kids can be taught without corporal punishment, SOME can not. The trick is to understand which ones and when to use it.

 

It shouldn't be abused, obviously. But to assume you can teach EVERY kid without using corporal punishment is not very realistic.

 

As I said, not ALL kids need to be taught that way. The problem is parents don't understand that not everyone learns the same way. It's your job as a parent to recognize when your kid isn't modifying their behavior and use the correct methods to teach them.

 

Yes, passive education is nice but not realistic for everyone. I freely admit the times I got spanked - I DESERVED IT!

[rtobiejr]

Originally posted by dyermaker

It's the video game's fault.

 

Parents who hit their kids have kids who grow up and hit their kids, almost 100% of the time when left untreated.

 

Parents who let their children play games where you beat people to death with baseball bats rarely end up with kids who grow up and enter a lfie of crime.

 

No, but they do end up with kids who desensitized to violence and see it as sport. Here in the United States, we have a culture that glorifies wanton, cruel violence.

 

The first statement in my post asserted that escalating violence is a result of many variables (i.e. factors). One of those variables is the aforementioned mainstream media that perpetuates the notion of violence as sport.

 

Your sarcastic restatement of my argument (it's the video games fault)...is in accurate, insofar as it's an oversimplification of the matter entirely.

 

No matter. My statement may have been a tad too complex to understand-- and I sympathize with you if that is the case.

[Starry_Night]

I did not read the entire thread or the responses but I am responding mainly based on the title. I think a parent has the right to punish the child when it is necessary but only then. I do not like spanking personally but I do not think the goverment has a right to step in and tell the parents if they can or can not spank their child's bottom when the child does not understand other forms of being corrected. I think spanking should be a last resort, I believe you get better more positive results with positive reinforcement. If you start out while your children are young giving them all the positive attention possible and explaining things thoroughly when they do something wrong then I think you will end up with better results in your child's behavior.

[RowanRavyn]

Hokey, nice thread!!

 

I was spanked as a child. But only ::Counts on fingers:: three times. The times that it happened made a huge impression. (I really don't count getting a switch on the legs as a spanking. I am pretty sure it happened because I remember picking my own switches, but it didnt' impress much upon me.).

 

My daddy's rules were:

 

1 swat because you knew better.

1 swat to remind you not to do it again

1 swat for good measure.

 

(He always said anything beyond that was solely for the parents gratification and did no good for the child at all).

 

My daddy also had big hands. He never ever used his hand to spank me. He said hands were for loving, not hitting.

 

I followed those rules for my kids. They are 8 and 9. I dont' spank them anymore. No point. Playstation and X-box are much better motivators. I probably spanked them three times each.

 

My stepsons mom was against corporal punishment. She would let behaviors pile up and pile up and then she would spank and wouldn't stop til there were bruises. Mindless wailing away serves no purpose what so ever.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by rtobiejr

My statement may have been a tad too complex to understand

Right, that's it. It's so complex... It all comes down to this : Correlation is not causation--I'm not convinced that playing Grand Theft Auto is even in the same ballpark as being physically abused.

 

Anyway, back to the nonimaginary culprit: When you hit your kids, it's child abuse--whether you show restraint or not.

 

I'm not disputing that hurting them is an effective way of disciplining them--I'm just saying there are nonviolent consequences a parent can provide that are equally effective but not abusive.

 

SOME kids can be taught without corporal punishment, SOME can not. The trick is to understand which ones and when to use it.

That's such a dangerous way of thinking. If a parent can't discipline their children without violence, it's their failure, not the child's.

[dyermaker]

Here's a neat article on the whole "I was spanked and I'm fine" thing:

 

http://www.naturalchild.org/jan_hunt/spanked.html

[ConfusedInOC]

Originally posted by dyermaker

Anyway, back to the nonimaginary culprit: When you hit your kids, it's child abuse--whether you show restraint or not.

 

I disagree.

 

I'm not disputing that hurting them is an effective way of disciplining them--I'm just saying there are nonviolent consequences a parent can provide that are equally effective but not abusive.

 

Different kids learn in different ways. I know kids that have never been beaten but have been yelled and screamed at so abusively that they wished they were beaten instead.

 

See, yelling/demeaning/demoralizing a child can be 10x worse than a simple swat to remind them they are out of line.

 

It's called D-I-S-C-I-P-L-I-N-E and is necessary for certain kids that only respond to it in that form.

 

Not all kids need a spanking.

Not all kids respond to verbal correction.

 

See, trying to lump all kids into the same "bowl" is a major problem in the US. Some people feel because THEIR kids responded to discipline that did not include corporal punishment that EVERYONE'S kids are the same way. That's just simply, for lack of a better word, ignorant.

 

My sister verbally abuses her kids. It drives me nuts and I am sure in some respect they are going to be worse off than kids who were just spanked. I would rather be spanked 100x than the kind of verbal abuse she gives them. I mean, do you want to be screamed and yelled at all day? You don't think that is abuse regardless of whether or not a single SWAT to the arrz is made?

 

That's such a dangerous way of thinking. If a parent can't discipline their children without violence, it's their failure, not the child's.

 

Wrong. It's called knowing what your child responds to and using the correct means to discipline them. If you're an intelligent and loving enough parent to figure out what works BEST on your child, I'd say it's anything but a failure.

 

It's genius.

[dyermaker]

You're clouding the debate with false dillemmas--Of course you shouldn't verbally abuse your child either! The idea that it's somehow better to hit your kid than scream at him is irrelevant.

 

Spanking is physical abuse--Of course it's a continuum of sorts, in that doing it with a baseball bat will produce graver and less legal consequences, but spanking is still using violence to solve a problem. Children learn by example, and when you hit your kid, you're teaching them that violence is how one should control behavior.

 

Your central argument rests upon the idea that some children "need" to be hit, and parents have a responsibility to find out whether a good swat is what their child "needs"--This is something you've pulled wholly out of your ass and the collective asses of a violent society, and if you can find a single accredited child psychologist who advocates that some children "need" violent consequences, I'll leave this thread forever.

[ConfusedInOC]

Originally posted by dyermaker

You're clouding the debate with false dillemmas--Of course you shouldn't verbally abuse your child either! The idea that it's somehow better to hit your kid than scream at him is irrelevant.

 

Why is it irrelevant? They are both forms of discipline. One involves physical pain, the other emotional pain. There are parents out there that think they are GREAT parents because they don't abuse their kids by spanking them.

 

They do it be mentally torturing them. Much worse than a quick spanking. That pain goes away quickly.

 

The pain of mental abuse lasts for years....sometimes entire lifetimes.

 

Spanking is physical abuse--Of course it's a continuum of sorts, in that doing it with a baseball bat will produce graver and less legal consequences, but spanking is still using violence to solve a problem. Children learn by example, and when you hit your kid, you're teaching them that violence is how one should control behavior.

 

It's NOT using violence to solve a problem. That is where you are wrong. You are using pain to drive a point home when all other means of discipline have failed.

 

I am not talking about abusing them. A spanking, IMHO, is on the butt and it's something that doesn't leave a mark.

 

Your central argument rests upon the idea that some children "need" to be hit, and parents have a responsibility to find out whether a good swat is what their child "needs"--This is something you've pulled wholly out of your ass and the collective asses of a violent society, and if you can find a single accredited child psychologist who advocates that some children "need" violent consequences, I'll leave this thread forever.

 

If you think I "pulled it out of my arrz" you're the one in need a of a head check. You are under the dillusion that all children respond in the same method. Anyone with half a brain cell knows that people are as different as there are stars in the sky.

 

To assume all children will respond to the same form of discipline is to assume they are all drones of some sort with the same CPU.

 

And it's the reason why kids are killing kids today and running around with guns at the age of 12. It's not the video games alone that do it. It's bad parenting PERIOD.

 

Excuse me, but do all kids learn at the same level?

Do they read at the same level all the time?

Do they grow at the same level?

 

What on EARTH gives you the silly idea they'd all respond to the same form of discipline?! The notion alone screams ignorance.

[ConfusedInOC]

Originally posted by dyermaker

Here's a neat article on the whole "I was spanked and I'm fine" thing:

 

http://www.naturalchild.org/jan_hunt/spanked.html

 

Gentle, loving, and respectful guidance is the only truly effective way to help a child to grow and develop to his full potential as a loving and trusting adult. Spanking is unnecessary, harmful, disrespectful, and unfair. Let’s stop doing it!

 

This is a ridiculous article with more assumptions than you can shake a stick at.

 

Let's just lump all our kids into the same boat. Let's just make them all drones and do everything exactly alike.

 

In a perfect world, verbal guidance alone would be all that's necessary to discipline a child.

 

But this isn't a perfect world.

 

Our kids are not all exactly alike.

 

And to assume they are is a grave mistake in parenting.