How do you know about that?
Well, as far as I know it works in two ways:
-
Firstly, the 1974 ban on corporal punishment was preceded by a huge change in societal attitudes. For years Swedish parents had moved away from physical violence as a way of educating their children, and the ban simply represented this general viewpoint. Most Swedish parents would not hit their kids even if it was legal
-
On the other hand, there’s always the fear that your neighbours might hear you smacking your kid and call the police on you. It’s highly unlikely because Swedes never care about what other people do, but still somewhere in the back of your mind as you slap your boy across the face
This is where I had a mental hiccup while reading this thread. As a kid, I was “thumped” (flicked on the head, in case that term is unfamiliar), had my hands smacked, and spanked (in order of severity). Looking back on it, it wasn’t very painful, but at the time it was basically the end of my world (for about 5 minutes or so).
Getting slapped across the face smacks (no pun intended) as beyond the pale, though. For me, getting thumped was essentially an attention-getter (not a “hey look at me!” but a quick “you know far better than that!”) and getting smacked on the hand was usually a “don’t touch that; it’s hot/it’s not yours/don’t break it” event - my mom usually reserved that for when I was younger and loved to play with knives and hot pots. Getting spanked was a fairly uncommon, but not rare, event for me, usually when I was relatively older and had done something that I knew was wrong. I was never swung around/grabbed as punishment and I was certainly never slapped across the face though. I’m not sure why, but for me it feels like those two responses cross the line from punishment to abuse.
My parents were of the “Spare the rod, spoil the child” school. I was hit with belts, “switches”, and open hands. Sometimes blood was drawn. It stopped abruptly when, one day when I was 13, I hit back.
I never willingly allowed either parent to touch me again after that, either–no hugs, no pats-on-the-back, no handshakes, nuthin’. Ever
Also, I vowed never to hit my kid, and I didn’t.
I will never subject my child to the 10-lashes-with-whatever kind of treatment. I can’t see how it’s sincerely intended to do anything except pacify a parent’s rage at being defied. Frankly I consider it a form of torture suitable only for the British Navy.
But when my child is reaching for the electrical socket with a dinner fork, they get one single “hell no” swat on the rear to immediately disrupt the action and put it in a useful emotional context. I can’t explain electrocution to a 3-year-old, so I need them to be fearful of electrical wires until we can have a proper conversation about it.
The answer is yes, it is justified.
Positive reinforcement is the way to go, 99% of the time. But negative reinforcement has a place as well. Spankings should be a last resort and should clearly be explained as being the direct result of the child’s actions.
No, everyone didn’t.
Many years ago, I worked with a woman who was near retirement age at that time, and she had 6 kids and did not believe in spanking. There were about 10 occasions where she made an exception to that, and one of them was when her daughter, who had cerebral palsy and didn’t walk until she was 4 but could crawl faster than most children could run, crawled across the street. A neighbor came out of her house and criticized her for doing this! :eek: I told her that it was even more important for her to know that she wasn’t supposed to do that, because she couldn’t get out of the way like an able-bodied child could.
I’ve heard that in some areas, people could spank strangers’ kids in public if they didn’t like the way the kids were acting. :smack: Is there any truth to this?
I have also heard that people who work with kids can tell when the kids are raised with harsh punishment (not necessarily spanking) because the kids are simply better at not getting caught.
If the neighbors can hear you smacking your kid, the police SHOULD be called. :rolleyes:
Not in the literal sense but the vast majority of parents did in my generation. I’m not personally aware of any who didn’t. The public and private schools I went to used it.
It was never a singular solution to every problem but it was one of many tools used in raising children. I can say with sincerity that there were fewer children bouncing off walls in the 50’s and 60’s. Life when I was growing up was very much like the TV show’s Leave it to Beaver/Patty Duke and not Jerry Springer/Hell’s kitchen.
Corporal punishment or the absence of it was not IMO the determining factor. However, the mindset of corporal punishment was. Actions had more consequences when I was a child than they do today.
Putting that aside there is a definitive argument for corporal punishment of young children and that’s to reinforce the prevention of dangerous behavior. an example of dangerous behavior would be sticking objects in electrical outlets or crawling in a street.
If it is after ten p.m. it is a noise violation (where I live) and should be reported.
Look at it this way:
What is the purpose of physical pain?
It’s our body’s way of telling us, “Hey! Don’t do that!”
It serves a legitimate purpose, to protect us and teach us what not to do. It is, thus, “justified.”
If our own bodies are justified in administering physical pain in order to keep us from harm, why aren’t our parents or guardians?
I’m not sure I buy this argument myself, but it has a certain appeal to it.
So why wouldn’t our supervisors, or the caretakers in a home for the mentally ill, be justified in inflicting pain, at least so long as it’s for the employee’s/patient’s own good?
I’m Corporal Punishment, and I don’t need justifying! Bend over, Private! [swings paddle]
Maybe they would be, in the right situation? For the sake of argument, I can imagine something like a supervisor rigging up a safety device that administers a mild, painful but not harmful, electric shock as a warning if a worker gets too close to some dangerous piece of equipment.
But the general answer, at least in the supervisor’s case, might be (1) the employee’s “own good” isn’t really the supervisor’s job, the way a child’s good is the job of his/her parents; and (2) the employee would be well past the age by which there are other, better ways of reaching him/her available.
Now this thread has me wondering whether animal parents ever use “corporal punishment” to discipline their offspring. Does a mother cat, for example, ever whap her kitten on the nose with her paw?
In my experience with puppies it’s mostly just picking them up and putting them back where mum wants, gently nudging them over with her nose and licking their bellies and at most sort of giving their nose a little shake. I don’t think I’ve seen a mother bitch use pain to correct her pups.
Usually even dogs that aren’t very friendly with other dogs will be tolerant of puppies. If they tend to lash out at a grown dog bothering them, they’ll often just roll their eyes at a puppy prancing around them.
It doesn’t matter if it is or isn’t justified because there will always be people who are for it and others who are against it like in most things.
If you don’t have corporal punishment you wind up with spoiled sergeants.
Once kids are past the toddler age, it isn’t appropriate, necessary, or effective. One swat on the rump is plenty to let a kid know that no, he can’t stick his finger in the socket.
I don’t think, in the short term, that it’s the worst punishment you can give a child from the child’s point of view. I think a the very idea of a month long grounding without TV, video games, cell phones and Internet is about the biggest deterrent in box for any kid…certainly a bigger deterrent than a spanking.
What spanking does teach children in the long run is:
That it’s OK to turn violent on the people you love if they screw up.
That the people you love most will violently turn on you if you screw up.
That love and fear belong together.
And there’s absolutely no analogous situation to spanking in the adult world that you are preparing your children to live in. It’s certainly not acceptable for you to spank your next door neighbor for ruining your flower beds or stealing your hedge clippers. The legal system in most modern civilized countries has deemed that the corporal punishment of adults is cruel or unusual or otherwise unacceptable.
There is more to being a healthy, emotionally well-adjusted adult than “not being a criminal or a serial killer”. I think corporal punishment by a parent can be emotionally devasting in the long term - even if it only happens every now and then- and can impede their ability to form healthy loving relationships as an adult.
Again, I don’t label all parents who spank as child abusers, but the truth is that the swat on the rump isn’t necessary even to teach the danger of the socket. There are other ways and if it’s wrong to hit people then one can and should refrain.
Thudlow, I think that deliberately injuring people is intrinsically bad and don’t see why parents should be excepted from this when they are injuring their own kids. One could just as logically say that since the brain is designed to store memories for future reference, parents can deliberately instill false or traumatic memories to deter the child from doing certain things.
And again, there’s the matter of degree–if it’s OK to instill a little pain, why not a lot since presumably that would work even better? instead of a harmless electrical shock, how about one that will land you in the hospital? If the purpose is to deter then in a horrible sense (as I think may be part of the thought process in the minds of child abusers) the consequences should be more severe, not less.