[puts on Devil’s advocate hat]
So society has been wrong in using violence towards the rearing of children in the past centuries?
[/puts away hat]
– IG
This kind of reasoning is faulty. Someone else mentioned running into traffic as an example as well, which is the same example in essence. I’ve heard things like this many times before as examples where you are only right to spank your kid, but it’s not true.
The way I understand parenting is that parents, among other things, are responsible for providing for the physical safety of the child while they grow up. I’ll assume pretty much everyone else agrees with this.
Two points:
- Children who have not yet reached the stage of development where they are able to understand the self-evident dangers from speeding automobiles or playing on roofs won’t understand the connection between being spanked by their parents and the cars or dangerous play area. It doesn’t matter that the parent is at the same time is telling them about the roof or the cars, the reason a child would run into traffic is because they can’t yet perceive it as an adult or an older child would, not because they haven’t been “taught” the dangers yet.
The best you might hope for with this spanking is that the child becomes overly cautious and hesitant, and looks for parental approval before doing most new things. (That attitude will often persist even after they are able to avoid falling off roofs and getting run over by cars all on their own.) Children don’t need hitting to learn that things like that are dangerous for them, they just need to grow older and have their perceptions and senses develop.
- The other problem with this is that the spanking is essentially a way to avoid the responsibilities of the parent by making the child responsible for their own safety. I mean, essentially you’re telling the kid, “You have to avoid this mortal danger that you don’t understand and can’t really perceive yet, and I’m going to hit you whenever you slip up because I’m so concerned with your safety.”
It’s a cop out to spank a child on issues like these. Children need adequate supervision–until a certain point, they need someone to hold their hand when they walk down the streets, they need to be prevented from running into traffic or playing in dangerous areas, they need someone to prevent them from poisoning themselves with household cleaners or bottles of medicine, and so on. A parent who tries to reduce this need for supervision by inhibiting them with spanking, threats, and whatever else is just trying to reduce the amount of attention raising a child requires.
It may be better to spank them than just let the kids play on the roof, but the kid is only getting pain and fear and hostility from his parents out of it.
I can agree with that if “hit a child” means “run the risk of inflicting actual physical damage on a child”.
But if “hit a child” just means “give a child one or two mild smacks on the wrist or behind, after due warning, as punishment for deliberate misbehavior”, then I don’t get it. Sure, I can get why many parents and other caregivers prefer not to do it, and in fact I’ve never done it myself.
But—unless there were special circumstances, for instance if I knew that the child had been abused and/or was pathologically afraid of even the mildest corporal punishment—I would certainly not choose literally inflicting a freaking gunshot wound on myself rather than do the mild-spanking thing. That sounds to me so extreme and melodramatic as to be more of a phobia than a principle. But YMMV.
Well, I mean, kind of duh, right? All forms of disciplining children are essentially coercing them to do what we want.
There are generally other underlying child-rearing goals involved—“setting boundaries”, protecting the child’s safety, teaching the unacceptability of bad behavior, etc. etc.—but the crucial mechanism in all discipline is coercion.
The fundamental message is always “If you don’t stop doing that, I will make something unpleasant happen to you”—whether it’s a spanking, bodily carrying the child to another room for a time-out, an angry scolding, a revocation of some desired treat or privilege, or simply a negative emotional reaction.
Point one is not true: a simple disobedience=punishment is much more simple to understand than why falling off the roof is worse than falling out of bed, or the fact that the child is not the center of the car’s universe.
The best you can hope for is that the kid learns actions have consequences, and that when a rule is broken (even an arbitrary one, like those silly anti-murder laws most societies have) there still might be consequences, even if there are no natural consequences.
Also one might hope that the kid survives to reach middle childhood. Should the worst occur and the kid does get in the habit of running out into the road, better that you spank him than waiting for a car to do it.
Point two is silly; it forgets that the punishment only occurs if the crime occurs, ie, if you screw up. So if your kid doesn’t ever manage to outrun you (ha) then the spanking will never occur, and the issue is moot.
It also brings up another problem: you’re not going to be able to protect a child forever. If you teach them that it’s your job to protect them from the consequences of their actions, then where does that lead?
This board is full of pansies raising coddled pansies.
I’d be interested to know what % of people my age (30) were spanked as children and how many spanking permanently damaged.
Don’t worry, I’m sure your kids will be screwed up about something else entirely! 
It’s always the thing we don’t expect, or possibly even remember, that they’re discussing in therapy for years.
chasm, I’m a “Love and Logic”, natural consequences, et al kinda gal, so I know where you’re coming from. Most of the time, for most kids, the natural consequences of most of their actions are better teachers then artificial or arbitrary consequences. Most of the time.
I think you can make a very strong argument that a small pain/trauma is better than a large or fatal one. There’s no way to show the natural consequence of getting run over by a car without getting run over by a car.
People have to learn to take some things on faith and have some sort of respect for authority, and we learn that by starting as children. I don’t have any sort of first hand natural consequence taught knowledge that mixing bleach and ammonia produces toxic chloramines - I trust the authority of chemists. I haven’t experienced what happens if I use a vacuum cleaner on a bodily appendage, but I trust engineers that I shouldn’t put my penis in a vacuum cleaner (and since it’s attached to my husband, I’m sure he’s grateful ) I haven’t seen what happens if you put hand dishsoap in the dishwasher, but I trust those who tell me not to do it until I’ve gotten my security deposit back!
Of course, if you need to do a “Danger swat” often, then you’re not paying close enough attention to your kid or providing him with the kind of equipment that he might need, like a baby leash (gods, didn’t that seem like the worst idea ever - until you had kids?). But I, for one, am not going to have a guilt fest because my kid once squirmed his little sweaty fist out of mine and ran towards his father on the other side of the street without looking for cars coming and I responded by grabbing his arm and slapping his little diaper-padded bottom.
It’s also true that not even Jim Fay claims 100% sucess with Love and Logic. There are some kids for who natural consequence parenting simply doesn’t work. While I’m not saying spanking would work for those kids, we should always remain aware that just because we like one style, that doesn’t make it the panacea of parenting.
Psssst—wrong forum, dude.
To all the other participants: Congratulations!
I believe you have set a new record for the number of civil posts to a spanking thread before someone got unnecessarily hostile. Let’s see if we can also set a record for the total number of non-hostile, non-personal posts on what is, typically, a very excitable topic.
[ /Moderating ]
The simplicity of disobedience=punishment is beside the point. What are they obeying when you spank them? A child who hasn’t reached a stage where his perception and senses are developed and coherent enough to understand that speeding cars can kill or seriously injure him won’t understand what you want him not to do. How could he disobey? He doesn’t even see the car coming, because his mind is somewhere else, or he is looking too intently the other way at something, or because he’s caught up in the excitement of running along the grass with the breeze blowing, or whatever other reason. He doesn’t even understand he’s going near the traffic.
Now, as the kid grows he’ll start to be able to avoid getting run over by cars and learn to navigate around these kind of dangers all by himself. Everybody gains this ability, whether spanked or not, as they grow into adolescence.
As I said in the last post, maybe spanking the kid a lot will make him very hesitant to do anything, fearing that he may accidentally do something forbidden, and maybe this will just happen to prevent some of the problems by repressing the child’s vitality. But then you’re creating a great many other problems for the kid, and introducing a lot of hostility into your relationship. What does it get you? Maybe you don’t have to as closely monitor him. I don’t think it’s a good trade off. It’s certainly not good for the kid.
I don’t know what to say. You speak like not spanking is a horrible danger, but I know many people who were never spanked or even threatened with spanking, and they’ve all reached adulthood without any difficulties. Their parents did something like what I suggest: When the child is still too young to really understand and perceive the danger from cars, the parents take the child’s physical well-being as their responsibility. As the child reaches the age where they can easily perceive and imagine what would happen to them if they were hit by a car, and are able to walk on their own without wandering into the road, the parents gradually let the child take on more responsibility. It’s the same with other dangers that have been examples in this threat. And these people do exist. It does work.
It’s not about protecting a child forever, it’s rather about not putting the responsibility for physical safety on children who are still to young to handle it.
Again, I don’t know what to say. People do raise kids without spanking. (Hell, I’ve known some who even raised them without any kind of organized punishment at all.) They turn out fine, their parents don’t treat themselves like doormats, the children turn out fine, they grow up without falling victim to various household hazards.
I agree with Martin Hyde although I see how Anaamika may have thought I was saying ALWAYS. Admittedly the OP is a bit overstated - mainly in reaction to those who assert it’s NEVER appropriate. It a merely a tool. If a parent never opts to use that tool, perfectly fine.
Do schools still use something to hit children with to keep them disciplined? I didn’t experience it in my generation but my grandparents talk about how things were tougher a long time ago. It worked back then right, why doesn’t it get used now?
I’d be interested to know what % of people my age (20) were not spanked as children and how many turned out just fine.
As I’ve been reflecting on these thoughts today, I must admit my decision to use that form of discipline was based mainly on the fact that my parents did, and my peers told me of their spankings. While my dad did get carried away at times, on the whole I know in my heart they had noble intentions, usually were correct in their decisions, and I credit their establishing boundaries and their authority for saving me from (one certain example) joining with the “bad kids” who smoked, drank, and did drugs in high school.
I was very impressed this summer to see a dog training demonstration. The trainers asserted they used only positive reinforcement and were able to train their wards to perform surprisingly complex tasks. Two distinctions come to mind though: 1) we’re talking a finite set of tricks, not a set of guiding principles for living a good and moral life in a complex society 2) the behaviours taught were the acquiring of new skills, not the inhibiting of undesired behaviour - i.e. I would never advocate spanking as a means to teach arithmetic.
However, I am left with these questions: Was my choice to spank based more on my parents’ model, followed by finding reasons to justify the choice? Is it possible to always find an equally effective alternative to spanking, measured in terms of total effort, staying power, and accuracy of delivering the intended message - ultimately resulting in the desired behaviour? I have yet to read Lissa’s linked studies, but what IF society as a whole suffers unless widespread spanking is curtailed, despite the success of those who skillfully practice it?
These thoughts cause me to reconsider the second half of OP, “Skillful and loving parents who properly use this disciplinary tool should not face societal condemnation, and certainly not legal procedings nor state intervention.” I do not believe criminal charges should be brought unless a child is actually injured. But maybe, even if there are success stories, as a society we should frown on spanking, and educate young parents on other techniques.
The hour is late, I want to think about it some more - and I definitely want to read Lissa’s links. I may very well be on the verge of changing my mind - and I’m surprised (and a bit suspicious) at my reluctance to do so.
I don’t believe in spanking, yet I have done it a few times. Those were moments of failure on my part.
My Dad always said that a good lifeguard doesn’t get wet, because their job was to anticipate and react to small problems before they became big ones. I see spanking in the same light - if a parent is facing the choice of whether or not to hit, the battle is already lost.
One big reason why spanking is such a controversial subject is that there are some parents who call everything spanking. Beating a child with a belt is spanking. Hitting a child in the face is spanking. Rapping a kid on the knuckles with a wooden spoon is spanking. And then CPS shows up, and the parents howl, “But all I did was spank her! Can’t people spank their kids any more?” And so the word spanking has become tainted, rather than the act itself.
Not to mention the fact that these are often the same parents who punish their kids for seemingly everything, like spilled milk or not catching on to multiplication tables right away. Too many opportunities to be wrong, and the kid loses any sense of what’s right. And some people cite corporate punishment in schools to support their argument. To which I say, I think we all, at one time or another, received a punishment that was not deserved, or know someone who did. So why is corporal punishment so often held up as always right?
To me, spanking is a couple of swats on a clothed butt. That happened to me a few times as a child, and the ones that I remember at all, I remember why they happened, and I don’t think it was an unfair punishment. For example, once when I was about 4, I was eating a candy bar behind the draperies in the dining room. My dad ordered me out and spanked me. It wasn’t the candy bar that was the problem; I was okay to have the candy bar. I just wasn’t supposed to be behind the new draperies, much less with chocolate.
I think the common thread among the spanking incidents was that each time, I was doing something I’d never tried before, that I had no clue was wrong or bad or dangerous, but that was sufficiently so to require immediate intervention. With the draperies incident, as I said, they were new, and the disconnect was that my 4y/o self thought they were a neat place to enjoy my candy bar, whereas my parents saw them as something they’d paid a lot of money for, and didn’t want messed up. Being spanked got the message across that the draperies were not to be messed with, and that was that. No harm done (not even to the draperies).
What was harmful to me were the incidents in which my parents didn’t make it clear what they wanted from me. If my mom had been the one who caught me back there, and she had pulled her usual stunt of whining at me and moaning and groaning about her draperies ad nauseum, I probably would have come away with the message that gee, Mom cares an awful lot about these stupid draperies. Let’s see how bad I can mess them up on purpose. My parents were masters at whining, sulking, belittling, and berating, not to mention mixed messages, held grudges, guilt trips, and screaming sessions that went on for literally hours.
Personally, I would have preferred more clear-cut rules and to-the-point punishments (not always spanking; it’s not the only way) than the emotional minefield I did get, in which behavior that was okay on Tuesday was suddenly a capital crime on Friday, there was no acknowledgement of a job well done, and adults didn’t have to be in control of their emotions. It also would have been nice if my mom would have been more willing to take yes for an answer. Nothing was ever settled until she was worn out, and if I could withstand her wrath, she wasn’t pouring it on enough.
(I really do have some good childhood memories. Ask me sometime.)
I got spanked as a child and I guess, unlike many of you it seems, I remember EXACTLY what I did in almost every one of those occasions. This was because in my house it was reserved for two things only, doing something dangerous that I was told repeatedly NOT to do or Lying. It was a simple system and I think it worked very well… we lived on the river and growing up… in the 10 years or more I was allowed to play in the backyard of my house but not go down to the river by myself I never even once snuck down there. I knew exactly what would happen if I got caught and from experience I knew that it was likely I’d get caught. If I was asked and lied about it… well… then I was in for it. They didn’t spank me as a toddler… because it would have served no purpose. I wouldn’t understand why I was being spanked and that is vital for it to work. I just cannot in any circumstances see how I was raised as being abusive in any way shape or form. My parents were not bullies… they were very loving and used positive reinforcement as well… however to get, underline and maintain my attention they recognized that spanking had a place for the things they thought were beyond the pale. They also didn’t believe that violence never solved anything either, I was taught to never start a fight but always finish it and to take up for other people who couldn’t for themselves. We also said yes ma’am and no sir and I think a healthy fear is important, on some level. I’m still scared of my mom ;P. She said later that she was glad because as a single mom after my dad died, she had to raise a teenage son at 6’3" (and her at 5’4") on her own and that respect and fear I had for her as a kid gave her an authority that in all reality she really didn’t have over me. If she told me to do something I did it and it never occured to me really to tell her ‘no’. I think it’s cultural, really and while I’m sure other methods work… given that it’s worked well for my family with no harm whatsoever I’ll stick to the tried and true.
Yes, some parents have the knack for raising kids without ever needing to use corporal punishment and have kids that turn into well-adjusted and non-maimed (from getting run over, falling off roofs, etc.) adults. Others use judicious corporal punishment and have kids that turn into well-adjusted and non-maimed adults.
I’ve taken quite a few psych courses (I like taking university courses as a hobby) and understand what people are saying when they argue against corporal punishment. However no appeal to psychology can counter the fact that society did develop for thousands of years under a belief system where it was considered OK to spank your child, and you were even considered a bad parent if you did not (“spare the rod and spoil the child”). Society didn’t implode under those beliefs.
So, my justification for judicious corporal punishment is simply one of precedent. In hindsight it did not result in maladjusted adults regardless of what any psychological theories might propose.
PS I did get the strap a couple of times at school. It was done in the principal’s office using a short piece of leather (so many years after the fact I don’t remember whether it came from a belt, a strop for a straight razor, or something else) and was done across the palm.
I had pretty much the same spanking experience as lokij, myself–spanking was reserved for a physical reminder of an action that had physical consequences. Now, granted, my mom was ALSO a big fan of going “tit-for-tat” with regards to physical violence on MY part–I learned after just once that you should never bite anyone who is willing to bite you back.
I also never got spanked past around the age of 7-8–that’s about the time that most kids, in my experience, start being able to abstract consequences without direct experience.
To the person who made the comment about training dogs, that’s also how I teach my cats to do tricks. On the other hand, to get them to stop doing something with no natural consequences, I tend to either scruff them or, more recently, clapping near their faces. The intent is something that causes discomfort but no damage, and it seems to work pretty well–I can literally set a plate of meat on the floor and leave, and come back 15min later to find it undisturbed.
I wonder if startling loud noises, like sharp claps near an ear, would be as effective as spankings? Primarily, it’s the discomfort we’re looking to associate with the behavior.
I’d like to rebut this as a non-universal–when I was spanked for running into the street, at 3 years old, it took exactly twice for me to “realize” that going onto asphalt without having my hand held by a parent was intrinsically painful, in that it would ALWAYS result in a swat on the behind. Prior to that age, I was kept on a leash or in a fenced play area, because I wouldn’t have understood that. I was also, at 3, prone to attempting to stick my hand out the car window and touch signs while we were moving (obviously, I was restrained immediately in that case)–it wasn’t until later that I could abstract out the concept that speed was VERY dangerous, but a spanking was easy to associate with the physical location of the road.
I think the real issues here are twofold–one, every child is different and will require different disciplinary methods, and two, there are real risk factors involved with inappropriate corporal punishment that have to be weighed carefully.
My personal opinion is a modified version of something expressed upthread–a loving, kind, involved parent who genuinely cares about their child’s well-being will eventually find the methods that work on their particular child, whether that’s time-outs, close supervision, or the occasional swat on the rump. It’s the parents who AREN’T loving, kind, and involved–who seem in my experience to use swats and harder spanking as a cure-all --that are gonna cause most of the problems.
I am a child psychologist with a cognitive behavioral orientation, and I am not an advocate of spanking. My message to parents is that they need to be using non-physical techniques like those that have been reliably demonstrated to be effective. I am biased against spanking, but the empirical truth is that circumscribed types of physical punishment (the spanking I understand us to be talking about here) CANNOT be said to necessarily lead to poor long term outcomes. The meta-analysis I referred to earlier suggests that use of spanking as a secondary component of a behavioral strategy is associated with compliance and an absence of aggressive behavior at rates similar to other non-physical punishment strategies.
I’m still not going to recommend it to parents, and I can’t agree with the contention that it is “good” for kids, but it clearly is not inherently “bad” for them either. Many of the posts here are simply over the top, and I’ll pick on chasm specifically, probably simply because of the hauty pronouncement he or she made regarding faulty reasoning.
No, the reasoning behind the use of spanking is well-grounded in behavioral research.
There is no need for them to “understand” the connection. This is faulty reasoning. Operant conditioning is extremely powerful in shaping of behavior, and the child will know what the child needs to know: there is a connection between engaging in the targeted behavior and experiencing the unpleasant consequence.
Not at all. There is just no support for the idea that a spanking of the variety we are talking about will cause a generalized sort of anxiety.
In a particularly unusual manner of speaking, perhaps, but what you are really telling the child is that “We have certain rules (stay away from the street, comply with my commands) and if you fail to follow them, you will receive a mildly unpleasant but quite transitory punitive consequence."
I find this post to be disturbing on a number of levels. For one, I think it’s sad that you see only three styles of parenting, one of which is coercing and the other two imply abandonment. Does loving parenting not occur to you? There’s a fallacy of the excluded middle in there.
I also find it disturbing that you equate bad behavior to crime. Children are not criminals. To treat them as such is, as should be obvious, bad parenting.
And if you think that good parenting is teaching your kids “You’re a bad kid”, then seek professional help. Seriously.
Please tell me that you really didn’t mean all of the above. Because this truly reminds me of the authoritarian assholes who believe that it is God’s wish that every child’s will must be broken.
Huh. My GF is a psychologist as well, and she has found plenty of support for that idea.