Dadu2004

I'm sure this has been talked about before here, but let's talk about it again. What's your view on spanking?

My view is that spanking should be reserved for very rare and special situations. I define "rare and special" as: If a child is doing something to cause potential harm to themselves or someone else, then it deserves a spanking.

This is a tough topic for me because my ex-wife has spanked my daughter on several occasions for situations that I believe it was not necessary. She's a hitter, plain and simple. I believe too much spanking reinforces nothing but violence, thus why it should be reserved for special situations.

Your thoughts?

__________________

HappyMomma

We don't spank at all. We just feel there are too many other options to discipline without hitting and feel that spanking is utimately ineffective and sends the wrong message.... 'Don't hit! 'Whack!"

BTW, eventhough we do not spank, our daughter is not an undisciplined heathen... she is pretty well behaved for a four year old. ;-)

__________________
The quickest way for a parent to get a child's attention is to sit down and look comfortable.
~Lane Olinghouse

Dadu2004

Yeah, I feel the same way. I can control Delaney's behavior through other methods just fine. When I was married, I spanked my stepson two times: Once when he was literally strangling the cat to the point where it's tongue was hanging out of its mouth, and once when he disapperared for 15 minutes and ended up on the opposite side of the apartment complex where we didn't know where he was.

I'm not TOTALLY anti-spanking...I just reserve it for when it's "truely" justified.

__________________

fallon

I will pat a diapered butt with no issue...I will also pat a hand that is about to get into trouble (or danger). I have not ever really spanked my daughter though...it's usually enough just to ask her if she wants to be grounded

__________________
Cleverly Disguised As A Responsible Adult

Dadu2004

LOL! Yes, the grounding threat works very well!

__________________

Nikita

I used to be for spanking, but I found it to be an ineffective form of discipline for my son. It didn't bother him getting spanked. I've found taking away privledges works much better. Taking away the TV and the Wii first. If he continues to act up, then he gets sent to his room. There are times now when he knows he's done bad and before I can even say anything, he heads straight to his room.

mom2many

I am not a spanker by rule but, I to have used it in rare occasions and they are rare, and usually at the point where I need the point made now, you know dangerous situations, it's always followed with a reason and a hug. My intent isn't to hurt them only to make my point immediatly.

__________________


Jennifer, mom to some wonderful kids!

evilbrent

You're right. I personally have given my view on this a million times.

Simply: "People are not for hitting, and children are people"

The first three rules of parenting are "There's no hitting, there's no hitting, there's no hitting."

Why would you spank your kid on a 'rare and special' occasion? If you truly believe that the best way to teach a message is to accompany it with humiliation, fear and physical pain - why don't you deliver ALL of your messages like that? Why don't you use spanking when you want to teach your kid to count? Why don't you use spanking when you want to teach your kid to catch a ball?

I'll tell you the only thing that a kid learns when you spank them: "Sometimes mum/dad hits me. I must be worth hitting."

When you want to "make a point now"... if you smack to make the point then you HAVEN'T made the point. If you want to give the message "Don't EVER run on the road." then please, give THAT message. Don't give the message "I'm hitting you because I'm more powerful than you, I want you to be intimidated by me, I'm MAKING you behave the way I want you to, I've hit you because you're not good enough..." .......... because by the time you've said that the only reason your kid doesn't run on the road is because they're afraid of YOU, not of roads.

If you want children to share your fear of, say, roads, then SHOW them your fear of roads. Show them the dangers. Point out HOW they can get squished.

Don't hit them. All they'll remember is the hit.

__________________

Dadu2004

I would agree with what Mom2Many says...it is to make a point immediately. I would only use it in a situation where I feel that the point needs to be made loud and clear.

You ask why I wouldn't spank when teaching the kid to count or catch a ball... that's a bit ridiculous. If you re-read my posts, you'll see that the only time that I would use it is if the child is putting themselves or someone else in danger. That is the ONLY time that I would spank.

__________________

evilbrent

but why why why??

if smacking doesn't teach about how to catch, and it doesn't teach about how to count... why why why do you think it suddenly STARTS working when you have some "important" message to deliver?

yes - it's ridiculous to smack a kid to teach them those things. it's ridiculous. it's just _obvious_ to everyone.

or... is it?

It wasn't that long ago that parents and educators DID think that corporal punishment had a place in basic education: getting a rap over the knuckles for poor handwriting - getting the belt from your dad for an F...

Please stop, think about it, and tell my exactly why you think the message "don't go on the road" is best accompanied by physical aggression (and don't pretend that there's an un-aggressive way to strike a 2 or 3 yr old, I won't hear it). What's different about that learning situation that you think the normal rules of learning and loving guidance don't apply?

What, in that situation, exactly do you think is happening in the poor kid's head at the moment their mum gives them the message "don't go on he road" AND smacks them?

Which do you think they will remember the most? The message or the smack?

More importantly - which do you want them to be afraid of next time they go wandering near the road: the cars or the smack?

To make the point immediately - you're kidding me right? All it does is obscure the message immediately. Ok, picture this:

1) I get down to my child's level when we're in the busy carpark and put my arm around my beautiful little daughter and say "Ella - you cannot run off like that, you'll get hurt. Do you see that car? And that car? We have to hold hands so that none of the cars squash us." Ella then looks around and wisely says "There's a car, it might squash us, let's hold hands."

2) 1) I get down to my child's level when we're in the busy carpark and put my arm around my beautiful little daughter grab her with one hand so I can wallop her bum with the other - then, while tears spring to her eyes immediately from surprise, frustration and anger, I shout over her grizzling cries "Ella, do no run off like that. We're in a carpark, hold my hand and don't be naughty!" Ella then grudgingly holds up her hand and has a mini-tantrum as I furiously drag her into the shopping centre.

Tell me - honestly - in that second situation, even I had kept my cool and not snapped at her, do you think that she would have said, or felt, "Thankyou for smacking me so succinctly. I hear your message about the dangers of cars, and I'm grateful that you gave me the message in such an unambiguous manner. There is a car coming which we must avoid, let's hold hands and be safe together."

You say you want your message to be loud and clear? When you smack you make your message loud and obscure. Please, if you want to deliver a loud, clear message, clear your throat, talk from your diaphragm and use your Parental Voice to say "Stop! You must not go on the road without holding my hand. It's very dangerous!" loudlu and clearly.

(and please, if your child is too young to have the language to understand that, then they're CERTAINLY too young to assimilate such a garbled and confusing communication)

__________________