SPANKING revisited...

[PianoLover]

When I was a volunteer in school, I never once shouted at, threatened or punished a child, nor bribed a child to do what I wanted them to with "positive reinforcement" like the promise of a gold star or a treat ---- Most, if not all of the other teachers were strict disciplinarians, but time after time I got specifically put with the most difficult children in the class, because it didn't take long for them to see that I was excellent at dealing with them: they didn't go out of control, or when they did, I found ways to help them regain it quickly enough.

Yes, there were challenges, but if I had just hit those kids I would have never learned to overcome those challenges in all the amazingly ingenious ways I was forced to. I never would have learned what motivated those children when they were being difficult, or what was real for them in those moment when they were being challenging.

Yes, I probably could have got them to stop misbehaving, maybe, with a swot, but that would only teach them that when someone does something you don't want them to do the best way to get them to comply is by hitting them.

Those kids loved and respected me. The so-called "difficult" ones took to me better than their teachers, and were more compliant with me, because I treated them with respect without expecting anything in return - on some level they got that, and I won their trust.

I NEVER, EVER, EVER would have jeopardised that respect by punishing them or hitting them, (even if it was legal to hit in school), even if it was more effective in getting what I wanted. As it turned out, reason was more effective. It allowed me to show that I cared about those children so much I would care about them even when they weren't doing what I wanted them to do. Not hitting means Unconditional love, not just "I love you when you're convenient." That's what all disciplinarian methods.

If you want kids to learn to be loving, you know what you have to do. Set an example. Show them what it looks like to go the extra mile, even when it's challenging not to do what was done to you to get you to "behave."

Love, love.

 

[tadamsmar]

When I have spanked it has been out of concern for my son's or someone else s safety.

spanked another time (we disagree about the time) at least three years ago. When he was caught with a search of Hanna Montana boobs on his netbook by the school bus.

Hanna Montana boob searches represent a important and underappreciated safety issue for children.

 

[parentastic]

Most, if not all of the other teachers were strict disciplinarians, but time after time I got specifically put with the most difficult children in the class, because it didn't take long for them to see that I was excellent at dealing with them: they didn't go out of control, or when they did, I found ways to help them regain it quickly enough.

I want to take the opportunity to give you a pat on the shoulder here, Antony, and say that you are doing a hard but wonderful job with these kids. You are building rapport and establishing an attachment link, which is a much more powerful key to teaching and behaving than any kind of threat/bribe combo could do.

I am curious - have any other teacher (those who come to you with the difficult cases) ask you how you do it and change their own ways from observing how you do it?

 

[bssage]

Hanna Montana boob searches represent a important and underappreciated safety issue for children.

Ride the bus much? Apparently they felt it was enough of a safety issue to park the bus and walk to the house and talk with me about it.

You have something new to contribute? Or just feel like picking a fight with me on this old thread??

 

[tadamsmar]

Ride the bus much? Apparently they felt it was enough of a safety issue to park the bus and walk to the house and talk with me about it.

You have something new to contribute? Or just feel like picking a fight with me on this old thread??

Don't want to pick a fight, I am interested in contributing to a discussion about parents who are inconsistent in what they say and do.

How was this a safety issue?

 

[PianoLover]

tadamsmar[/B]<U>]</U><I>Hanna Montana boob searches represent a important and underappreciated safety issue for children.</I>

<i></i>

Ride the bus much? Apparently they felt it was enough of a safety issue to park the bus and walk to the house and talk with me about it.

You have something new to contribute? Or just feel like picking a fight with me on this old thread??

Oki dokes people lets reign it in

tadamsmar, I'm not sure making a sarcastic statement is the best way to point out the inconsistency you perceive

bssage, my worry would be that physically punishing a child for their sexual curiosity might have lasting effects on the way they view love and relationships into the future, even unconscious sexual shame etc.

your child caused a ruckus on the bus, that is a serious incident and no doubt caused you much embarrassment. My approach would be to take the situation as an opportunity to explain exactly what is and isn't acceptable in terms of that curiosity, ie. those google searches are not to be made in public such as on a bus, and certainly not until a suitable age... or whatever your parallel values are. It's also a good opportunity to explain how being put in that predicament made you feel personally, you might get a heartfelt apology for that sort of thing.

"Misbehaviour" can be turned into an opportunity to learn appropriate values, in my experience. I fear that hitting only says "you don't do this because " bam bam bam. which is not a values, it's an unpleasant consequence to the perpetrator. (again I don't want people not stealing my wallet because they're afraid of being jailed, I want them not stealing my wallet because they think stealing is not appropriate behaviour.

I'm not judging, I'm just saying these are my concerns and this is my approach.

 

[bssage]

Ha ha. I wrote a reply that didn't save. So the computer saved my from my over tired self.

I think I made my points thru out this thread.

Tad if you cant figure out how Hanna Montana's boobs may cause a safety issue on a school bus full of children and adolescent boy's driven on our city streets. Well I cant help you then.

Piano. It was never about the boobs. I am actually a big fan of boobs myself.

He knew it was never about boobs. Sex/drugs/ethics talks are so common with him that its almost funny. He is very comfortable asking me questions like those.

He knew the rules before he pressed the power button on the laptop for the first time. And those rules had been reinforced through out and on a still continuing basis. Restriction of the computer privilege was for the boobs: boobs on the bus specifically. The spanking was for causing a situation that could have escalated to the point where "I am sorry" could potentially not fix.

Piano : You apparently do get the safety concern.

If you all want to dissect and find fault in the things I have done. Or even the things I have said from time to time. Thats fine with me. I have never claimed to be without fault. And although I do understand the importance of consistency. I strive to be consistent. There are times I drop the ball with this. I don't believe this is one of those times.

Whats strange is that after the spanking he developed a strange twitch in his eye: Started talking to his finger which only says REDRUM, Redrum. Odd.

I feel pretty comfortable in saying Cole and I have an extremely close relationship. Maybe a little bit closer than my dad and me. And my dad and I are very close. Only time will tell.

I think I have behaved responsibly as a parent. And am extremely proud of him. I believe the purpose was served well and that he has suffered no harm. Except for the twitch and talking finger thing.

 

[tadamsmar]

I don't think requiring people to read between the lines makes for good communications. But I can see that you don't agree with that.

For instance, take the OP of this thread. For the life of me, I cannot find any mention of even a single good reason for spanking. The claims are that it teaches escalating consequences, it caused memories, it's appropriate, it's relavent. Really, is that all?

Funny, when scientists look for the benefits of spanking, they never study any of these, I think they assumed that the these claims would never convince any parent that they should spank even if they are true. Some of them (appropriate, relavent) don't seem to be the sort of verifiable statement that scientists can study. Appropriate seems more a matter of taste, like is it appropriate to wear striped tie with a plaid shirt.

You can have escalating consequences (assuming there is a point in doing so) without escalating to such an extreme that you run the risk of overlapping child abuse. I noticed one of the popular Christian parenting forums had to ban discussions of how to spank without leaving marks for fear of being sued.

 

[bssage]

Do I need to read aloud the entire thread for you?

I dont know how many times I have said in this thread or others. I DO NOT ADVOCATE TO SPANK!

My point has always been that there is <U>NO</U> evidence that a couple of reasoned spanks is going to harm your child. READ THE WORDS IN THE QUOTE ON THE 3RD POST! And that it can/ is at times effective.

Escalating consequences is kinda my deal. Sometimes I have an original thought (at least I think it was). I am sure I have explained it in the past. I am not going to explain it to you again.

that you run the risk of overlapping child abuse.

Really? you think I run that risk.

I noticed one of the popular Christian parenting forums had to ban discussions of how to spank without leaving marks for fear of being sued.

Yes and that is exactly what I am doing. People need to know how to abuse there kids and get away with it. Jeeeze

Tell you what Tad. Your welcome to type in any response that pops into your head. But I am done responding to you.

 

[mom2many]

spanking does not equal abuse. abuse is very different.

 

[tadamsmar]

spanking does not equal abuse. abuse is very different.

There are perhaps 5 million or more web articles (including news reports) that contradict that blanket statement, or at least bring it into question.

Spanking may or may not constitute child abuse. The term spanking covers a range of actions.

So, I can cite lots of examples. How many times can you say "Oh, that's not what I meant by spanking"?

 

[tadamsmar]

I have a suggestion.

I dont know how many times I have said in this thread or others. I DO NOT ADVOCATE TO SPANK!

You said spanking is necessary in the OP:

I believe they are necessary

I suggest that you give up contradicting yourself, it might allow you to avoid having to restate each of your various contradictory positions multiple times.

 

[PianoLover]

spanking does not equal abuse. abuse is very different.

Please clarify the difference for my benefit as I am not sure what it is.
I mean that non-sarcastically I will give your view a fair hearing.

Personally I believe that the initiation of violence by anyone at any time to anyone is abusive. When there were slaves I'm sure there were movements to encourage people not to whip them and merely to hit them instead, same when women did not have equal rights to men - don't use objects to hit your wife so-called progressives would say, but scaling down the violence did not make it non-abusive, only less-abusive.

Having said that I am not suggesting that all parents who spank are abusers, since you'd have to know that something was potentially harmful for it to be abusive to do it.

 

[PianoLover]

My point has always been that there is <U>NO</U> evidence that a couple of reasoned spanks is going to harm your child. READ THE WORDS IN THE QUOTE ON THE 3RD POST! And that it can/ is at times effective.

And of course our contention has always been to say that even having a parent-child dynamic where spanking is seen as acceptible is delerious to the child and the parent-child relationship on the psychological level.

I know one might turn around and say "Well I have a great relationship with my child despite having spanked" but while the child is still in ones care it is a necessity for them to idealise the parent. When they get older they may have a change of heart about the whole thing, especially since the world in going towards less violent child-rearing, in 20 years in may be as illegal in the US or UK as it currently is in 32 countries around the world. In general people don't judge people who hit their wives by the ethics of a time when hitting your wife was acceptible.

 

[bssage]

And of course our contention has always been to say that even having a parent-child dynamic where spanking is seen as acceptible is delerious to the child and the parent-child relationship on the psychological level.

I know one might turn around and say "Well I have a great relationship with my child despite having spanked" but while the child is still in ones care it is a necessity for them to idealise the parent. When they get older they may have a change of heart about the whole thing, especially since the world in going towards less violent child-rearing, in 20 years in may be as illegal in the US or UK as it currently is in 32 countries around the world. In general people don't judge people who hit their wives by the ethics of a time when hitting your wife was acceptible.

And that fine for us not to agree Piano. I believe I know where you stand on this issue. And you I.

 

[PianoLover]

And that fine for us not to agree Piano. I believe I know where you stand on this issue. And you I.

Yes that is true, but I meant to ask you, what evidence would be sufficient to change your mind and agree that spanking is detrimental, even "a few reasoned spanks", and also to appologise to your children for all your spanks and say they were only down to you not knowing any better at the time?

 

[mom2many]

There are perhaps 5 million or more web articles (including news reports) that contradict that blanket statement, or at least bring it into question.

Spanking may or may not constitute child abuse. The term spanking covers a range of actions.

Bringing something into question does not constitute a fact, even research against spanking can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the occasional spanking is going to irrevocably going to harm a child.

So, I can cite lots of examples. How many times can you say "Oh, that's not what I meant by spanking"?

As to that, were are going with it? What I mean is the occasional swat on a childs ass. period. and no more then that, and when I say it... I mean it.

Please clarify the difference for my benefit as I am not sure what it is.
I mean that non-sarcastically I will give your view a fair hearing.

Personally I believe that the initiation of violence by anyone at any time to anyone is abusive. When there were slaves I'm sure there were movements to encourage people not to whip them and merely to hit them instead, same when women did not have equal rights to men - don't use objects to hit your wife so-called progressives would say, but scaling down the violence did not make it non-abusive, only less-abusive.

Having said that I am not suggesting that all parents who spank are abusers, since you'd have to know that something was potentially harmful for it to be abusive to do it.

Here's my definition of abuse...abuse is something that a child will always struggle with and only with extensive help be able to move past it. Abuse is watching your step-father beating the shit out of your mother and being helpless to do anything about it. Abuse is watching said step-father kidnap your baby sister right out of your arms and threaten to kill her if your mother doesn't give him what he wants. Abuse is even the police being afraid to do anything because they fear what his repercussions will be towards his family.

Violence is willfully intending to harm someone with little to no regard to the other person. Violence is created when said person feels they are above the law, that they are entitled to whatever it is and whatever cost it takes to get it they will do.

Now tell me this...do you honestly think that the majority of parents who use spanking as one form, among many, types of discipline. Do you really think they come at it from that angle? Do they really intend to be so violent against there child that the are irrevocably harmed?

I can say that most, sane loving parents do not come to it out of maliciousness. The 10-15 spanking I might have got as a child have not left any lasting impression on me other then I didn't repeat what i was spanked for again. That abuse I spoke of...........<I>that's</I> a whole other story.

 

[cybele]

I know one might turn around and say "Well I have a great relationship with my child despite having spanked" but while the child is still in ones care it is a necessity for them to idealise the parent. When they get older they may have a change of heart about the whole thing, especially since the world in going towards less violent child-rearing, in 20 years in may be as illegal in the US or UK as it currently is in 32 countries around the world. In general people don't judge people who hit their wives by the ethics of a time when hitting your wife was acceptible.

One also might turn around and say "I was spanked by my grandmother and my relationship with her is great"

But then that one might have actual experience with real abuse, so thinks the whole "a swat on the bum is abuse" argument is ridiculous and actually harms those seeking help for real abuse.

 

[bssage]

Yes that is true, but I meant to ask you, what evidence would be sufficient to change your mind and agree that spanking is detrimental, even "a few reasoned spanks", and also to appologise to your children for all your spanks and say they were only down to you not knowing any better at the time?

Your weeing in the wind.

I don't believe that is the case. I don't believe any studies support your <U>opinion</U> (reports may, Studies no). In fact I really don't feel like digging through them again. But I, I have seen more relevant studies/reports that say it is an effective tool. Than say it causes any long term harm. And don't plan on apologizing for what I believe was right any time soon.

I know already that you and several people disagree. Thats OK. I Get That.

Maybe when I get some time off work and have a chance to pour through all I have read again I will repost. But I think I have already copied and posted most of the stuff at one point or another. At this point you and I are just repeating ourselves. Seems pointless when I can just reread the our threads.

 

[singledad]

Please clarify the difference for my benefit as I am not sure what it is.

I will quote an explanation I posted to you earlier in this thread:

What is abuse? Abuse is the absence of love, safety, security, support, etc. How these things are destroyed is far less important than the average person thinks.

I understand, however, that someone who has never experienced abuse, or at least seen the effects first hand, won't be able to understand that. So I'll expand on that explanation.

Abuse is something that is done, at best with little regard for the child's well-being, and at worst with malicious intent. Abuse and love is incompatible. And a child knows that, because a child knows when he/she is loved.

Abuse is something that causes trauma.

And since I know that trauma is one of your favourite words to throw around, I'll tell you that in my world, trauma is bigger than just a word.

Trauma is when a simple word, or a smell, or something you see can send you into a panic attack in the street. Trauma is when you FEEL (as opposed to not remembering) something being done to you that actually happened decades ago. Trauma is when memories become so physically painful that you cannot walk. Yes - PHYSICALLY painful. Trauma is when you wake up drenched in sweat, and the memory of your nightmare makes you vomit. Trauma is when a simple smell can make you 6 years old again, crying and shivering with fear that hasn't been relevant in decades. Trauma is debilitating. I prevents you functioning as a member of society. It is incompatible with sustaining any form or relationship, because you cannot ever be vulnerable with another person.

Trauma leaves you living in fear, yet unable to put a name to that fear.

Shock is not trauma.
Being startled is not trauma.
Being in mild physical pain is not trauma.
Feeling sad or disappointed is not trauma.

Abuse is something that creates trauma.

Spanking is something that is over in a few minutes, and has the child playing happily again within a short time. It does not cause trauma.

Likening spanking to abuse, is like likening the few kilos one inevitably puts on over Christmas, and shakes off again by mid January, to obesity.

Its like likening a sprained ankle to paraplegia.

Its like saying that forgetting where you put your keys is dementia.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't advocate against spanking - if you want to do that, go ahead. Frankly, I'm not a fan of spanking myself and have never spanked my daughter. Just understand that spanking is NOT abuse.

But trauma is only one side of abuse. There is also another side, the emotional side that leaves the child acutely aware that no one cares about him, that he has no where to turn to for safety of comfort. It is a loneliness that grips your heart and freezes it solid. Such a child grows up without ever learning to love of be loved. This side of abuse is infinitely more damaging that the physical, traumatic side, but I'll leave this here since it is arguably off topic.

Lastly - I hope you understand how very lucky you are that you have no experience with real abuse.

PS: Please don't go posting scientific definitions of trauma and abuse. I don't care what scientists, most of whom have no personal experience with either, have to say on the matter. These are the same people who try to define abuse as something that leaves marks, or a hit on the head, or whatever, blissfully unaware that where, how and with what the abuse is inflicted, is irrelevant.