Spanking......

[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. ;-)

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[evilbrent]

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?

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

Simply: <SIZE size="150">"People are not for hitting, and children are people"</SIZE>

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)

 

[mom2many]

The theory behind what you say sounds good, on the surface, but reality is different. The bulk of parents spank after the first or second warning, after explaining why they can't do something and yet the child still does it, I have spanked all 7 of my kids at one time or another, and each one can count the number of times on one hand and if asked they would tell you they deserved it, not that they liked it, even a parent will tell you they don't like to spank, BUT if it comes down to the choice between a spank on the bottom (that usually isn't hard enough to cause any pain) or being squished by a car that they have very little chance against, then I will swat their butt, tell them no sternly, and give them a hug and a kiss.

You want to know what they will remember most, they will remember that under no uncertain terms can they play in that road, or with the electrical outlets, or how about the first time your child stands up to you and calls you a B*&amp;^% or tells you to F off, don't sit there and think it can't happen or that it won't, and what are you going to do, stand there and "discuss" why they can't talk to you like that, come on they won't care and will be beyond reasoning with, so when your hand reach's out in anger and smacks them, and I assure you it will, it happens no matter how non-violent you are, then what? And don't say it's different cause it's not!

Nobody should be walking around and beating on their child, that isn't the question, Courts use corporal punishment, there are something's in life that you just can't do, there are some things in life that aren't for discussion, courts give you a few chances and then they throw the book at you. That is life, I will not walk around in life explaining everything to my children over and over again, at some point there is a consequence. The same applies to swat on the butt, that is the consequence, the difference is, I give them all my love afterwards, life WON'T do that for them.

As to why we don't spank when it comes to everyday life, well that is simple......it won't hurt them or damage them or god forbid kill them!

 

[HappyMomma]

I completely agree with EvilBrent's post.

IMO, spanking is the 'easy' way out of disciplining properly.

 

[evilbrent]

it won't hurt them or damage them or god forbid kill them!

dude... haven't you listened to a single thing I've said?

 

[HappyMomma]

but reality is different.

It doesn't have to be.

 

[evilbrent]

The theory behind what you say sounds good, on the surface, but reality is different. The bulk of parents spank after the first or second warning, after explaining why they can't do something and yet the child still does it, I have spanked all 7 of my kids at one time or another, and each one can count the number of times on one hand and if asked they would tell you they deserved it, not that they liked it, even a parent will tell you they don't like to spank, BUT if it comes down to the choice between a spank on the bottom (that usually isn't hard enough to cause any pain) or being squished by a car that they have very little chance against, then I will swat their butt, tell them no sternly, and give them a hug and a kiss.

You want to know what they will remember most, they will remember that under no uncertain terms can they play in that road, or with the electrical outlets, or how about the first time your child stands up to you and calls you a B*&amp;^% or tells you to F off, don't sit there and think it can't happen or that it won't, and what are you going to do, stand there and "discuss" why they can't talk to you like that, come on they won't care and will be beyond reasoning with, so when your hand reach's out in anger and smacks them, and I assure you it will, it happens no matter how non-violent you are, then what? And don't say it's different cause it's not!

Nobody should be walking around and beating on their child, that isn't the question, Courts use corporal punishment, there are something's in life that you just can't do, there are some things in life that aren't for discussion, courts give you a few chances and then they throw the book at you. That is life, I will not walk around in life explaining everything to my children over and over again, at some point there is a consequence. The same applies to swat on the butt, that is the consequence, the difference is, I give them all my love afterwards, life WON'T do that for them.

As to why we don't spank when it comes to everyday life, well that is simple......it won't hurt them or damage them or god forbid kill them!

so? you think that because I don't strike my child I'm not a pushover or that I don't have limits?

It sounds like you're saying that your version of "My foot is down" involves, inexplicably, hitting someone.

Is it like that in other areas of your life? When you're boss gives you a job that you really really don't like - do you refuse to do it until he flicks your ear with his finger?

Do you, personally, ignore warnings signs like "Warning: cliff edge" unless there's a person there to make the message real to you by bopping you on the head with a stick? I just don't get it.

I can tell my kids in no uncertain terms that I have reached my limit and their behaviour is to stop without striking them, why can't you?




When someone talks to you in a way you don't like, the proper response is "Do not talk to me like that." That's certainly what I say when people get personal in an argument. It's clear, appropriate, unambiguous and non-threatening.

You can't think of any other way of handling that? Of expressing your extreme disapproval? What about taking them to their bedroom to be by themselves with all the people who like to be verbally abused?

What about simply refusing to help them with their stuff "You want dinner? Oh, when you swore at me, I thought that meant that we weren't being nice to each other today. Maybe you could think of a way that we can start being nice to each other."

What about simply putting your hand up and finishing the conversation righ there? "Do NOT talk to me like that. That is NOT ok. If you're angry, tell me that you're angry, don't think that you can talk like that. This conversation is OVER."






Didn't you ever learn about the difference between aggressiveness and assertiveness?

 

[HappyMomma]

I used to be all for spanking... but that was before I had a child.

I tried it one time with my daughter and it felt incredibly wrong to me. I will never do it again.

Even with a dog, alpha position can be established without being physical... it's even more true with children. IMO, corporal punishment is simply not necessary when it comes to raising loving, respectful and well behaved children. Consistancy, respect and a firm stance are.

 

[evilbrent]

"Establishing alpha position" - I like that.

 

[mom2many]

so? you think that because I don't strike my child I'm not a pushover or that I don't have limits?

Don't remember ever saying that not spanking makes anyone a pushover

It sounds like you're saying that your version of "My foot is down" involves, inexplicably, hitting someone.

Don't remember ever saying I walk around hitting my kids, funny that a spanking makes you think that someone just goes around beating thier children.

Is it like that in other areas of your life? When you're boss gives you a job that you really really don't like - do you refuse to do it until he flicks your ear with his finger?

At my age I shouldn't need to be flicked in the ear!

Do you, personally, ignore warnings signs like "Warning: cliff edge" unless there's a person there to make the message real to you by bopping you on the head with a stick? I just don't get it.

Once again at a certian age common sence kicks in where as children still are learning it!

I can tell my kids in no uncertain terms that I have reached my limit and their behaviour is to stop without striking them, why can't you?

That would be the rule in my house, and 99% of the time that is all it takes.

When someone talks to you in a way you don't like, the proper response is "Do not talk to me like that." That's certainly what I say when people get personal in an argument. It's clear, appropriate, unambiguous and non-threatening.

This is comming from someone who doesn't have teenagers, cause let me tell you if they are worked up that would not work, they will laugh at you as if you are the Next Comic Standing!

You can't think of any other way of handling that? Of expressing your extreme disapproval? What about taking them to their bedroom to be by themselves with all the people who like to be verbally abused?

Meanwhile some of the more extreem teens have climbed out their window. I don't send mine to their room, I take all non-essential items away, a time out on a teen is a joke,

What about simply refusing to help them with their stuff "You want dinner? Oh, when you swore at me, I thought that meant that we weren't being nice to each other today. Maybe you could think of a way that we can start being nice to each other."

Been there, done that, do that, I never said walk around hitting your children, you are interpretting what I said to fit into a mold of what you believe the occasional spanking, and that means maybe one in 3 years, is.

What about simply putting your hand up and finishing the conversation righ there? "Do NOT talk to me like that. That is NOT ok. If you're angry, tell me that you're angry, don't think that you can talk like that. This conversation is OVER."

Once again you don't have teens, which is what the bulk of my statemnet was about, if you did, you would realize that nothing with them is simple they won't just push your buttons they will run them over with an 18 wheeler then come back for more, it is in their nature to push and pull, toddler hood boundries are nothing compared to what a teenager will do to you, your house and the family.

So in another 12 years, you can tell me that if my kid decides to see how far they can push, and they have pushed to a point past what any reasonable person can handle, THEN and ONLY then can you make a judgement call about the kind of person I am. And that is exactly what you did, with ridiculous innuendo and even worse comparisons, there is nothing more frustrating then someone trying to make a point using everday examples that really are no comparisions to what the actual topic is.

So simply put....Have I spanked....Yes, maybe 10 times with 7 kids. Is it my Norm....Ah no. Am I the boss...you betcha, otherwise children wouldn't need parents!








Didn't you ever learn about the difference between aggressiveness and assertiveness?[/quote]

 

[mom2many]

It doesn't have to be.

I agree, but it doesn't change it.

 

[mom2many]

I used to be all for spanking... but that was before I had a child.

I tried it one time with my daughter and it felt incredibly wrong to me. I will never do it again.

Even with a dog, alpha position can be established without being physical... it's even more true with children. IMO, corporal punishment is simply not necessary when it comes to raising loving, respectful and well behaved children. Consistancy, respect and a firm stance are.

And Lucky for me my children are loving, respectfull, well behaved, smart, intelligent kids who have not an once of fear of me. BUT they are kids/teenagers and even the best of them, which I will say one more time, mine are, they are still kids.

Even with me being the alpa dog, somebody has to be.