Spanking

[shanstress70]

No, it teaches that if you are disobedient, rebellious, and not mindful of the law, there can be physicall painful consequences. Little ons get spanked, big ones go to prison.[/b]

There is no reason why the consequence has to be painful. Little ones need love, which hitting does not represent. They also need to be taught WHY what they did was wrong, and that it is possible to resolve conflict without violence, which is a very important life skill.

I would argue that spanking, properly done, can foster trust in adults, and teach children that physical restraint or punishment only happens in limited, properly governed circumstances. [/b]

Trust in adults? Sorry, don't see your reasoning here.

Spanking is the easy way out for parents. It takes a bit of time and creativity to think of a better and more effective punishment, but it is worth it in the long run, IMO.

[shanstress70]

I don't know what to make of this post from Ray. I think it's an imposter who has somehow hacked into his account, but I keep waiting for something to happen with it, and it's still here.

Whomever it is writing that stuff about kids, I think it's sick and disturbed... not funny at all!

And if it is Ray, he is not the person I thought.

[prisonchaplain]

There is no reason why the consequence has to be painful. Little ones need love, which hitting does not represent. They also need to be taught WHY what they did was wrong, and that it is possible to resolve conflict without violence, which is a very important life skill.[/b]

What age group do you have in mind? My guess is that spanking will be completely spent as a tool of parenthood by the time my girls reach 8-10. Little ones would be roughly 3-10, depending on the child. To give you an example from today: My 3.5 year old is learning not to cry--and a mean the pouty wail that should be reserved for being hurt--when she doesn't get what she wants. We had told her about three times in the past hour. So, I pulled her into a separate room and asked her if daddy was angry or not. She immediately quit cryin and nodded her head. I then took two fingers and tapped about twice as hard as a simple tap would have been--twice. Did it hurt? No, I'm quite certain it didn't. But, it was just hard enough that she took it for a spank, which was embarrassing, and let her know she had crossed the line. She didn't cry again for about an hour and a half. Since it was far enough from the last time, a quick word was enough--she stopped.

Mind you, our girls are happy, get lots of praise, hear several times a day that they are loved, and absolutely trust their mommy and daddy. They do not walk around in fear, and that have the security of knowing that when they get too silly, or too wound up, we'll be there to calm them down. If they get awnry, we will put them in time out, and, on rare occasions, use the "spank."

Trust in adults? Sorry, don't see your reasoning here.[/b]

When little ones (again, 3-10) know that parents won't let them get out of control, that we will protect them with limits, warnings, and discipline, if need be, they feel secure. They quickly learn the rules, receive lots of love and affirmation, and, when playing with other kids, feel the confidence of knowing that they know how to get along with children and other adults. The rare spank reminds them that we will protect them from themselves. And, again, by the time they reach 8 or so, the spank will be a distant memory.

Spanking is the easy way out for parents. It takes a bit of time and creativity to think of a better and more effective punishment, but it is worth it in the long run, IMO.[/b]

That's a bit over-confident, imho. It's true that we don't have to use the spank. However, the so-called quick fix, time-saver, is often a relief for children, as well as parents. The escalation of behavior ends, the constant negotiation/renegotiation, 5-min, 10-min, 30-min time-outs, the lengthy explanations--sometimes a quick 10-second, one or two-"tap-spank" stops the whole cycle. Child becomes quiet, and within two minutes, is playing nicely, or compliantly helping with clean up.

Bottom-line: Spanking need not be hard, or truly painful. For the young child (3-10) it is often a quick and effective break on bad behavior that is escalating. If spanking is common or primary for pre-teens or adolescence, yeah--reevaluation might be in order.

The irony these days though is that spanking can lead to the spanker going to jail for child abuse. And not for being abusive, per say, but because it seems to me that society as a whole is moving away from corporal punishment all together, and those engaging in it still are being frowned upon.

Spank a child = he gets mad at you = tells his friends = they tell him to call the cops, and he'll never get spanked again.[/b]

This scenario used to, and in some ways, still does anger me. The medicine government dishes out, sometimes is worse than the sickness.

On the other hand, my sense is, spanking is a tool that should be used sparingly, and primarily on the very young (3-8 or so). By 4th grade or so, a child should have enough reasoning skills, and self-discipline, that spanking would no longer be necessary. Discussion, negotiation, removal of privileges, grounding, etc. would become the norm. I'm guessing there aren't too many preschoolers, or K-2nd-graders that are world-wise and hardened enough to call in the police on their own parents.

[shanstress70]

That's a bit over-confident, imho. It's true that we don't have to use the spank. However, the so-called quick fix, time-saver, is often a relief for children, as well as parents. The escalation of behavior ends, the constant negotiation/renegotiation, 5-min, 10-min, 30-min time-outs, the lengthy explanations--sometimes a quick 10-second, one or two-"tap-spank" stops the whole cycle. Child becomes quiet, and within two minutes, is playing nicely, or compliantly helping with clean up.
[/b]

I think all the explanations are worth it for the child to 'get it'. And yes, the child becomes quiet, all while learning that in order to solve things, violence is in order.

And you don't have to negotiate/renegotiate... simple decide on a method of discipline and stick to it. My son know that certain actions means he will get a time-out. He does not like time-out, so most of the time I can give him one warning and it works. However, if it does not work and he does it again, he goes in his room while I set the timer for 3 minutes. He's very unhappy while he's in there. When the timer goes off, I go to his room, explain to him once again why he got the time-out, make him apologize, give him a hug and tell him I love him. We go about our business like nothing ever happened. It's usually a long time before he does the same action that got him there.

I do believe in consequences and discipline, but not in hitting your child, no matter how lightly. However, I do not judge those who do spank. You are doing what you think is best, just like I am. All we can do is try.

[StrawberryFields]

<div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'>
I don’t think we should spank children because they’re too young to enjoy it.

Ba da bump.

But seriously.

I once spanked a child who did seem to enjoy it, because he kept asking for more.

Ba da bump.

Seriously though. I get no respect. No respect I tell you.

Why, when I was a child, I’d had to wait my turn in a corner before getting a spanking.

And not a very good one at that.

But after I talked to my parents, we got it all worked out.
[/b]

ARE YOU SERIOUS!!!

Who stole our ole buddy Ray? This has got to be an imposter!!!
[/b][/quote]
Heh, no, I wasn't serious. I was trying to be funny.

And btw, I will dedicate the above to Rodney, even though I wasn't quoting him, as far as I know.
[/b][/quote]

OH THERE YOU ARE~~~~

I knew the above was a lil out of charactor for you.

BTW Ray. I was joking with you when I said are you serious. You can be really funny and just by dedicating the above to Rodney makes me smile.

[Cal]

At any level of justice one must recognize that both positive and negative reinforcement (incentives) need to be employed. For all that I have read and experienced I am not convinced that spanking is either effective or unless. I think that one can justify what-ever their course. For the most part I do not think that parents are that much worse at being parents than children are at being children – that is with some exceptions. There are other issues that I think are more important or that I did wrong with my children.

1.Using chores as punishment.
2. Planning for them to have more leisure time than chores.
3. Putting them on the spot to lie when the truth would be difficult.
4. Not knowing the difference between teaching and training of children and not knowing when or which to employ.
5. Thinking that as parents you are the only influence in their lives that will (or can) really make a difference.
6. Attempting to spare them from “foolish” dreams that are likely beyond their reach. (Being the one to tell them they do not have what it takes to succeed at some given task – even if they don’t.)
7. Trying to make anything better for them without their knowing or participation.
8. Not making sure they know and understand what love is by your example.

Personally I think that any of the above can be more damaging to children than a spanking that is underserved or abusive. Do not take me wrong and think I condone abusing children with harsh physical punishments; extreams and excesses are always a problem – It is just that I think that so many parents think they are better than some other parents just because they do not spank or physically push their children and then to 50 other things that harm their children in other ways.

Spanking or not spanking is not the worse problem parents must face in raising children. I am personally concerned with the parent that think that it is.

The Traveler
[/b]

Your post has some really good ideas about parenting. I don't notice any one on this thread implying that spanking is the WORSE thing a parent can do. Obviously, as you pointed out, there are other poor parenting behaviors. However, just because the items you mentioned are examples of poor parenting, doesn't mean that parents are somehow vindicated in thinking that spanking is therefore OK. Actually, IMHO, they are both bad parenting. Spanking is just one of many poor parenting behaviors.

[Cal]

<div class='quotemain'>
Spanking is wrong on several levels. First, it doesn't work.[/b]

While it may not work with your parenting style, to point-blank declare that it does not work, too quickly condemns what did indeed work for millenia. The Bible does not merely "condone" phsyical discipline--it calls for it. Is corporal punishment necessary for all parents in all situations? Of course not. On the other hand, to declare it 100% wrong is too strong, imho.

I've never seen any research, nor have I even seen anecdotal evidence that spanking is superior to OTHERS forms of discipline. And given the down side, I still stand by my statement. The fact that the Bible calls for physical violence, only says to me that the Biblical people were uncivilized and naive to human psychology. And no, 100% wrong is not too strong. No human being has the moral right to intentionally inflict physical pain on another. PERIOD. That we try to justify it with ancient religious texts just says we can't think for ourselves on the subject.

Second, it teaches one thing: When you are frustrated with the behavior of another, physical agression is appropriate.[/b]

No, it teaches that if you are disobedient, rebellious, and not mindful of the law, there can be physicall painful consequences. Little ons get spanked, big ones go to prison.

Since when do criminal who break the law get SPANKED. It is actually AGAINST THE LAW to physical abuse even prisoners? So why should it be ok to do it to our own kids?!!!!!!!!!!

kids that get hit, learn to hit, not how to behave. Kids only learn how to behave by seeing adults they respect behave well, and by feeling secure in their relationships with those adults.[/b]

I would argue that spanking, properly done, can foster trust in adults, and teach children that physical restraint or punishment only happens in limited, properly governed circumstances.

Since when did getting hit foster trust? All it fosters is resentment. I got hit as a kid, and all it did was make me resent the person who did it. I said to myself, "how dare you violate my right to my own body. What gives you the right to inflict your physical self on me?" When you can answer that question maybe I can agree with something you are saying. Again, do unto others.... The fact that some people say "Well, my dad hit me, and it didn't do me any harm" begs the question. Children are human beings with the right to their physical and emotional space and privacy. Spanking and hitting VIOLATES that. Ask yourself this, as an adult, would you let anyone hit or spank you? What makes you think that kids like it or can handle it any better. Spanking only satisfies the "needs" of an out-of-control, angry parent. It does the kid NO good, PERIOD, end of story, and nothing you have said yet convinces me otherwise.

Spanking is just a euphamism for physical agression or hitting. Just because the Bible condones it doesn't make it right or true. After all, the Bible also condones slavery, capital punishment and a bunch of other uncivilized behaviors.[/b]

The Bible deals with slavery, it does not call for it. The Bible commands capital punishment, and it does call for the physical punishment of rebellious youth. We that take the words of Scripture as being from God will grapple with how to apply them in today's world, rather than dismiss them as "uncivilized."

Sorry, but THAT part of the Bible is the kind of thing Brigham Young was probably talking about when he said that the Bible has the Word of God, the Word of Man and the Word of the Devil. The physical punishment and condoning of slavery are definitely the Word of the Devil, IMHO.

I would contend, however, that corporeal punishment is best carried out only rarely, as way of saying to the child, "You've really crossed the line this time!"

The simple fact that you conceed that it should only be used "rarely" implies that you recognize that there IS something wrong with hitting. If you can get things across without hitting, why use it at all? And if you can't, maybe you need to rethink your parenting skills. As you've seen from this thread, there are many here who find that they do just fine without it. That should tell you something.

I don’t think we should spank children because they’re too young to enjoy it. Ba da bump. But seriously. I once spanked a child who did seem to enjoy it, because he kept asking for more. Ba da bump. Seriously though. I get no respect. No respect I tell you. Why, when I was a child, I’d had to wait my turn in a corner before getting a spanking. And not a very good one at that. But after I talked to my parents, we got it all worked out. [/b]

You know, this simple post explains just about everything I've ever wondered about you, my brother.
[/b][/quote]

[prisonchaplain]

I've never seen any research, nor have I even seen anecdotal evidence that spanking is superior to OTHERS forms of discipline. And given the down side, I still stand by my statement. The fact that the Bible calls for physical violence, only says to me that the Biblical people were uncivilized and naive to human psychology. And no, 100% wrong is not too strong. No human being has the moral right to intentionally inflict physical pain on another. PERIOD. That we try to justify it with ancient religious texts just says we can't think for ourselves on the subject.[/b]

You equate ALL spanking with physical abuse, violation, etc. Absurd. It is also a very strange (and, imho, dangerous) reading of Scripture to say, "Well, I don't like what the Scripture says here, so it must be something God allowed for barbarians." Again, I grant that the underlying call of "spare the rod spoil the child" is for parental discipline. It does not have to take the form of spanking. However, to declare all parents who spank barbarians (do I read child abusers?) is too much.

Since when do criminal who break the law get SPANKED.

You've never been to Singapore? You don't recall the American teenager who nearly got caned for keying a bunch of cars?

It is actually AGAINST THE LAW to physical abuse even prisoners? So why should it be ok to do it to our own kids?!!!!!!!!!![/b][/b]

Of course, you are right. "They're here as punishment, not for punishment." My quick answer, is it is never okay to physically abuse children. On the other hand, spanking is not abuse. In fact, some school districts still have corporal punishment.

Since when did getting hit foster trust?

Bounderies foster security and trust. Spanking is one tool that parents use to enforce bounderies. You may not like it, and so, should not use it. But, in a nation in which most children suffer from willful neglect, I pray that your notion that all physical discipline, is, by definition, abuse, does not become widespread law.

All it fosters is resentment. I got hit as a kid, and all it did was make me resent the person who did it. I said to myself, "how dare you violate my right to my own body. What gives you the right to inflict your physical self on me?" When you can answer that question maybe I can agree with something you are saying. Again, do unto others.... The fact that some people say "Well, my dad hit me, and it didn't do me any harm" begs the question. Children are human beings with the right to their physical and emotional space and privacy. Spanking and hitting VIOLATES that. Ask yourself this, as an adult, would you let anyone hit or spank you? What makes you think that kids like it or can handle it any better. Spanking only satisfies the "needs" of an out-of-control, angry parent. It does the kid NO good, PERIOD, end of story, and nothing you have said yet convinces me otherwise.[/b][/b]

Maybe you experienced abusive physical discipline, and so project your experiences on every act of spanking. However, the reason so many say, "I was spanked and it didn't hurt me," is because most kids that receive thoughtful spankings are well aware that they probably deserved more, and over the years, have become thankful for parents that bothered to discipline.

[Sorry, but THAT part of the Bible is the kind of thing Brigham Young was probably talking about when he said that the Bible has the Word of God, the Word of Man and the Word of the Devil. The physical punishment and condoning of slavery are definitely the Word of the Devil, IMHO.[/b]

The Bible is the Word of God, period. Yes, there are stories of men who failed, men who deceived, and of Satan's work. But no anointed reading of Scriptures would declare Solomon's proverb for parents to "spare the rod spoil the child" as Satan's words.

The simple fact that you conceed that it should only be used "rarely" implies that you recognize that there IS something wrong with hitting. If you can get things across without hitting, why use it at all? And if you can't, maybe you need to rethink your parenting skills. As you've seen from this thread, there are many here who find that they do just fine without it. That should tell you something.[/b]

Math lesson time. Sometimes "less is more." Nothing is always nothing.

My advice to rarely spank means that spanking is a strong measure that should be reserved for overt rebellion, and even then, not as a first resort. Spanking is not wrong, but, imho, is more effective as a near-last resort--kinda like wars between nations.

[prisonchaplain]

...doesn't mean that parents are somehow vindicated in thinking that spanking is therefore OK. Actually, IMHO, they are both bad parenting. Spanking is just one of many poor parenting behaviors. [/b]

I found quite a few interesting and diverse viewpoints at beliefnet.com. This site is explores many spiritualities, and so counts as fairly objective. In the poll on spanking I found myself in the largest camp--47% believing spanking is best used as a last resort. The article I chose to highlight (those interested should explore the several articles--including some that argue against using it) is an explanation from a self-proclaimed liberal parent as to why she uses spanking as a rare option.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/70/story_7001_1.html

[shanstress70]

My advice to rarely spank means that spanking is a strong measure that should be reserved for overt rebellion, and even then, not as a first resort. Spanking is not wrong, but, imho, is more effective as a near-last resort--kinda like wars between nations.[/b]

Like crying for no reason, the example of your own daughter you gave? Is this the overt rebellion you are talking about? That doesn't seem like an extreme behavior.