Discipline for children

[Playball40]

I haven't had to.

Well I'm happy for you that you have a kid who is so precocious as to be able to understand such reasoning at such a young age, and who seems to have never experienced a full-fledged middle of the store meltdown. I applaud that you may never have to spank your child. I do, however, ask that you recognize that not all children are like your child, and no amount of patient explaining will necessarily make them so. Until you've actually dealt with the full on meltdown, I suggest you reserve judgement.

And you really believe spanking a two year old magically makes them understand? Ludicrous. A two year old "meltdown" as you put it is nothing more than frustration of the child being unable to effectively communicate their wants/needs or control their environment (which they are just discovering they can do). No words are necessary. If you cannot distract them out of the 'meltdown' then as a parent you have two options. Removing them from the situation or ignoring the behavior. Anyone who believes hitting a child during a temper tantrum is going to alleviate the situation, or 'teach' the two year old ANYTHING is deluding themselves.

 

[Playball40]

Ya think? They can say it until they turn blue, but I asked for evidence that hitting children actually does any good and I'm not getting it.

Come on, hylidae - there is ZERO evidence, because this subject has never been honestly studied. I've said this many times already. You wouldn't trust a study on abortion that used the phrase "baby killer" to refer to abortionists, would you? Why should anyone seeking an honest study on spanking read anything that contains similarly loaded phrases?

Every study I've ever read that supposedly addresses spanking actually addresses child abuse, and - like every kneejerk "spanking is ebil" extremist on this thread - refuses to allow the difference.

You haven't looked very hard. You can get any textbook on child development and find what you seek. What you won't find is any positive justification for spanking as a discipline tool. (admit it, that is what you really want)

 

[Davka]

No, I have not.

I have caused my children pain as a form of discipline, and as a teaching aid. I don't believe in punishment. Punishment is simply vengeance by another name.

I understand that you don't like the word, but facts are facts.

Bullshit.

You are claiming to have the magical ability to see my motives. The difference between discipline and vengeance (aka punishment) is precisely that: a question of motive.

 

[Davka]

Come on, hylidae - there is ZERO evidence, because this subject has never been honestly studied. I've said this many times already. You wouldn't trust a study on abortion that used the phrase "baby killer" to refer to abortionists, would you? Why should anyone seeking an honest study on spanking read anything that contains similarly loaded phrases?

Every study I've ever read that supposedly addresses spanking actually addresses child abuse, and - like every kneejerk "spanking is ebil" extremist on this thread - refuses to allow the difference.

You haven't looked very hard. You can get any textbook on child development and find what you seek. What you won't find is any positive justification for spanking as a discipline tool. (admit it, that is what you really want)

Funny, the place I learned the difference between spanking and child abuse was a child development book. Not a textbook, but that's hardly relevant, as anyone remotely associated with the selection process for textbooks can tell you.

I don't need a textbook to tell me that spanking works. I also don't need some stranger on the Internet to tell me what I think, or what I "really want."

 

[Davka]

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that spanking advocates are not fully articulating something. I could be wrong, and this is not a judgment about any users here, but something not overtly discussed in this thread is the relationship between the very human, nebulous, and complex world of family and social dynamics and what we might make a matter of law, or of at least widespread social acceptance, implying punishment of parents in whatever cases we each think is over the line. I don't think anyone is fully comfortable with that outside of severe abuse cases.

The reality is that raising children is trial-and-error, messy, fraught with pitfalls and cultural pressures, and in spite of the plethora of books from experts as well as pseudoscientists and flat-out nutjobs, NO ONE actually has a manual for it.

A good part of the problems of children suffering in our various societies has more to do with external pressures and social constructs than with a parent's individual, first-hand, in-the-moment experiences with their own children.

There ARE times and there WILL BE many more times that even the most pacifist parents might lose patience and give a whack on the thigh or bottom, or grab an arm with undue force.

I think the real conflict here is less our differing views on spanking and more our struggle with "what to forbid" vs. a compassionate understanding that no parent is going to be the perfect paragon of their own ideals (much less anyone else's), that parenting is stressful, that parents are at the mercy of social pressures as well as personal factors that no one can fully know or predict.

We don't want to excuse abuse, but we also don't want to punish parents for being human. There is no perfect ideal for parenting. It's a crazy, unpredictable endeavor and no two families or children are alike, much less homogeneous across a society.

I guess I would say let's first be kind to kids AND parents, and continue the conversation.

Thanks, Hylidae. I think that anyone who has raised kids - especially those who have raised seriously strong-headed world-conquering kids - knows that it's all a sort of desperate on-the-fly experimentation more often than not. We try our best to do the right thing according to our individual conscience and judgement, and hope to hell we do a better job than our parents did.

I've seen both extremes in grocery stores, and probably everyone else has too - or will in time. On the one hand, we have the abusive asshole parent who smacks their kid on the head, yells, backhands them, or otherwise acts like an overgrown bully. On the other hand, we have the reverse situation, where the child is the bully: wreaking havoc throughout the store while his hapless parent trails along bleating ineffectually "no, honey, put that down!" In my opinion, both extremes are abusive and harmful.

 

[Davka]

Ya think? They can say it until they turn blue, but I asked for evidence that hitting children actually does any good and I'm not getting it.

I think the question should be can anyone show evidence that hitting children actually does any good FOR THE CHILD? Every "rationalization" I've seen benefits the parent, not the child. By stopping a behavior that is annoying or unruly to the parent. Or not adhering to the parents wishes or wants. I'm not seeing any examples of benefits to the CHILD.

How many kids have you raised?

When you're running as fast as you can just to stay in place, anything that makes your life easier benefits both you and your kids. In other words, "if Mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy."

So yeah, those benefits to the parents ARE benefits to the kids.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

tell you what, i'll totally back down and admit i was wrong and defer to all of you violence advocates

No, you won't. You'll deliberately use loaded, bigoted, closed-minded phrases like "violence advocates" and refuse to open your mind even the tiniest amount to the possibility that thoughtful, loving spanking might be neutral at worst. The above pretense at rational thought is no different from starting a post on racism with "i'll totally back down and admit i was wrong and defer to all of you Nigger-lovers . . . "

You are welcome to try again. But unless and until you are willing to admit (even if just for the sake of argument) that there is a difference between spanking and child abuse, you will not be attempting conversation, debate, or even understanding. You will merely be spouting your own opinion, just like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity aren't debating politics, they're simply parroting the party line.

I had to stop at around page 4 due to lack of time. Please forgive if I'm recovering ground. The only difference between the sort of spanking you're talking about, planned, measured, predetermined, is the intentions of the parent. The intention may be good, as I believe it is in many cases. Certainly yours.

It's still violence that achieves co-operation through fear of a consequence that has nothing to do with the original misdemeanour. It's still teaching kids that it's OK for SOME people to use violence, and that the aim of living is to be one of the people with the upper hand. If it's done "lovingly" it connects violence with affection in a young brain that is operating almost soley on observation and connections observed.

What it's not teaching is the other ways of dealing with difficult human beings. Or that one explores many options, and puts in a lot of effort, before resorting to violence.

In supermarket meltdowns you put the child under your arm and walk out, leaving the trolley where it is. When the things they want aren't in the house they know why that is, and if the whole family has to have a very simple dinner, that's just what happens. It's logical that you weren't able to finish shopping while other people were being inconvenienced by the yelling and the screaming and the kicking. (and you make sure dinner that night is carrots, and that the kid who caused it doesn't get a piece of chicken because there weren't enough pieces and there is no reason why someone else should miss out) It's a bit of effort, applying logical consequences, but bringing up a child takes effort and it is rewarded by rational, and early modification of bad behaviour. Children stop using meltdowns as attention seeking when they don't get attention, and are disadvantaged by their actions.

You won't often get supermarket meltdowns with a kid who has received logical consequences for their actions from day 1. They get better outcomes from being co-operative and helpful, if you're doing it right.

 

[Davka]

Come on, hylidae - there is ZERO evidence, because this subject has never been honestly studied. I've said this many times already. You wouldn't trust a study on abortion that used the phrase "baby killer" to refer to abortionists, would you? Why should anyone seeking an honest study on spanking read anything that contains similarly loaded phrases?

Every study I've ever read that supposedly addresses spanking actually addresses child abuse, and - like every kneejerk "spanking is ebil" extremist on this thread - refuses to allow the difference.

Thank you. I asked Emily and I'll ask you, too. What is the maximum level of corporal punishment a parent should adhere to in order to ensure the known risks are avoided?

I don't think there's such a thing as a "level of punishment" that's acceptable. Punishment is all about the old eye-for-an-eye system of vengeance. It's the root cause of child abuse.

I'm convinced that the difference is essential to understanding and studying this issue. Ideally, such studies would be done dispassionately, in a lab, but that would itself be a form of cruelty. So all we have to go by at this point is the fairly obvious fact that "punishment" is bad for kids.

I don't think it's the act of delivering a swat to a child's bottom which causes damage, I believe it is the spirit in which it is done. Far too many parents derive satisfaction from exacting vengeance. In fact, I'm certain that a spiteful, bullying parent - who never raised a hand against their child but instead used words to bully them with - would do serious and irreparable harm, while a loving parent who used spanking to teach would do none.

 

[RavenSky]

Now we know that spanking causes damage to the brain and nervous system and sets up children for lives of psychological and emotional suffering.

Source?

I've seen studies which show that physical abuse does this. But equating spanking with abuse is like equating a bb-gun with a howitzer, or pot-heads with meth-heads. The biggest problem I see with spanking (and with conversations about spanking) is that nobody bothers to define terms. So we end up with statements like 'all spanking is abuse," which are about as helpful and thoughtful as statements like "all sexual intercourse is rape."

This kind of black-and-white moralizing has two very detrimental effects. First, it discourages thoughtful, nuanced conversation on the subject. Secondly, and most damaging, it allows sadistic abusive assholes to simply dismiss all objections to corporal punishment as extremist, pointless ranting. So the abusers go right on beating children with switches, belts, and fists, secure in their conviction that "it's just a spanking."

If the anti-spanking crowd wants their voice heard. they're going to need to acknowledge that some forms of loving and self-aware corporal punishment might, at the very least, do no lasting harm. Otherwise these conversations end up being about as productive as having a YEC-ist plug his ears and chant "la la la I can't hear you!" in a scientific discussion about the age and scope of the Universe.

I am happy to help on defining the terms. You are correct. Not ALL spanking is abuse. Spanking between two consenting adults would not be abuse.

Everything else is.

 

[Toni]

Ya think? They can say it until they turn blue, but I asked for evidence that hitting children actually does any good and I'm not getting it.

I think the question should be can anyone show evidence that hitting children actually does any good FOR THE CHILD? Every "rationalization" I've seen benefits the parent, not the child. By stopping a behavior that is annoying or unruly to the parent. Or not adhering to the parents wishes or wants. I'm not seeing any examples of benefits to the CHILD.

The example above in my (far too long) post: My kid, at age 2, dashed into a parking lot adjacent to the playground where he and a group of other kids were playing, with parents nearby, chatting, watching. He was some small distance from me, walking along with his friend when a ball from some other children playing rolled into the parking lot. My kid followed the ball. I dashed to pull him out of the parking lot, which was adjacent to the sidewalk bordering the playground, and filled with cars, including one vehicle which was being driven into the parking lot where the ball rolled. I scooped him up and gave him a quick couple of swats on his bottom and sternly told him to NEVER go into the parking lot without holding an adult hand again. It was pure reflex on my part: dashing, swatting on the butt, no actual thought process involved. After he had to stick quite close to me.....for the rest of the hour before we went in for the normal bedtime routine of bath, story, tuck in and cuddles, etc.

He never did dash into the parking lot or street again. Now, I wish I had had the presence of mind to not smack my kid on the butt at the time, but I didn't have and I did smack his butt and he never again dashed into the parking lot or street. Was it because of the smack on the butt? Was it because of my stern, obviously upset voice? Was I just lucky? I don't know and neither does anyone else. I am certain that there are others who could have accomplished the same result without swatting bottoms. I am certain I could have if I had not acted out of pure reflex.

My kid certainly continued playing in the same playground, with the same kids and with the same chatting, watching, also playing parents and yes, most of the time, he was beyond my physical reach. ALL of the parents on the playground that day were especially vigilant for a bit but I would lie if I pretended we didn't also relax our vigilance after a while. Because we were all human.

I don't think smacking or hitting is a good form of discipline or punishment. I also don't think that people should be crucified if they are imperfect in their child rearing practices.

 

[Davka]

You won't often get supermarket meltdowns with a kid who has received logical consequences for their actions from day 1. They get better outcomes from being co-operative and helpful, if you're doing it right.

Our kids never melted down in public more than once. After that, they were cooperative and helpful.

Perhaps we did something right.

 

[RavenSky]

Hitting a child ...

It's like watching a roomful of adolescent males lose all capacity for reason when a pretty girl walks in. Are none of you capable of rational discussion on this issue, while avoiding basic logical fallacies?

And you wonder why you are getting such a hostile reaction in this thread? For all your claims of wanting to have a rational discussion on this topic, you are the person who just went all nasty emotional nasty right there.

Yes, spanking is a form of hitting. I am sorry if that fact bothers you. As someone upthread noted, perhaps that is due to your own unresolved guilt at spanking your own children. That's on you, though, because most of us here are not judging you for that. Most of us here have made the mistake of spanking our children, even if only once or twice. It is what we were taught, and what society used to say was acceptable.

Many of us discovered on our own, or intuitively realized, what research and international experience now supports - whatever you want to call it, spanking is ineffective and harmful.

At the very very very minimum, it is ineffective. So, if we know it is ineffective, why on earth would a parent want to hit their child that they purport to love?

 

[spikepipsqueak]

Thank you. I asked Emily and I'll ask you, too. What is the maximum level of corporal punishment a parent should adhere to in order to ensure the known risks are avoided?

I don't think there's such a thing as a "level of punishment" that's acceptable. Punishment is all about the old eye-for-an-eye system of vengeance. It's the root cause of child abuse.

I'm convinced that the difference is essential to understanding and studying this issue. Ideally, such studies would be done dispassionately, in a lab, but that would itself be a form of cruelty. So all we have to go by at this point is the fairly obvious fact that "punishment" is bad for kids.

I don't think it's the act of delivering a swat to a child's bottom which causes damage, I believe it is the spirit in which it is done. Far too many parents derive satisfaction from exacting vengeance. In fact, I'm certain that a spiteful, bullying parent - who never raised a hand against their child but instead used words to bully them with - would do serious and irreparable harm, while a loving parent who used spanking to teach would do none.

I've just been in my old notes looking for references for the studies you seek, but can't find the developmental stuff. The fact is, that the studies have been done. They are done longitudinally, observationally and without spanking any children in labs.

I agree with your last sentence with the caveat that the last word should be "less".

 

[RavenSky]

Davka, I did not address my post to you, nor was I passing judgement on you...

I didn't claim otherwise.

My primary focus in this thread has been pointing out the logical fallacies employed by many people here. The use of loaded terms such as "hitting" (or beating, bashing, abusing, and other choice words used in this thread) amounts to begging the question: the assumption that all physical discipline is abuse is contained in the choice of words. Neutral language evokes discussion and thought.

Spanking is defined as a strike or a slap, which are in turn defined as hitting. There is nothing whatsoever "loaded" about equating "spanking" with "hitting" because that is exactly what it is.

 

[Angry Floof]

I didn't claim otherwise.

My primary focus in this thread has been pointing out the logical fallacies employed by many people here. The use of loaded terms such as "hitting" (or beating, bashing, abusing, and other choice words used in this thread) amounts to begging the question: the assumption that all physical discipline is abuse is contained in the choice of words. Neutral language evokes discussion and thought.

Spanking is defined as a strike or a slap, which are in turn defined as hitting. There is nothing whatsoever "loaded" about equating "spanking" with "hitting" because that is exactly what it is.

Yeah, "hitting" is a loaded term and "spanking" is not at all a euphemism for hitting.

spank
spaNGk
verb
1.
slap with one's open hand or a flat object, especially on the buttocks as a punishment.

So we could reasonably use "slap" instead of "hit" but I don't think that would make a difference to someone looking for loaded words.

 

[RavenSky]

I think the question should be can anyone show evidence that hitting children actually does any good FOR THE CHILD? Every "rationalization" I've seen benefits the parent, not the child. By stopping a behavior that is annoying or unruly to the parent. Or not adhering to the parents wishes or wants. I'm not seeing any examples of benefits to the CHILD.

How many kids have you raised?

When you're running as fast as you can just to stay in place, anything that makes your life easier benefits both you and your kids. In other words, "if Mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy."

So yeah, those benefits to the parents ARE benefits to the kids.

way more than you have, I'd wager

 

[Angry Floof]

Thank you. I asked Emily and I'll ask you, too. What is the maximum level of corporal punishment a parent should adhere to in order to ensure the known risks are avoided?

I don't think there's such a thing as a "level of punishment" that's acceptable. Punishment is all about the old eye-for-an-eye system of vengeance. It's the root cause of child abuse.

I'm convinced that the difference is essential to understanding and studying this issue. Ideally, such studies would be done dispassionately, in a lab, but that would itself be a form of cruelty. So all we have to go by at this point is the fairly obvious fact that "punishment" is bad for kids.

I don't think it's the act of delivering a swat to a child's bottom which causes damage, I believe it is the spirit in which it is done. Far too many parents derive satisfaction from exacting vengeance. In fact, I'm certain that a spiteful, bullying parent - who never raised a hand against their child but instead used words to bully them with - would do serious and irreparable harm, while a loving parent who used spanking to teach would do none.

How many children or instances of spanking and verbal bullying does this apply to? There are always exceptions. That's why the word "risk" is used - not every child will suffer throughout life for getting a spanking, but spanking (which is also referred to by no less neutral terms as hitting, striking) does cause trauma to the nervous system and increases the risk of life-long suffering. I already posted the link to an article that referenced no less than four studies.

My daughter only had one major meltdown in toddlerhood, too. It was in a department store and I ignored her until she felt stupid laying there getting no response and got up and quietly followed after that. Not one word or movement from me.

What does that prove that is relevant to this thread? Not a goddamn thing.

 

[Toni]

You won't often get supermarket meltdowns with a kid who has received logical consequences for their actions from day 1. They get better outcomes from being co-operative and helpful, if you're doing it right.

Our kids never melted down in public more than once. After that, they were cooperative and helpful.

Perhaps we did something right.

Only one of my kids had a public meltdown which did not require striking him in any manner in order to calm him down. There were no more melt downs from him or any of his younger siblings who had yet to be born when my oldest had his melt down. Actually, I didn't punish him or 'discipline' him, either.

Maybe I did something right, even if I didn't hit him.

 

[Nira]

At a very low age, and before the ability to reason there is really no use in using violence is it? I don't see the need for violence at any age frankly, there are better alternatives and I would advocate showing in practice respect for all individuals including your children. It's a good lesson for the children to learn.

I have found this book very good, also for children without difficulties:

http://smile.amazon.com/The-Explosi...go_smi?_encoding=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0

and I have also used the books of Jesper Juul :

http://www.amazon.com/Your-Competent-Child-Toward-Values/dp/0374527334

It's in no way lenient parenting, you really have to work at it and be involved, but it works (better) without violence.

 

[Nira]

You haven't looked very hard. You can get any textbook on child development and find what you seek. What you won't find is any positive justification for spanking as a discipline tool. (admit it, that is what you really want)

Funny, the place I learned the difference between spanking and child abuse was a child development book. Not a textbook, but that's hardly relevant, as anyone remotely associated with the selection process for textbooks can tell you.

I don't need a textbook to tell me that spanking works. I also don't need some stranger on the Internet to tell me what I think, or what I "really want."

Ofcourse it works. Any action have a reaction. People would not spank if it did not have an effect. Sometimes it achieves an objective, sometimes it counterproductive but when you have no other means you usually just do more of what does not work. In other words it's more a reflection on the parent than the child.

The question then is twofold. What are the consequences, and is it the best way to achieve the desired result.

You say that your child have responded the way you want from spanking. You don't want tantrums, you have achieved that goal. What other things did the child learn other than not having tantrums in malls, and is there no better way than spanking to achieve this?

There have been research on spanking, and there are no "large" consequences. There are not a larger percentage of children that have been spanked by otherwise loving parents that does not function well. The parenting style that produces the worst outcome (outside of large scale abuse) is neglecting a child. An involved parent gets better results, even if spanking is a part of the raising.

That does not mean it's the best way and it certainly does not mean that there are not other lessons the child learns by being spanked that it incorporate in it's understanding of the world.

In Norway spanking is against the law in all forms, I'm glad that this is the case.