quote: I'd be careful with statements like this. You can't absolutely guarantee that mommy will NEVER have a reason to hit him as there may come a time where he truly needs a spanking to get his attention (i.e. naked butts out of the tub as posted earlier). Maybe instead you'd say something like "Mommy would never hurt you on purpose without a really really good reason, and even then she wouldn't want to do it."
I guess I am having a hard time wrapping my brain around this. I don't view spanking as EVER being neccesary. I think there is ALWAYS an alternative to it. I was never spanked as a child, not once, and my kids have never been spanked. I'm not trying to tick anyone off, I am trying to figure this out.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
My mom hit me with her slipper.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Do I believe that spankings are absolutely necessary for good discipline? No.
Do I believe that spankings are inherently evil and teach your children to hit other kids, and will give them developmental problems? No.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Could be that you've just never had a situation come up where there wasn't another option. The last time I spanked my daughter was for leaning over a half-wall located in the loft of our old house. There was an approximate 12 foot drop to the floor below. We'd talked, done timeouts, taken away toys, etc. Finally I decided that keeping her brains in her head was worth spanking her. Never had a problem after that.
space opera
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
My kids have gone through a phase of being spanked to learn what happens if I count to five. After that counting to five works 99% of the time. I grew up without spanking, but with excoriating verbal assaults. I can't say I was happier with that. With 10 kids, someone always seemed to be getting one. If you spank a child, that child is punished. If you cuss out a child, all the children are somewhat punished.
Yeah, I know there are other roads. But the slogan "use you words and not your hands" gives me chills- the bad kind.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Spanking on the rare occasion really drives the point home that this is serious. Gets their attention in a way that they don't forget.
msquared
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Kids and circumstances are different. My oldest child virtually never needed a spanking, I'm not sure she ever got one.
The middle child, more so. The youngest girl - like the oldest practically never. The boy - much more often.
I reserve spankings for the severest of circumstances, and they are to me - a jolt used to get a child's attention. It's for life and death (like running toward a busy street) or it's for willful defiance that cannot be tolerated.
Spanking is never the end-all for us either - it's the attention getter, the "Hey - this is serious business" which is then followed by the corrective discipline. Spankings should never hurt the child, but rather shock the child into paying attention. "Wow, mommy must really mean this - it's probably important." I don't condone spanking that leaves marks.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
See, that's why I spank for attention in dangerous situations. It's not a discipline thing, really. Or maybe it is a bit. But breaking something doesn't do permanent damage to anyone, and can be dealt with in a timely manner, as part of a we-don't-break-things lesson. But there's no chance to teach your child about traffic safety lovingly, and over time, after they run out in a road. I encourage my kids to stay away from the road, but if they insist on running towards it, a spanking keeps them from dying. Then you still have a child left to teach about the dangers of running into the road.
I almost never have to use it, because when very seldom used it's powerful enough that just a reminder of impending spankings will keep my kids from beating on each other.
edit: I'm posting too slow today.
[ September 30, 2004, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
If done, it shouldn't ever be done in anger, or while you're angry. Only in love, and for the reasons of compassion and the safety of the child.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
quote: If done, it shouldn't ever be done in anger, or while you're angry
*sigh*
I think that's the only way I got hit in my teenage years.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
In Utah if it leaves a mark it's a beating and not a spanking. So is hitting with anything other than the hand, on any body part except the rear/upper thigh. There was an issue where children with Mongolian spots kept getting taken away from their parents because it looked like a bruise from spanking.
Some medicines like children's Advil let kids bruise easier too, though one would hope a kid needing advil wouldn't be held to a spanking.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
In our family, the one doing the spanking is never the one who decided it needed doing. That makes sure the it is done with out the passion of anger.
msquared
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
msquared, I sure wish that has been the case in my childhood... my parents went well beyond mere spanking.
I avoid it when possible as a result of that, but as others said, there are absolutely times when non-contact methods don't sink into a child's head and it takes something more immediate to make the child realize that Mom is really truly serious about whatever they're being spanked for. Usually after the third.. or fourth... or fifth.... episode of a repeated inappropriate behavior, sometimes it's a more emergent situation like lack of attention to traffic, etc.
Goody
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
In our family, my parents say they used to spank me and one of my sisters, for a little while, then decided it wasn't the best way. I don't remember ever being spanked. I do remember one of my sisters being spanked. Mostly, our parents saved it for SERIOUS things. I remember...4 spankings of siblings total. It was REALLY rare
Sadly, our parents did far worse than merely spanking us. They had the horrible and sadistic punishment of making us sit in a room together after an argument and come to a mutally acceptable solution. It was EVIL, cause if the other one was really mad at you, they could punish you by refusing to talk to you, which would have the result of forcing you to stay there until they got sick of it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:My oldest child virtually never needed a spanking, I'm not sure she ever got one.
The middle child, more so. The youngest girl - like the oldest practically never. The boy - much more often.
This bothered me, and I just figured out why. It's because the responsibility is placed on the kids - two "never needed" spanking, while the other two did. That's putting the decision and blame for the spanking onto the kids - in one case a 4 year old.
[ September 30, 2004, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
Spankings?
I was a child that needed to be spanked, though I didn't like it very much at the time.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
kat, it shouldn't bother you because different kids need different levels of discipline for different things.
Natalie could be told "don't go near the street" and she wouldn't do it. Daniel, will do it to test me because he has a defiant personality.
What would bother me is believing that each child can and should be treated the same. Parents should use the disciplinary method that works best for that child in that situation. I use what I think is necessary, and it's not a question of one child is better than the other - kids have distinct personalities.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It does. You have mentioned before that your oldest is both more compliant, more eager to please, and more academically gifted than the middle one. You are blaming the kids for the method of punishment and correction you chose. They choose their behavior (to varying degrees, being kids), but you choose the method of punishment.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I used to get hit with a belt, but I don't think I needed it.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
So, Kat, you are saying that parents should NEVER tailor their discipline and instruction of their kids to what the kids need because that is de facto abdicating responsibility for their discipline.
I think that's a terribly tenuous line of reasoning.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm saying a mother shouldn't blame her kids for making her hurt them.
Edit: for pronouns
[ September 30, 2004, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
and you have yet to demonstrate how Belle is doing that.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So it is better to spank everyone everytime someone does something?
Spanking isn't the ideal, by any means. We decided to go with spanking because that was how my husband was raised and his parents seem a little saner than mine. But I use timeouts a lot as well. My husband was dubious at first, but for most things they work.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
When properly administered a spanking doesn't hurt. I don't think it's "blaming the child for making you hurt them" when a parent recognizes that in a particular case the only way the child will understand the severity of what they've done is through a spanking.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The method of discipline used is a choice. Kids need discipline, but they don't "need" spanking. They need food, but they don't "need" zwieback crackers. The need is general; the method of satisfying that need is specific and the caregiver's choice.
Of course spankings hurt - that's the point. Delivering that hurt is considered an acceptable trade off for the benefits of it, but declaring that one child needs to be hurt more than another is disturbing.
[ September 30, 2004, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I agree with Belle that children should be treated fairly, and that that does not mean eaqually, necesarily. I think every child should get what he or she needs.
I just don't think that is EVER a spanking.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I'm saying a mother shouldn't blame her kids for making her hurt them.
That's yummy bait, kat but I'm not biting.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
If Belle changed it to 'I needed to spank one more than others' instead of 'One needed more spanking', would that be satisfactory?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The attitude of blaming the child for you having to hurt them isn't about spanking. It could be used with timeouts, taking away toys, all that other stuff. And I'm afraid it's probably fairly common. "Why do you make mommy have to punish you" is screwy no matter what the actual punishment is. It arises from a parent wanting their child's approval, even in the act of punishing them. "The fact that I'm punishing you doesn't change that I am a nice person." I'm not getting that from Belle.
When I punish, it's a sign "this behavior won't be tolerated". Then, after a few minutes, I hug them and let them know I still love them. The behavior is what is bad.
I've had a slow potty trainer, and several people have recommended cold showers as the solution. That, to me, seems cruel and unusual.
Kat, my punishing you doesn't make me not a nice person: Back off.
[ September 30, 2004, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Saying my statement is bait is just another way of blaming your method of handling things on the other person. Own your reactions, Belle.
----
Actually, "I needed to spank her" IS better than "She needed to be spanked." The need is the caregiver's, then.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
In Africa they frequently whip children with specially designed whips that are also used on donkeys.
A shame they don't sell them here.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
And I knew someone who spanked their slow potty trainer, which I think is completely inappropriate.
You know something everybody - I am not going to come back into this thread.
I am content that the disciplinary methods my husband and I use are both solidly grounded biblically and are to our childrens' benefit. And results speak for themselves, I think. I have only to look to my kids who are well behaved in public, spirited and fun-loving at home, no afraid to speak their minds, and on top of all that, they're beautiful and talented and just plain wonderful.
Have a nice afternoon everyone. Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
Child abuse is child abuse.
Posted by Richard Gere (Member # 6534) on :
You spank children? Why should they have all the fun?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
edit out unhelpful comment
[ September 30, 2004, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I've seen Adrian interact with her children.
I've worked with parents on good parenting skills.
Adrian has good parenting skills. She would never choose to do harm to her child. You DO tailer discipline to each child. This means all the kids have the same set of rules to follow. You have a toolkit of disciplinary steps that you follow as well. A ladder method, if you will. One kid will stop after being told once, "Don't run into the street."
Another kid might need to be told several times. If that doesn't work, time outs. If that doesn't work, etc.
I'm guessing that the spanking is the very last resort. Meaning, that one kid tested and tested and tested and finally that disciplinary method was chosen by the parent. Not for want of harming their kid or that the kid is the only one who needs to be spanked. Instead, the kid is the only kid to exhaust all the other methods of discipline and really can't run out into the street.
What Adrian describes is not child abuse. DCYF wouldn't even blink at it.
Child abuse is psychological harm, emotional harm, neglect, and physical HARM.
As in, you leave marks. As in, there's things involved other than an open hand. As in, it's done in hot, harsh anger or cold, calculated malice.
The spankings don't fly out of nowhere. A kid KNOWS the rules and CHOOSES to break them. Repeatedly.
I admit I don't advocate spanking, but I won't let Adrian be accused of harming her children, either.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
kat, you're wrong on this one.
If a parent gives children different punishments for the same behavior, then you might have a point. But if there is a policy of the same punishment for the same behavior, and some of the children behave that way while others don't, then it is the children, not the parents, who are in essence "choosing" the level of hurt.
In fact, choosing a method of punishment that does not assign significantly more serious punishments for significantly more serious misbehaviors, simply because one knows that only one or some of the children will ever misbehave enough to merit the more serious punishment, would be a very bad, and indeed a patently unjust and, in the long run, ineffective, parenting strategy.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I could be wrong, but I didn’t see kat saying that parents shouldn’t take differences into account when disciplining children. Nor did I see her saying that spankings = child abuse.
All I saw was an objection to saying that a child “needs” a spanking, as opposed to saying that the parent has chosen spanking as a form of discipline.
[ September 30, 2004, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by GradStudent (Member # 5088) on :
I was spanked once when I was 3. My father spanked me for touching a soldering iron that he was using.
I turned to him shocked and said, "That hurt." I think it blew my mind that my dad would intentionally hurt me.
And he just started laughing at my shock.
I'm 25, and I haven't touched a soldering iron since.
[ September 30, 2004, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: GradStudent ]
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
dkw,
kat said the following: "This bothered me, and I just figured out why. It's because the responsibility is placed on the kids - two "never needed" spanking, while the other two did. That's putting the decision and blame for the spanking onto the kids - in one case a 4 year old."
Whether the parents have chosen spanking as one of their more serious punishments or not, it is often true that some of the children will "never need" such punishment, and others will. This is not a fault with the parents. It is a reflection of the reality of childrens', even siblings', different personalities and reactions to rules.
The question whether spanking is appropriate at all, which is also at issue here, is an entirely separate question.
Posted by peterh (Member # 5208) on :
...What mack said...
I don't personally believe that spanking is ever a reasonable punishment. I don't think it's worth getting peoples dander all ruffled over.
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
Here is an article, by a counselor, that speaks to Christianity and spanking:
I strongly beleive that if you decide NOT to spank, you will never "need" to, KWIM? If it's not an option you will always find another solution. If my child does not get "Don't run into the street", I don't let them out of the front door or car without a holding their hand firmly.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I have to say one major drawback of a spank is that I am much less likely to do it in public. But then, doing a time out in public is also tricky.
So when you see someone in the story with the child being a monster, what do you think to yourself that they really ought to do?
quote:You might say that a spank on the bottom is hardly the same as a sword on the ear." In one sense, no, but in another, violence is violence, regardless of degree, just as sin, whether venial or mortal, is offensive to God.
O_o I don't know the doctrines on venial and mortal. So I'm not sure if I can understand what he's trying to say here.
[ September 30, 2004, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
What do you do when your child breaks free from your firm grip and runs into the street? Kids can be pretty strong and a firm grip when they're pulling can be more damaging than spanking.
I just don't see that method as working. I'm not saying spanking is the only way, but ...
I'm curious, what methods really WOULD work? See, I don't have children yet and I like to collect various methods other people have for future use.
-Katarain
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I am very glad to see Mack's opinion on this.
-----
quote: Kids need discipline, but they don't "need" spanking.
It's been said, but I'll try to say it again in a different way. If a spanking is the only thing that works for your child, then your child needs a spanking. That is, if every other method you can think of doesn't work, then you have to try the thing that works.
I'll apply it to the food analogy. Your kid needs food, and not zweiback crackers, unless they've eaten everything else and are still hungry. Then they need zweiback crackers, because that's all that's left to give and is the only thing that might satiate their hunger.
I'm kind of nauseated by the implication of this analogy though; it sounds like I'm saying a kid is hungry for spankings. *shudder*
----
quote: In one sense, no, but in another, violence is violence, regardless of degree, just as sin, whether venial or mortal, is offensive to God.
So taking your child's toy away when they throw it...is that stealing?
Putting your child in the corner...is that kidnapping? Or imprisonment?
Giving your child a firm talking to that makes them cry...is that verbal abuse?
You need to understand that violence and discipline are not the same thing. Sometimes an action is needed to encourage good habits in your child and discourage bad ones. When you choose to discipline your child, you are not choosing violence; you are choosing to do the thing necessary to help them grow. If you can't see the difference, that's a problem.
Giving a kid a cupcake as a reward sounds nice, right? But what about the sugar and fat content? Is it a cruel and harmful thing to feed your child something that's bad for them? Intent matters. Application matters. End results matter. It's not all about This moment, This action, Right now.
[ September 30, 2004, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I was reading the American Academy of Pediatrics site. They say timeouts should be the last resort of punishment, which is only a small part of discipline. I agree with the latter at any rate.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I'd love to see a graph of that could show trends in approaches to the death penalty, spanking, the penal system, and the prosecution of the War on Terror, I wouldn't mind throwing gun-ownership, level of education, taxes, welfare, and religious affliliation along side, just to see. I actually don't know what a graph would look like, but I do think that there would be some interesting correlations, and I am genuinely curious.
[ September 30, 2004, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm sure we could make one up to suit whatever one believes As spanking has lost public support, autism has been exploding. That must be the real cause! [/sarcasm]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I think I've written this before here, but I was never "spanked" in the methodical "I'm going to give you a spanking" meaning of the word.
Maybe twice or three times in my childhood, on occaisions when I had really crossed the line when my mother was having a bad day and my behavior was completely unresponsive to that, I have been "slapped" or "struck", only once at a time. Where, I don't remember- it is more the psycological aftermath that the actual event that I am recalling. I'm faily sure that it was my cheekm though, and I'm positive it was never my behind. Afterwards I was almost always sent to have a bath or go to bed (usually the evening). In all three or two cases the slap was followed by an apology and an explanation, after I had had some time to think on my actions.
I don't believe I ever had a bruise- it wasn't the pain, it was the action. It was the sign that I'd gone too far.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Look, I'm just curious. Maybe Scopatz could design a study that would eliminate troublesome variables, but even though I have a natural aversion to stats and polls, I wouldn't mind seeing a fair one laying all of these issues down.
The questions would have to worded especially cleverly, though.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
IOF wrote:
quote: I'd love to see a graph of that could show trends in approaches to the death penalty, spanking, the penal system, and the prosecution of the War on Terror, I wouldn't mind throwing gun-ownership, level of education, taxes, welfare, and religious affliliation along side, just to see. I actually don't know what a graph would look like, but I do think that there would be some interesting correlations, and I am genuinely curious.
Oh, you mean of Hatrackers? I think this has been falling more along the lines of who has children and who doesn't with very few exceptions.
What kind of troublesome variables would there be in an anecdotal and voluntary survey of hatrackers?
[ September 30, 2004, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
While spanking is not the worst method of punishment, it most situations it is not a good thing. I think it can make sense if you are using it to drive home a point that has a huge impact on the safety of a child. For example (as mentioned in previous posts), running in the street. A child may not understand the implications of the dangers involved in running in the street...but they do understand getting spanked for it. Of course no spanking should ever leave a mark...and nothing other than an open hand should be used. Parents should also be careful to not spank in anger...this can lead to injury. Of course there are many who would not agree with me that spanking is OK even in that situation, and I do understand their views...I just feel that in some cases it can be used properly.
Really, with any sort of punishment, a person has to be careful in how much it is used. Whether it is grounding, spanking, timeouts, or what ever else you use...to many punishments can have a very bad impact on the child, and their relationship to the parent. Often the punisher can become an aversive stimulus...so rather than the child learning not to do a certain behavior, the child learns to stay away from the punisher...or to withdraw when they are around the punisher.
Reinforcement is a MUCH better way of adjusting behavior. Instead of punishing bad behavior, reward good behavior. Overall, in both children and adults (and non human animals for that matter) reinforcement is a much more powerful tool for shaping behavior over the long term that punishment.
The punishment a parent should NEVER use no matter what the child does is "withdrawal of love." As absurd as it seems, some parents will tell their children that if they don't behave then they won't love them anymore. This form of abuse can have disastrous effects on a child and should never be used no matter what the situation.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Thank, dk.
I meant just what I said, and neither more nor less - kids need discipline, but they don't need a specific form, especially when that form hurts. The method chosen is the parents' decision and therefore their responsibility.
[ September 30, 2004, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
If that were the extent of your argument, I would have to agree. And if you say now that that really is all you mean to say, then again, I agree.
On spanking as an absolute, my position is that it is not always wrong to spank, but there are always better alternatives to spanking.
Unfortunately, in practice, it is sometimes hard to think of the better alternative in the moment you are faced with the behavior. It takes quite a degree of planning and agreement between the parents beforehand, and even then there will be situations you didn't foresee, and you will have to make a snap judgment as to whether to spank.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
What is a time-out, in this context?
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
It's along the lines of having a child sit in the corner, or sending them to their room. Every parent does it a little differently.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:On spanking as an absolute, my position is that it is not always wrong to spank, but there are always better alternatives to spanking.
Unfortunately, in practice, it is sometimes hard to think of the better alternative in the moment you are faced with the behavior.
It does seem like it is subject to a cost/benefit analysis. It hurts, and not just physically, but the effects of not spanking when nothing else is working could hurt worse, sometimes in the short term and sometimes in the long term.
I just don't like the idea that any kid would need the spanking. They would need to be taught in the long term against whatever they are doing if it will hurt them more, and in the short term they may need to be prevented by whatever acceptable means necessary from running out into the street, but they don't actually need the spanking itself.
It's like the cod liver oil people used to take religiously because they thought they needed it - it's mixing a method with an end, and I still don't like placing the responsibility for the discipline method chosen on the kid.
[ September 30, 2004, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Another trouble with time outs is if the child is defiant, the AAP recommends adding another time out. Umm, how long does that go on? A problem I've had with time outs is that the child gets more defiant if they sense you are in a hurry. P.S. Please keep this in mind before you judge people who arrive late to church.
And the AAP definition of time out is no chair. No bathrooms, no bedrooms. I've read other places that the child should be in an out of the way, non-distracting place, but where they can still be monitored. They are big on telling people what not to do. Especially when they are encouraging us to model and teach rather than punish.
[ September 30, 2004, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Kat and DKW,
The problem here is that Kat just jumped on a word choice and raked Belle over the coals for it, stating openly that Belle was refusing to take responsibility for her choices in discipline. That's rude, presumptive, and, most importantly, criticizing someone while making every possible attempt to misunderstand.
Belle's statement was fairly obivous in it's meaning: one of her kids pushed his limits more than the others and responded less to lesser forms of discipline so she shifted her discipline style with him consciously and accordingly. There was a pretty strong willful misreading, not just of someone else's post, but of someone else's parenting style involved here... and that's below the belt.
Edited for spelling and grammar.
[ September 30, 2004, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
It's not a matter of needing a spanking, per se. Instead, the parents will, ideally, sit down and decide, over a period of time, on how they will approach discipline problems, and the kinds of discpline that they will use for specific behavior issues. Just for argument's sake, let's say they have five discipline levels, numbered 1-5. Let's say they decide that spanking is number 4.
Then, when one of their children does something that they have agreed merits a level 4 response, that child gets a spanking. They may not need a spanking in particular, but they DO need a level 4 response, and that happens to be what it consists of in this family.
And it is absolutely NOT a matter of placing the responsibility for the discipline method chosen on the kid. The parents are fully responsible for that. But the kid is fully responsible for his level 4 action, and the parents, once the rule has been established, are perfectly justified in applying the level 4 punishment.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
As long as we are all repeating ourselves for the second page, I'll raise that blaming a child for their punishment is just as wrong for any form of punishment as it is for spanking.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
In my experience, with my kids, the most effective method of discipline tends to be the denial of benefits or privileges that the particular child in question is especially fond of. For my first child, this means watching sports on TV, or TV at all. For my second child, it might more often mean sweet treats. It only takes a few times of following through on the warning before the child takes it seriously, and the motivation to get whatever it is that is being denied them is powerful.
However, this doesn't work well in more heated, emotional circumstances, e.g. when the child is irrationally angry or extremely tired. In those cases, they are to some degree out of control, and cannot stop and evaluate the desirability of avoiding the loss of their favorite thing. So in those instances, something else must be used for discipline. A time out of some kind might work, but it has to be tailored to the personality of the child.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There's a very efficient rubric in my mind.
Spanking = hurt needs to be spanked more = needs to be hurt more
It's the old difference between the behavior and the person. "This child more often does things that we have agreed are punished with a spanking." is very different from "This child needs to be spanked more." It's not a casual difference - it's a huge difference, and I know kids feel it. People feel it. It isn't minor.
pooka: I agree with you - especially when the difference between punishments is because of personality. If one child is so sensitive that he'll cry if you look at him sternly, does that actually make him a better person than another one who is so self-confident and energetic that it takes considerable effort to get his attention? The second one doesn't actually "deserve" a harsher punishment. It's just that that's what works. If you say that the second deserves a harsher punishment because the look doesn't work, then you're blaming him for his personality.
[ September 30, 2004, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Thanks for that clarification, Kat. I didn't get you before, but now I do.
I agree with much of what Pooka has said here.
I had all kinds of neat and liberal ideas of what kind of parent I would be before I had kids. One of these was I would never ever spank. Unfortunately, in the real world, I ended up with kids who are, at this point in their lives, very difficult to reason with and not terribly responsive to other methods of behavior modification. Which does not mean I spank them all the time. I deal with most behaviors that need modification by rewarding correct choices, withdrawing privileges for bad choices, and time-outs. Repeated bad choices result simply in a repetition of the established consequences for those choices. There are some actions, though, that I consider crucial enough to warrant a more intense response. Most of these are actions likely to lead to my kids getting hurt. I have argued against spanking, here at Hatrack, for behaviors that weren't in this category. But that doesn't mean I think spanking is always a bad idea.
To those of you opposed to spanking, I would humbly submit, based on my own experience, that different kids respond to different approaches. Some kids never need a spanking (sorry if that choice of words aggravates you) because gentler methods of behavior modification are effective with them. But if you have a child that always responded to gentle reasoning, consider the possibility that it might not be only because you are a supremely gifted parent, but that you might also be lucky, to have gotten a child who doesn't need to challenge you as much.
I hope that those of you who think spanking is evil will refrain from coming in here and telling me I am a lousy parent because I spank, but if you do, I guess I opened myself up for it by admitting it here. My response would simply be to point to the inability each of us has to ever walk a mile in each other's shoes.
As to the issue between Belle and Kat, I am seeing it as a semantic one. I set the punishments, but my kids know what punishments are for specific actions, so if they choose to do something that results in a spanking, they have chosen to receive a spanking. This is pretty common in teaching and parenting parlance these days, to refer to things in terms of choices and consequences. It's why I say as a teacher that I never fail a student, some students choose to fail. Well, heck, that's not true. They'd like to never do their work and get an A, but that's not an option. The consequence for not doing any work is an F. You choose that route, you chose to accept the consequence of that route.
Kat, you say spanking = hurt. I think that's an important reason for the disagreement here. I don't agree. As somebody said earlier in this thread (Pooka? PSI?) time out can equal kidnapping and imprisonment, and thus, hurt. Taking a toy away = stealing = hurt. I don't think that it is self-evident that spanking = hurt. I mean, on a superficial level, sure. But do you think it is my intent to seriously hurt my children when I spank them? I hope you don't think so. Clearly, whether you agree or not, I think I am thinking of their ultimate good.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
Icarus rules.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am not universally opposed to all spanking, mostly because I can see situations (running to the street) where it is vital, and because I don't have kids and am not often around them. I don't know what I'd do.
But I do think spanking = hurt. That's the point - it hurts to be spanked. That's why it's a deterrent - pain is never fun. It may be beneficial compared to the alternative, but it does hurt. That's why the statment "this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you" is so ridiculous to the one getting the spanking - they are the ones being smacked by someone five times their size. If that sounds squicky, I don't mean to imply it is child abuse, but I think it is worth keeping in mind the difference between sizes and the imbalance of power.
Added: Tick: Agreed.
[ September 30, 2004, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Allegra (Member # 6773) on :
quote: It's the old difference between the behavior and the person. "This child more often does things that we have agreed are punished with a spanking." is very different from "This child needs to be spanked more." -Katharina
I took what Belle said as; her middle child did things that she thought required spanking more often then the other two. I think the logic was: This child does things that I think require a spanking, this child does them more then my others, so this child requires spanking more often.
Just my interpretation.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
What is the difference between responsiveness and reactiveness? I submit you can't know what is in the person's heart simply by their outward action. Yes, this applies to the parent judging the child as much as it does to the other adult judging the parent. The difference is that the child is the parent's stewardship and the parent is not the stewardship of the observer.
2 Nephi 28:8 warns against taking advantage of others because of their words, to dig a pit for our neighbors.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:It does seem like it is subject to a cost/benefit analysis. It hurts, and not just physically,
I was spanked as a child by incredibly loving parents. And every single time I was spanked, my parents would immediately give me a hug and tell me they loved me to show me it wasn't an attack out of anger to hurt me, but for my own safety and guidance.
I have no emotional scars from spanking.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
And if you are hitting your kids hard enough to cause physical hurt, then there is something wrong.
My parents did the "Go get my belt" trick with my sister and me, and that was a LOT worse than getting hit. The trip back to them, holding the belt, scared me worse than any physical harm that ever happened to me.
I think I was spanked 2 time a yerar, max...and my dad just told me that usually he just snapped the belt and made a noise, without really hitting me.
Which would always explain why my mom, who would wacth, would always laugh when i jumped and cried out... Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:And if you are hitting your kids hard enough to cause physical hurt, then there is something wrong.
Isn't the point of spanking to create a physically conditioned deterrent? Spanking is supposed to hurt - but you're not supposed to like doing it. If it hurts (a small sharp sting with a short temprary soreness was what i remember), that's normal. If you INJURE the child, well then NOW something's wrong.
[ September 30, 2004, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'm with Taalcon on that one.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Have you ever spanked a kid and he/she got up, smirking, saying "Didn't hurt"? My nephew does that.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I would say that kid is too old. I'm guessing he is over 6, and should be able to understand grounded, no allowance, no dessert etc.
I do think spanking is an easy out. It's much harder to stick with denying a kid dessert. What would rock is some Mrs. Piggle Wiggle style consequences. Sadly, she is fictional.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm going to come in on Kat's side on this one. It's a responsibility issue. Saying that a child needed to be spanked puts the responsibility on them. It's like saying "It broke." instead of "I broke it." The context that Belle presented the spanking it says "The child made me spank them." as opposed to "I choose to spank them." That's a really poor attitude to take towards spanking and even if that's not really the way Belle consciously thinks about it, some part of her had her say it that way.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Why are you guys still attacking Belle? She exited the thread.
My husband get's more speeding tickets than I do. I don't have any problem blaming him and not the cops. I guess. Maybe they secretly hate tall redheads, and like to see if they can get their blood boiling. He's also a middle child. But it's a dumb analogy, since he still speeds. That is, punishment hasn't corrected the misbehavior.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I think it's more the way we are trained to couch all parenting and teaching decisions: in terms of choices and consequences. The reasons for this are to empower children, by showing them that they do in fact have the power to avoid consequences they don't like, and also to take away the "bad child" stigma. There are no bad children, only unwise decisions. If there were bad children, there would be no way for them to improve; bad decisions, on the other hand, can be remedied. Kind of a love the sinner hate the sin thing. In general, I think this shift in emphasis is a good thing--specifically, this placing of responsibility on the child. Responsibility equals power to change things. I don't think is saying the child made her SET a given consequence, but that knowing what the consequence was, the child caused her to have to go to it.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
pooka, they need to switch to tazers.
-o-
Would you look at that: I passed 6,000.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Icky, I totally agree with the way you framed parenting punishments for the child's perspective. That's really not the way what Belle said came across to me. I read a pretty classic deflection of responsibility for a potentially agressive act. That sort of word choice is one of those things that tons of papers have been written about.
I agree from the kids point of view that they should realize that they are reponsible for their punishments, but we weren't talking about the kids perspective. From the parent's perspective, I think it's really important to own the action, to say that I am choosing to do this harmful thing because I believe it will prevent more harmful things from happening. If you loose that in the idea that the child is making you punish them, I think you run a very big risk of losing sight of what punishments are for.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
I think my mom swatted me a few times when I was a kid, mostly when she caught me doing something incredibly stupid. My dad never, to my recollection, ever hit me. All he had to do was to start unbuckling his belt, and I quit doing whatever it was that I was doing that he didn't want me to do. And I can only remember him ever doing that once or twice.
In both cases, it was an attention-getting device, rather than a "punishment". And I suspect that there are some kids, sometimes, whose attention cannot be gotten without a swat. But I've always felt that it should be a last resort, and "a" swat, not a few or several swats. More than that, and the child gets desensitized to it; it becomes nothing to them.
Then again, I don't have kids. Although people keep trying to give me theirs. Not quite sure why that is.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:What kind of troublesome variables would there be in an anecdotal and voluntary survey of hatrackers?
Too many variables, and if we were going to do it, I'd do it right. That, and I think that people would lie.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Why? People have already been candid on where they stand on the issues.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote: I'd love to see a graph of that could show trends in approaches to the death penalty, spanking, the penal system, and the prosecution of the War on Terror, I wouldn't mind throwing gun-ownership, level of education, taxes, welfare, and religious affliliation along side, just to see.
I think I suspect what your hypothesis would be, and it doesn't match me real well. I'm hardly your undereducated, fundamentalist, right-wing mut-job.
Of course maybe I'm misreading you totally.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
This is one of those issues where I don't really have a hypothesis. I'd make an awful pollster, and probably a worse speech writer. People are too complex and these issues are too independent.
Generally, I imagine that people who think that the only way to get to misbehaving kids is spanking probably think that the only way to get murders is killing them and the only way to get to criminals is jailing them and that you can't negotiate with anybody as evil as a would be terrorist and that since people are stuck the way they are, thank the Lord that there is a heaven where everything is good.
That would be my general hypothesis. It's a guess. I'm not big into regular surveys, and I have an active disdain for bad surveys, but I like a good story.
I was spanked, but only when my parents were feeling tired. It didn't do a darn thing for me because I never associated the punishment with the crime. What did my offense have to do with getting hit? If they couldn't make me understand why what I was doing was wrong, spanking me didn't do it, and if I did understand my wrong, spanking me wasn't necessary. But hey, I don't have kids, and the survey would only be worth it if the people who did have kids took it, and I honestly don't know what it would look like if the survey was done right.
[ October 01, 2004, 01:59 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
quote:If they couldn't make me understand why what I was doing was wrong, spanking me didn't do it, and if I did understand my wrong, spanking me wasn't necessary.
Some kids know what they are doing is wrong, and do it anyway, repeatedly.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'm of very mixed feelings on spanking. If we ever decided we actually wanted kids I'd want it resolved first.
The way I was spanked borders on the "abusive" definitions here. (My mother broke a couple of wooden spoons on my behind.)
I don't think when I was young they actually administered the reward/consequences scenario too badly, other than the fact that I was spanked for crying loudly after I was spanked.
As I got older though they still spanked me. As I think back though, the problem with the classic reward/consequences thing though is that they didn't have a lot that they could actually use as consequences. Being homeschooled I didn't have oodles of friends, and didn't care as much if I couldn't see them, so grounding was out, and also as a result I didn't have a lot of priveledges they could take away. Didn't watch enough TV that taking it away did any good. All of the extra-curricular activities I did were activities that they felt were "beneficial" overall and had generally gotten me into pretty deliberately, so they couldn't take those away.
They would take away my books. But, punishing your kid for being a voracious reader seeemed a bit overboard even to them so it didn't get used but like two or three times that I remember.
Though the last time my mother belted me was when I was 17 I think. And even when she did it, I think she realized how rediculous it was too.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:They would take away my books. But, punishing your kid for being a voracious reader seeemed a bit overboard even to them so it didn't get used but like two or three times that I remember.
Reading is the only thing I was ever grounded from.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
On the other hand, am I actually scarred for life having been spanked? Not any more than most other people. (This is also why I think that it happened differently when I was the youngest, then whe I got older.)
Is pain occasionally an effective behavioral deterrent if the situation warrants it. Yes. Especially in the case of a small child running out into the street, my closest analogy would be that of training a dog. A dog will *never* get to the point where it intellectually understands that running out in the street can cause it to die, even if it can be trained to lead a blind person accross a street safely. So you do use pain as a part of the training procedure as a consequence for not coming when called. This has saved my own dogs lives on several occaisions.
I had one dog that was an incurable runner and I experienced agony every time she broke free and went after a cat accross the street, I can only imagine how much more agony an actual mother would go through. Pain in that situation, if it works as a deterrent (and it doesn't always either, you've always got a few exceptions) is probably the way to go, because there aren't any other deterrents actually left at that point.
At least a kid, if you can keep it alive long enough will develop the intellectual capacity to see the self-preservation benefits of not running into the street. A dog won't. Though we may be evolutionarily be breeding smarter squirrels as the non-roadkill ones are the ones that live to reproduce.
AJ
[ October 01, 2004, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote: I'm of very mixed feelings on spanking. If we ever decided we actually wanted kids I'd want it resolved first.
I understand, but understand that when you resolve it first, you will be resolving it in the abstract. Keep in mind that what actually happens may contradict your prior beliefs about what is true.
Even as one who spanks, I personally believe it is not appropriate for kids beyond a certain age. What age? Well, that differs from kid to kid, but the age where reasoning is effective, impulse-control is possible, and "natural" consequences of actions are in fact developmentally able to be perceived as "natural." Strapping a 17-year old strikes me as absurd. That's just my opinion, and I understand that there are people who feel precisely the same way at any age.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I personally would never take away reading privileges. If you have a kid who loves to read, I believe you DON'T FREAKING MESS WITH IT! Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That was my thought as a kid - it was the perfect love and habit. The only punishment that got to me was one my parents felt like complete idiots for enforcing.
I was addicted, though. I read instead of doing many (most) other things, and while reading is better than most other things, doing nothing but reading isn't healthy.
In the beginning of the summer I turned 15, my dad told a cautionary tale of how he once spent an entire summer, every day, in the hammock going through a box of books beside him. The moral of the story was supposed to be something like "I just vanished my summer instead of accomplishing something." but what reached comprehension center was "Score! What a fabulous summer! I want a hammock!"
[ October 01, 2004, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
If a kid really loves reading that much, then taking it away is probably the best method of discipline the parent could use. What could be more effective?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't know if it was actually effective. I didn't get into a lot of active trouble, and taking away the books did nothing to create a desire to do my homework or clean my room.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I understand, UofU, and yet, on some level, I just can't agree. I do like "natural" consequences, whenever I am creative enough to think of them. I can't think of losing reading privileges as a natural consequence for anything. I also worry that kids forced to not read might decide, you know? This is not so bad! I love reading; I read compulsively. But I do believe that the reading habit can be broken.
Is there really nothing else that would be effective? No other privilege that could be lost? And what is the definition of effective, anyway? I have a stereotype that people who love reading are pretty well-behaved anyway, but I'm sure there are exceptions to that.
We may just agree to disagree here.
EDIT to clarify whom I was speaking to.
[ October 01, 2004, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Icky I believe that the statement you were saying about reading, is exactly the sort of abstract statement that you are talking about with my conflict over spanking as a punishment.
I will say that grounding me from reading was probably the most agonizing punishment they could have given me. And yes, it was (and still is) more of an addiction, so they really weren't worried about me quitting reading permanently.
Actually an interesting hatrack poll would be who on here has won the most summer reading contests at their local library.
AJ
(And generally the grounding occured mid-chapter, and while I was reading at the expense of doing something I *should* have been doing, so yes I wasn't actively going out and spraypainting walls, and I generally got my schoolwork done, but you know if I'd been told to clean the bathroom cause company was coming and she caught me reading instead...)
[ October 01, 2004, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Thinking about it, my reading did fit all the classic signs of an addiction. I did it to avoid dealing with other things, I did it when I was bored, stressed, nervous, happy. I did it to avoid people, and I did it for clues of how to deal with the world. Also, for a very moral kid otherwise, I had an unfortunate moral blind spot when it came to books. I'd take my brother's books all the time, working on the theory that books belong to those that love them best. I didn't need to be grounded; I needed rehab.
AJ: I concur completely. I never got in trouble for what I did, but I was constantly in trouble for what I didn't do but should have.
[ October 01, 2004, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Have I mentioned that I finally got my bookshelves organized? I've procrastinated for a year on doing it.
They are organized roughly by subject and author. Since OSC is one of the crossover fantasy/scifi authors, he's always one of the hardest to decide where to put.
For a while I had him on the same shelf as Robert Jordan and my sense of humor found it amusing. Especially imagining certain hatrackers coming over, looking at my bookshelves and being scandalized. However each of them has too many books, for them both to fit on the same shelf, so OSC ended up next to JK Rowling instead.
AJ
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
For what length of time were you typically grounded from reading?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Until my parents forgot - two or three days, usually.
This led to the Hiding Books phenomon. The best place was in the bathroom between the towels in the cupboard - privacy and they never looked there. Another good place was the top of the closet and underneath the bed - my mom was short and didn't like getting down on her knees to peek under beds.
Banna: OSC has his own shelf, but it's next to the sci fi. The problem is that I'm chronically one bookcase short - there's not enough room to sort them as they should be.
[ October 01, 2004, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'm trying to remember for sure. I think at the most a couple of days for severe infractions. I remember going to bed one night and dying of agony because I wasn't allowed to pick up a book on my bookshelf right next to my bed. Most of the time it was a grounding of, you aren't allowed to read until you get x,y,z and q done.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'd actually make them into my bed too and put a thick comforter over the top so the bump wasn't visible.
We didn't actually have a cabinet for the towels, they were folded up and piled on the back of the toilet tank so that was where I'd stick them. Mom knew though so she'd check there.
AJ
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:you aren't allowed to read until you get x,y,z and q done.
I wouldn't characterize this as grounding, but as putting obligations before pleasure.I could get behind this.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Yes, pretty much the grounding was the more extreme step if I kept reading and didn't get x,y,z and q done.
AJ
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:Actually an interesting hatrack poll would be who on here has won the most summer reading contests at their local library.
I gave up after my third attempt at a library's summer reading contest led to me losing a book and not being able to continue until I returned said book.
I found it months later, behind the TV.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
The TV DOES ruin reading habits!
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Sometimes I like to do this --- read only the first post of a new thread, then later check back and read the last post after it is three or four pages long (and not read anything in between). It is quite entertaining!
Like this one -- from corporal punishment serious question, to reading.
Kinda reminds me of that "telephone gossip" game....
FG
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I won 2 in a row, in a town with a population of 150,000 before they changed the rules so there wasn't a grand prize winner anymore because I was winning everything in sight. And that was when you could only check out 10 books a and you had to return them the next day to get the next 10 books.
AJ
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Icarus:
quote: I do like "natural" consequences, whenever I am creative enough to think of them. I can't think of losing reading privileges as a natural consequence for anything.
I think the idea of "natural consequences" is one that sounds good, but in practice is much more artificial than natural. While "let the punishment fit the crime" sounds nice and neat, and probably satisifies some people's sense of symmetry, I think better discipline is to choose a punishment that will actually deter the behavior.
Some punishments provide a negative stimulus such as pain. Some anti-punishments instead focus on rewarding good behavior, which is fine as far as it goes. However, the best way, IMO, of motivating a child (or anybody) to avoid bad behavior is to make sure it is unpleasant in the extreme. This is not best done through pain, but through denial of pleasure.
A child will be willing to do almost anything to have access to that which he loves the most. If that is video games, or treats, or books, or going out with friends, or attendance at a sporting/music event, so be it.
quote: I also worry that kids forced to not read might decide, you know? This is not so bad!
I don't buy it. If reading is truly what the child loves most, this will not happen.
quote: Is there really nothing else that would be effective? No other privilege that could be lost?
If you pick the thing they love second best, they might be annoyed, but they will just take comfort in the fact that they still have what they love best. The motivation to actually change behavior is not there yet.
quote: And what is the definition of effective, anyway?
They abandon the bad behavior, because no matter how much they wanted to continue doing it, there is something they want still more.
quote: I have a stereotype that people who love reading are pretty well-behaved anyway, but I'm sure there are exceptions to that.
Sure, avid readers tend not to get into most of the more outrageous trouble that other kids get into. But they still have discipline issues, and the very fact that they have this thing that they love to do, and can continue doing regardless of what else is going on around them (being confined to their room, having people berate or cajole them, etc.) means that they have very little motivation to change their bad behavior, whatever it is, unless their ability to read is threatened.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Yup, I can ignore absolutely anything while I'm reading. (Even sexual advances, though if tickling is involved it can get my attention but then I'm mad cause you've interrupted me from my book. Steve knows better than to try.)
AJ
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
::points up::
Watch me back down.
It's okay . . . it's just an instinctive response on my part. Doesn't look like it will ever be an issue with my kids anyway. :-\
I don't agree about natural consequences. I don't think they always exist, but when I have found them, I have found them to be very effective. I also don't agree that avoiding bad behavior is always "not best done through pain, but through denial of pleasure." With Mango, this just isn't the case. Doesn't mean I spank all the time--I personally think it is very important that parents have a wide arsenal of responses, and that these responses vary in severity and are proportional to the action being curbed--but when it's really important for the message to get through, at this stage in her life, spanking is the most effective means.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
((Icky))
AJ Note: I'm not specifically anti-spanking, I never said I was. As long as it doesnt stray into "abuse"(which is a huge grey area) I think parents should be allowed to discipline their children as they think best. I just said I'm conflicted on the subject, but fortunately except for threads like this I don't have to think about it since I don't have children or plan to have children in the near future.
[ October 01, 2004, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: But I do think spanking = hurt. That's the point - it hurts to be spanked. That's why it's a deterrent - pain is never fun.
For me, I've only ever hurt my kids a couple of times while spanking. I always felt really bad for it and apologized right away. Usually what would happen is I'd start to swat a bottom and my son would twist away and get hit on another place, like his back or arm.
I don't use spankings to hurt. I use them to make a loud noise, and to get attention, and to a lesser extent for embarrassment purposes. It works fine, but mainly because my kids are very young. I don't really think "hurting" a kid at three is necessary.
But it's important to note that my three year old is pretty easy. Once my daughter is three it may be a whole other story. I really sympathize with what Ick said about having tougher birds. Jillian seems like a tough bird in the making.
I do think that there are some kids out there that *only* respond to a painful spanking, or a humiliating spanking. One of these was my young sister-in-law. We all tried everything that existed. I can't think of a punishment that we didn't try for a week and it still didn't work. It didn't even work when her mom spanked her, because she didn't spank hard enough to hurt. (She was one of the smug "Didn't hurt!" kids.) The only thing that ever worked with this child was to get someone else to spank her. It sounds very cruel, I know. But I can think of a few times when I was over visiting, even before I knew them very well, Joëlle would act up and I would be asked to spank her because it was humiliating to be spanked by someone that wasn't her mom, and her mom knew I would actually sting her bum. I didn't like it, but it worked like magic. This child was wild, and someone might have thought she actually had a developmental disorder of some type because she was completely uncontrollable.
I'm happy to say that she's now a very sweet, almost 7-year-old who is very productive and has really amazed us all. But I can't imagine how she would have turned out if they had given up and been to soft to do the thing that was really needed.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
I think pain (e.g. spanking) can work in situations that are more a case of stimilus/response. For example, in the case of a child unwittingly getting into a dangerous situation (albeit one she probably has been told not to get into), such as running out into the road, playing with a knife, running with scissors, or messing around with matches or a hot stove. A quick smack can get the point across at an instinctive level, and might even get the child to avoid the dangerous situation in the future, much like a rat or dog can be conditioned through small electrical shocks.
I'm still not convinced it's the BEST response, but I do think it can be effective, and is not "wrong."
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Irami wrote:
quote: Too many variables, and if we were going to do it, I'd do it right. That, and I think that people would lie.
Irami, I think you are a sincere, well-informed, and ethical person.
Posted by whiskysunrise (Member # 6819) on :
We use spanking more to get the attention of the child than to actually cause pain. My brother spanks his kids and it's a hard smack. He saw me spank my daughter and asked if that was really a spanking, because I did not hit her hard. I told him that we got the outcome we wanted and I did not have to hurt her.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
UofU makes a good point. In those types of instances, the response of a swat to the potentially dangerous stimulus can be much less physically harmful (one would hope) that the actual dangerous stimulus.
Such as sticking a fork in an electrical socket, touching a hot iron, etc. Using spanking too much can trigger a habituation response (it did with me, I turned into the give you the finger type of kid when it came to physical violence).
Some types of stimuli CAN be left to their own devices. At the same age as the hot iron incident, I decided to inhale deeply from the pepper shaker (I still have no idea why). My father saw me picking it up, warned me against it, but didn't stop me.
The resulting 30 minute sneezing fit garnered some fairly hysterical laughter from my father, a red, runny nose from me, and I've never sniffed pepper again. Nor do I intend to.
Life's lessons, I suppose.
You know what? I always HATED hearing "This hurts me more than it hurts you." Why? Because it was bullshit, at least where my father was concerned. He spanked in harsh anger, as hard as he could, leaving marks. If I cried, he hit harder, telling me he'd give me something to cry about ifI didn't shut up. When even those types of spankings didn't get a response from me, then entered belt buckles and other objects.
Will I ever spank my own kids? No. I know this, because of what happened to me. Do I fault others for it? Not when used appropriately, such as with Icarus and Belle. There is a difference between discipline and punishment.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Well, I'm not saying that a spanking that causes pain is terrible, I just don't have to use it on my kids, so I apologize for going to far. I mean, a *loud* spanking works, so a *painful* spanking is crossing the line, IMO. If a loud one doesn't work, a painful one may be needed, and I would explain that to my kid.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Oh, no. I qualify going too far as leaving a mark. That's all.
[ October 01, 2004, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: mackillian ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Legislators have been loathe to codify a number of spanks- but it is possible to go too far in that direction too. I can only imagine that some people feel 1 per year of the childs age is not enough, which I think is stupid. Once the child is old enough to be reasoned with, I don't think spanking is necessary.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
quote: I used to get hit with a belt, but I don't think I needed it.
quote: In Africa they frequently whip children with specially designed whips that are also used on donkeys.
A shame they don't sell them here.
I Know how you feel synth, I used to get regular beatings from my father, for the most absurd reasons, such as not completeing homework. And he would beat me with whatever he could, shoes, belts, wooden boards, even a horse whip when we had one(until I secretly destroyed it).
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
While I sympathize with the non-spankers (I maybe had to swat Robert on his diapered bottom once, on three or four occasions in situations that were dangerous to him (such as trying to run away in a busy parking lot, or leaning over the bank of a river) when other methods were not working and the danger was immediate) I fervently believe that a few judicious whops on the bottom are all that have allowed me to rais Liam to the age of five.
The child was like me as a toddler-- no sense of danger at all. I never feared spankings when I was small. Mother told stories of me giggling and asking daddy if he was going to spank me? With the belt? *snort* Then one day when I was two, I found where they hid the key to the appartment. Mom was washing dishes in the other room, and thought I was still playing with toys. I moved a chair to the door to use the key, unlocked the door, moved the chair and made good my escape. We were three flights up, and I had a headstart of about a flight when mom started trying to catch me. She finally caught the back of my clothes just before I ran out from between parked cars, into the street. Just as a taxi sped past.
My mother stikll had a spatual in her hand from the dishes when she caught me, and she gave me a lick with it on my upper leg. It stung, but it didn't hurt. What got through to me at that time (when I was still basically too young to reason with, and had no sense of mortality) was how terrified my mother was. My mother was GOD and I had just done something that scared her badly. That really scared me.
She held me and cried and told me she loved me. And if I ever did anything like that again she'd kill me. She wore the appartment key on a chain around her neck after that.
I never understood that horror until Liam opened a ground level window and climbed out while I was making dinner. Robert had always played happily in the room with me while I did chores. But Liam? No. The minute my back was turned... ah. Moving wet clothes from the washer to the dryer takes less than two minutes, and with him 3 feet away, he'd still manage to climb up on the back of the couch, unroll the blind chord from the 'baby-proof' *snort* device we put it in, and wrap it around his neck. I didn't spank him for that one, even. On the scale of Liam endangering himself, that was maybe a six. Usually it had to be really bad, and the need to get his attention/compliance really quickly before he'd get a swat.
Thing is, if Robert had done that stuff, he probably would have gotten more spankings. It DOES depend on the child. I never understood that until I had Liam. Some people may never have a child so bent on causing his own demise. I literally didn't take my kids to the mall by myself for Years. Just to stroll around, get out of the house. Not with this little escape artist.
That said, I think my boys are old enough now to reason with, and their punishments are customized to their personalities. Liam HATES to be sent to his room, and Robert likes it. Robert usually gets grounded from video games, or else loses a token. (The boys earn tokens by doing their chores and being obedient, or sometimes because they did something extra that wasn't expected of them. Token-worthy activities are different for each of them, because they each have different strengths and weaknesses. For Example... Liam can get a token for sitting still and listening in martial arts, even if he doesn't seem to be trying very hard with the moves, because being still is his biggest challenge. Robert is always good at being still and listening, so he has to actually give the moves his best shot, and really apply himself to get a token for martial arts.)
In any case, parenting that treats every child exactly the same may work if your children are exactly the same, but if I punished Robert and Liam exactly the same way, one or the other wouldn't be punished it all (see 'go to your room' above).
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
Here's my problem with taking away reading from someone who's a really big reader-you don't take away something that is central to who a person is. Its one thing to say you can't read until you've done x y and z, but another to say you were bad, so you can't read for a certain amount of time.
My parents never even considered taking away reading, no matter how bad we were. We'd jsut get more chores. chores and chores and chores, until we learned. Mom's a big reader, and she thought taking that away was too serious to be worth its value as a punishment.
Yes, it would have been a very effective punishment. But some punishments, the question is not only is if effective, but also is the damage caused by the punishment worth it. Someone who needs reading enough that the punishment would be effective is likely someone who shouldn't have reading taken away.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Where's the damage?
I think that the very fact that we, voracious readers that we are, find this punishment (taking away reading) to be so horrific, shows that it would, in fact, be a very effective punishment for people like us.
What do you think the point of punishment is, anyway?
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
given a choice, would you have preferred a spanking that would leave a few bruises, or having books taken away for 3 days?
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
If the book thing could really be enforced (and I don't believe my own parents could have pulled it off -- I would have found a way to work around it), then I would definitely have preferred the spanking.
Which means, of course, that taking away the books would be the more effective punishment, because it would have greater motivivational power.
By the way, I definitely wouldn't approve of a spanking that leaves bruises. That rises to the level of abuse. I don't even think that spankings should actually hurt, beyond a little stinging. The shock value is the main thing.
[ October 01, 2004, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: UofUlawguy ]
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
thats why I put in the bruises. If a child would prefer a punishment which would meet the legal definition of abuse, then I would tend think the punishment that the child wished to avoid so much would be too much of a punishment.
Yes, it WOULD be effective. Thats not the point I'm trying to argue-I KNOW it would be effective. I just don't think it would be worth the effectiveness in most instances where it would be used.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I don't know how old Kat was when the removal of books started being implemented as a punishment, but it was at least 8 maybe 10 for me. According to most of the opionions in this thread, that should be too old for spanking anyway.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
No, for me I'd put up with even bruises. because it is short term. Then once its over I could go right back to reading and ignoring chores.
AJ
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Just because a child would prefer a bruise to losing a favorite privilege doesn't mean that the bruise is actually a less severe punishment, or more acceptable. The bruise is an injury, it is harm , while the temporary loss of a privilege is not. It is inconvenience, albeit enough of an inconvenience to really get their attention and force them to take things seriously.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I don't know how old Kat was when the removal of books started being implemented as a punishment, but it was at least 8 maybe 10 for me. According to most of the opionions in this thread, that should be too old for spanking anyway.
That's about right. It lasted until I was a sophomore or junior in high school.
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
quote: I'll apply it to the food analogy. Your kid needs food, and not zweiback crackers, unless they've eaten everything else and are still hungry. Then they need zweiback crackers, because that's all that's left to give and is the only thing that might satiate their hunger.
I'll take this a step further....what if you never buy zweiback, because you don't think they're a healthy choice? Then they are never an option. My point being (though it's been said by others) spnaking never "depends on the child", it is always the parents choice, no matter how defiant or impulsive thir child is( and I DO have one of each).
Books- I woulod never ground my kids from books, but I have been known to take away a book until a specific chore has been finished. I have to sweep my sons' room for books before he gets dressed in the morning, or I will find him reading half naked an hour after I sent him.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't see taking a kid's book away for three days. Is that proportional to what you who have had books taken away experience? I think for me it would be more like "no book for tonight."
My sister had a terrible time with her oldest staying up and reading under the covers. For both that family and my mom, they would have considered it more humane to suspend meals than books.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The books became a battleground (surprise!). When I was about eleven, it got to the point where my dad would sweep my room for books and take them almost precisely because I had absolutely no intention of honoring any "grounding" I may be given. It's hard to sneak television or away (a zeugma! sad but legit, I think), but easy to hide books. I didn't consider it fair for my books to be taken away, and so made other arrangements. I'd occasionally get caught in those arrangements, and the grounding would last for longer. I can't really remember.
Anyway, there were definitely one or two sweeps of the room where the books ended up in boxes hidden away and I had to start over.
This, of course, led to me cannibalizing my brother's and my dad's bookshelves.
[ October 01, 2004, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Lol, guess I was lucky there. Due to earthquakes the bookshelf in my bedroom which had been custom made, was firmly anchored to the wall. Otherwise it could have fallen down and squashed me in bed. And there were too many books on that shelf for them to be able to move them elsewhere. Didn't have any available bookshelf space in the rest of the house.
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
As spanking has lost public support, autism has been exploding. That must be the real cause! [/sarcasm]
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
In general, I think this shift in emphasis is a good thing--specifically, this placing of responsibility on the child. Responsibility equals power to change things. I don't think is saying the child made her SET a given consequence, but that knowing what the consequence was, the child caused her to have to go to it.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)