Smacking Your Child.

[Secondhand Revenant]

When research is agreeing there's no benefit to it in parenting I think it's pretty settled. Hopefully as time goes on newer parents will accept this and those irrationally stuck on tradition will simply fade out.

Really it fails to teach any rational lesson. It simply teaches that force is a valid method to get what you want. I prefer to consider it a last resort when it is *necessary*. Necessary like breaking up a fight, not because parenting skills failed and no other option comes to mind.

Really I dislike the principle of the thing. It says "Listen to me because I can hurt you". Sometimes you do have to just get a kid to listen when they're deaf to reason, due to age or emotional state at the time, but other punishments can be used. And in that case it doesn't show that conflict resolution should immediately jump to violence.

 

[JoJo]

Totally unnecessary in my eyes. It isn't legal here to smack an adult, or even a pet dog, so why should it be legal to do so to a small child? What people need to remember is that absence of smacking doesn't have to be an absence of discipline, taking away privileges is just as effective a deterrent and doesn't teach a child that it's okay to be violent towards a small being dependent on you. Social studies are always contentious of course but the evidence seems to suggest that even after controlling for confounding factors such as natural aggression and socio-economic background, smacked children are more likely to become aggressive as they grow older than those disciplined in other ways. [footnote]http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1983895,00.html[/footnote]

The problem is that the examples you give aren't really effective. More often then not the kids will whine and complain and cry and the parents will give in, which just lets the kids know that they can do whatever they want and there parents won't do anything. Now obviously this isn't true for everyone but its something that i have seen a lot. Physical punishment doesn't necessarily work any better, and I'm completely against actually beating your kid, however spanking is, in all honestly, really really minor; unless of course you go overboard, which is also happens. They key issue here is what the role of a parent is and what tools they have to accomplish those goals. Now i believe everyone will agree that the parents role is to bring up there children to be functional members of society. When people break rules in society they get punished (hopefully) because we can't let people think that they can do whatever they want, whenever they want; there would be anarchy and life would be even worse then it is now (probably). In the same manner the family unit functions in the same manner as a nation; the parents make rules [hopefully[ geared towards protecting there children, promoting peace and happiness in the family, etc., and when those children act out against those rules, there needs to be consequences; ones that actually have the children learn a lesson. If there is a children continually acting out, disobeying and not responding to having his phone taken away, or being grounded, then the parents should have the right be able to shift to a different form of punishment. Not torture or whipping or breaking the kids bones or other awful things like that, but there needs to be different avenues of approach that parents can have to discipline their children so that they do become functional, productive members of society. and frankly children are tougher then we give them credit for, i mean we are fine with children playing rough sports and hurting themselves playing them but we claim child abuse over a little spanking? The bottom line for me is, how far is to far for a parent to go in fulling their duty as a parent, and considering that, I don't think spanking is too far or other mild, no long lasting or permanent physical effects, physical punishment.

Yes, other methods are effective, I can vouch for them since I have worked with children in the past and trust me, I would have been fired in an instant if I ever smacked a child. The key is consistency and sticking by your word, if you don't give in then the child will learn you mean what you say when you threaten to take away X.

 

[Johnny Impact]

I got swatted a few times, and I do mean just a few. I don't think it hurt me in the long term at all. Because it was one quick smack, and happened so seldom, I tend to think it was simply a wake-up call.

There's a bit of a difference between getting one quick swat maybe half a dozen times throughout your entire childhood and being regularly tied down and belted until Daddy was too tired to lift his arm. I wonder if any of those studies that prove spanking is harmful take into account the frequency and severity of corporal punishment, rather than the mere fact of its use? Of course abuse creates dysfunctional people, that's fairly obvious. However, it does NOT follow that every hand raised to a child, ever, was raised out of laziness or for sheer sadistic pleasure, nor does it mean the only possible outcome is irreparable harm to the child's fragile psyche. Just as a couple of beers a week does not make one an alcoholic, a light sprinkle of physical consequence doesn't scar the child for life.

That being said, parents need to be very careful. A grown man who works with his hands can easily grab his kid with enough force to grind bones together. It takes as much care and restraint to properly administer a spank as it does to sit the kid down for a lecture.

EDIT: I see a number of people posting that "spanking teaches kids to lie to avoid punishment." This is utter hogwash. *ALL* children learn to lie by the age of three. *ALL* children who experience consequence in any form try lying to escape that consequence. Do you seriously think no kid ever lied to avoid being grounded? To avoid having his Nintendo taken away? Becoming aware of deception and its possible uses, ethical or otherwise, is a normal part of development. Do not hang the blame on corporal punishment.

 

[FalloutJack]

Okay, so my personal knowledge comes to you via my own observations and the psychology courses I took in college I do not approve of smacking, because I feel that while it can disrupt whatever behavior the child is doing, they might not get the point or interpret it right or even really get the gist even when you tell them because they're like six and all they're thinking about is that you hurt them. It could work Pavlovian in that they see not the reason or the wisdom of the smack, but see that you hurt people for things. That could lead to resentment and other problems later.

Now then, I have additional knowledge that comes to you via my sister's role as a social worker with experience in daycare environments. She does not hit children. That would actually be a firable offense. Putting that aside, she doesn't approve of that either, not when there are better ways. It's better to embarass the child into realizing that bad behavior can make them look stupid, which frankly nobody likes, not even stupid people. A much better psychological motivator, pride instead of pain avoidance.

 

[WarpedMind]

You know your kid better than anyone else, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

If you put a bit of brainpower into it, you KNOW what discipline works and what doesn't on your kid, specifically.

It's not popular, but you know what discipline worked better on me than anything else? A spanking. It made me listen and I tried to do better next time. This never happened if a toy was taken from me or I was lectured at.

I don't understand why the world acts like it's full of parents like the ones from Trainspotters. Parents love their kid in a deeper and more powerful way than you will EVER get (until you have one of your own, anyways). It's not about how it makes you feel as the spanker. It's not about making the kid fear you. It's about administering a proportional discipline to fit the crime. Anyone who loses sight of that is a bad parent, end of.

A good parent who knows their kid and can administer a swat that causes pain without injury is free to do so as they see fit. The end.

I'm sorry mate, I'm gonna have to give you a D- for that post.

Emotionally charged anecdotes of your own childhood, which anyone which a brain in their head knows you would never be able to analyze objectively, does not constitute proof or even an argument at all.

Your post is nothing but unsupported conjecture and appeals to the good old "This is how things have always been done so I don't see why we should start doing them differently" mentality

The effects of spanking have been extensively studied and only negative effects have been found.

Spanking doesn't work and no, parents should not be free to use violence against "their" kid.

The. End.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

You know your kid better than anyone else, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

If you put a bit of brainpower into it, you KNOW what discipline works and what doesn't on your kid, specifically.

It's not popular, but you know what discipline worked better on me than anything else? A spanking. It made me listen and I tried to do better next time. This never happened if a toy was taken from me or I was lectured at.

I don't understand why the world acts like it's full of parents like the ones from Trainspotters. Parents love their kid in a deeper and more powerful way than you will EVER get (until you have one of your own, anyways). It's not about how it makes you feel as the spanker. It's not about making the kid fear you. It's about administering a proportional discipline to fit the crime. Anyone who loses sight of that is a bad parent, end of.

A good parent who knows their kid and can administer a swat that causes pain without injury is free to do so as they see fit. The end.

I'm sorry mate, I'm gonna have to give you a D- for that post.

Emotionally charged anecdotes of your own childhood, which anyone which a brain in their head knows you would never be able to analyze objectively, does not constitute proof or even an argument at all.

Your post is nothing but unsupported conjecture and appeals to the good old "This is how things have always been done so I don't see why we should start doing them differently" mentality

The effects of spanking have been extensively studied and only negative effects have been found.

Spanking doesn't work and no, parents should not be free to use violence against "their" kid.

The. End.

It does always bother me when people toss out their anecdotes. They're essentially playing what-if with events they remember as a kid that they're so close too its kind of impossible to not see how there will be personal bias. Like how do they know that no other discipline would have worked? Did they experience the entire gamut of potential discipline? Nope. Just irksome when people don't at least try to take a step back and see what conclusions actual research had come to.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I've never believed that time outs and groundings or taking your kids stuff ever worked. The only kids it works on are dumb ones, plain and simple. I'd go as far to say that if your kid can't find a way around those forms of punishment you raised a moron.

When I was told I couldn't play games after school I followed it for a day, then figured out a way around it. I just told my parents I had to stay late after school, then I just went to a friends house and played with them for a bit before going home. I don't know about your situation but my parents had to work a lot so they couldn't always keep track of my shenanigans. That's just one example, I've got tons more.

Fact of the matter is the only time I ever listened was when I knew I was gonna smacked for not listening.

So you never got the idea to lie about the things they would potentially smack you about?

That's merely about the enforceability of a punishment anyways. I don't know why you'd think only smacking people is enforceable. Maybe your parents never tried much or were around about none of the time.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

Read the first few posts and only saw the usual black/white scenario, where either you never hit your child or you slap it at every occasion or whenever you're stressed out.

In the best case scenario it shouldn't be neccessary to hit your child. But most children have probably recieved 1 slap in their life. I did too and it was because i wanted to see how far i can go with my parents - a thing every child will do at a certain time.
Same with my sister, she recieved 1 slap when she really went out of line and every arguing, reasoning etc. wouldn't help.

Also even if you have to resort to that (as a last ditch effort), you should excuse yourself as a parent afterwards and reflect on the situation together with your child - after things have cooled off ofcourse.

tl;dr:
Hitting your child is the last option you have and you should always always try to solve problems beforehand.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Like everything the question is the measure, a good slap is sometimes needed but anything worse can have bad effects, physical touch is one of the ways of parents to communicate for good and ill.

Bingo, a smack is but one tool in the arsenal that requires thoughtful and measured deployment. With this I have on caveat, as my mother was fond of saying "Smacking my children is a privilege I reserve for myself".

 

[K12]

Speaking as somebody involved with Childline I have had to listen to the stories of how the occasional slap gradually evolved into full on physical abuse too many times to ever accept smacking as an acceptable disciplinary measure. The victim and the perpetrator are usually the last people to realise that they have an abusive relationship.

Smacking is effective as a shock tactic to make your child quickly obey you, that's basically it (if you rarely shout at your kid then you can use that to have basically the same effect). If you do it more than a handful of times then there is no more shock value (like hearing an "edgy" comedian make their 12th Down Syndrome joke) so you have to hit harder to have the same effect.

So basically smacking is the heroine of parental disciplinary measures. Maybe you can get away with using it a couple of times but why even bother when there are other better options that don't make you feel like shit afterwards.

If you have a good relationship with your kid and a good control of your own temper then I see no reason that the occasional once-in-a-blue-moon smack will have any adverse effects... but in this situation you're likely never going to need it anyway.

 

[K12]

You know your kid better than anyone else, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

If you put a bit of brainpower into it, you KNOW what discipline works and what doesn't on your kid, specifically.

It's not popular, but you know what discipline worked better on me than anything else? A spanking. It made me listen and I tried to do better next time. This never happened if a toy was taken from me or I was lectured at.

I don't understand why the world acts like it's full of parents like the ones from Trainspotters. Parents love their kid in a deeper and more powerful way than you will EVER get (until you have one of your own, anyways). It's not about how it makes you feel as the spanker. It's not about making the kid fear you. It's about administering a proportional discipline to fit the crime. Anyone who loses sight of that is a bad parent, end of.

A good parent who knows their kid and can administer a swat that causes pain without injury is free to do so as they see fit. The end.

You probably do know your kid better than everyone else but you don't know child psychology better than child psychologists.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Pointless in the longrun, or even counter productive sometimes.
But in the end, if it shuts them up at a movie who am I to argue?
I will probably judge you if you hit your kid, but aside from looking like an asshole it doesn't really matter in the end.

As a kid that was hit occasionally, it certainly didn't make me stop doing something. I just didn't get caught anymore. And definitely made me a little shit to deal with for the rest of the day.
I always rebelled more if I thought a punishment was unjustified as a kid. And to this day I'm proud of that.

There is also of course smacking them up all the time for little reason which is simply not okay. But a for a clip over the ears while out shopping to get them to shut up, its not going to make them grow up any differently.

 

[jamail77]

Personally, I feel there are times it may be necessary, but do it in such a way as to not damage the kid's psyche, impart excessive gender roles or disrespectful chivalry, things like that. It's tricky. I can't help wondering if my parents had done that (raised by Mom so, to be fair, that's more difficult for women to follow through with, but then again women can also physically rape men and physically abuse depending on context, strength differentials between the two, and coercion tactics) if I'd be better off now for example. It'd probably make me to grow to hate them and distance myself from them at the same time. It's very tricky and the research is clear that it's better not to hit if you can avoid it. Resort to when they have a very serious self discipline problem, maybe?

 

[BeerTent]

Oh my fucking god this spanking thing.

Sometimes you need to beat a child in order for it to learn what's not right. I was spanked, my brothers were spanked, my friends were spanked, and we all came out normal. Spanking a child is a tool, because you need to use that tool sometimes to correct a chile, and shape it from animal, to a responsible human adult.

In my opinion, it's no different than having your meal before your hungry pet dog. It's a necessary method to teach the animal/child the pecking order... Well, fine, Spanking is much more extreme than proper pet care, but I stand by the fact that a parent will need to strike their child at least once in their lifetime. Hopefully no more than 3-5 times.

 

[lunavixen]

I only ever needed to be smacked once, and it was on the butt (I wasn't hit hard, it didn't hurt, but I was young, and I think it was more the sound than anything, but I digress).

Every child is different, some children won't/don't respond to certain methods (I'm certainly not advocating spanking), it's more about knowing how to discipline your child in knowing what works and what doesn't.

 

[Headsprouter]

I was smacked until a certain point. I dunno, if you act like a prat in the real world you're probably gonna get hit, so before a kid is really able to be self-critical I can get behind it to an extent. I think it's better than screaming at the kid... *cough cough* Neighbours.

 

[Ariseishirou]

Personally, I was hit as a child, and it had pretty much exactly the effect on me that psychologists who've studied it said it would: I started using violence to "discipline" others who'd wronged me, and learned that might made right (i.e. I beat up kids at school). This behaviour took a long time to unlearn, and I still don't have a great relationship with my parents as a result.

But yeah, anecdotes aside, the science on this is painstakingly clear: kids who are subjected to corporal punishment are more likely to be violent themselves, exhibit criminal behaviour, etc. It isn't even as effective as positive reinforcement in teaching a child (or hell even a dog for that matter) correct behaviour.

The problem is, people get emotionally invested in it and think that anecdotes = fact (e.g. "I was spanked as a kid, and I turned out okay, therefore it's totally fine!") and blame social "ills" on the lack of corporal punishment (when in fact the violent crime rate is the lowest it has been since the 1950s, the lowest it has ever been among youth).

Sadly, blaming problems on the youth and change and wanting to take the easy way out (kid does something wrong? smack 'em!) are human nature.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Personally, in the past I have stuck by spanking (despite having no children) as a valid form of discipline, but over time it becomes clearer and clearing that the research just does not agree on this matter. It's becoming harder and harder to stand by the half arsed anecdotal evidence of "I was spanked and turned out okay" (especially with this same bullshit line being used to justify smoking, and drink driving, and even usage of hard drugs), so I couldn't call myself a rational person if I didn't go with the evidence.

So no, I don't think spanking is a valid form of discipline anymore.

 

[SecondPrize]

I wish some parents would do it more, or at least stay home if their kinder methods of instilling good manners in public don't seem to be working worth a damn. A spanking won't injure a kid and won't leave scars. Some kids maybe it'll help them understand what they should or shouldn't be doing, other kids maybe not.

 

[lacktheknack]

You know your kid better than anyone else, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

If you put a bit of brainpower into it, you KNOW what discipline works and what doesn't on your kid, specifically.

It's not popular, but you know what discipline worked better on me than anything else? A spanking. It made me listen and I tried to do better next time. This never happened if a toy was taken from me or I was lectured at.

I don't understand why the world acts like it's full of parents like the ones from Trainspotters. Parents love their kid in a deeper and more powerful way than you will EVER get (until you have one of your own, anyways). It's not about how it makes you feel as the spanker. It's not about making the kid fear you. It's about administering a proportional discipline to fit the crime. Anyone who loses sight of that is a bad parent, end of.

A good parent who knows their kid and can administer a swat that causes pain without injury is free to do so as they see fit. The end.

I'm sorry mate, I'm gonna have to give you a D- for that post.

Emotionally charged anecdotes of your own childhood, which anyone which a brain in their head knows you would never be able to analyze objectively, does not constitute proof or even an argument at all.

Your post is nothing but unsupported conjecture and appeals to the good old "This is how things have always been done so I don't see why we should start doing them differently" mentality

The effects of spanking have been extensively studied and only negative effects have been found.

Spanking doesn't work and no, parents should not be free to use violence against "their" kid.

The. End.

Anecdotes are underrated. I'm not going to ignore everything I learned in my own meatspace because it's not scientifically rigorous.

For my own education, could you please link these studies? Everyone references them, but no one can even tell me what methods were used.

(Also, the definition of violence involves intent to notably hurt or damage something. If the spanking can fit that definition, you're doing it too hard. A mild sting that goes away within seconds? I don't call that violence. Unless you're telling me that poking someone annoying with a stick is now a violent act.)