Is it wrong to spank your child?

[Sandy22]

The position of the American Academy of Pediatrics:

Many parents occasionally lose their patience or, in anger or fear, may spank their youngster. For instance, if a child runs out into the street, a parent may sweep the child up and, in a moment of anxiety for the child's well-being, spank her to emphasize the parent's sense of urgency or worry.

Spanking may relieve a parent's frustration for the moment and extinguish the undesirable behavior for a brief time. But it is the least effective way to discipline.

* It is harmful emotionally to both parent and child.
* Not only can it result in physical harm, but it teaches children that violence is an acceptable way to discipline or express anger.
* While stopping the behavior temporarily, it does not teach alternative behavior.
* It also interferes with the development of trust, a sense of security, and effective communication. (Spanking often becomes the method of communication.)
* It also may cause emotional pain and resentment

 

[sunni]

But I'm sure you would let the school use other methods of discipline such as detention. So what's different about spanking for you? If it's just another form of discipline then why wouldn't you allow others to use it on your child?

I have never said it's "just another form of discipline".

Um... I think I've already stated why the school shouldn't be the one to administer a spanking.

 

[Sandy22]

 

[Aidensmom]

Some adults might rationalize: “Well, I know my intentions are purely nonsexual, so there’s nothing wrong with my spanking a child.” The main problem with this rationale is that it fails to consider all the children who are at the mercy of other adults, among whom there will always be some with motives that are not so pure – and not necessarily obvious. Even spankings that have no sexual motive contribute to the cover that sexually abusive spankers depend on, affirming the old alibi: “Hey, lots of people spank their kids. So what’s the big deal?

A child should not be spanked, because a sexual abuser may use spanking as part of what he does? Sexual abusers also give kids candy, let them play with their pets, give them gifts, say nice things to them, all in a process to victimize them. I wouldn't think we would want to give up all this stuff because a sexual offender might use it? You have made some good points about some other things, but I don't buy this one.

 

[poohandwendy]

I like the toolbox analogy previously mentioned by another poster. The difference is I choose not to include a tool to inflict physical pain.
Why anyone would choose to do so is beyond me. We all agree that there are a great variety of tools to choose from so why even include that one in the toolbox?

I used all of the tools that I felt were effective, one was not more important than others. There is no way I can make you understand why I chose to spank, so what is the point? Quite honestly, I don't feel the need to defend why I chose to use any of the disciplinary tools I used to you or anyone else. I just do not see things the same way you do, that is fine...and normal as we all have different views. That is why I raise my children and you raise yours. Your opinion is interesting in a debate, but completely irrelevant in my household. My children are now 11, almost 16 and 18. Spanking is not an issue for us any longer.

 

[Sandy22]

 

[jgmklmhem]

My time-out spot is on our bottom stair and if he didn't stay put, I would physically hold him there. My time-outs lasted only a minute per age (so 4 minutes for a 4 year old) On the few occasions he kept thrashing around and getting more and more upset, I put him in his room and held the door closed until he calmed down.

Just bringing up again what you have said you have done. It was pointed out that physically restraining someone has actually killed some kids and from the things I have read these cases were just run of the mill holding a kid in place nothing overt really about it. I have never seen anyone die from the spankings being used on by the people posting here. Physically restraining someone to me conveys pretty much all of the same things that you claim spanking does. I high-lighted a few below:

* It is harmful emotionally to both parent and child (personally even today I would rather be punched than held down).
* Not only can it result in physical harm, but it teaches children that violence is an acceptable way to discipline or express anger (holding someone down if they are going wild is pretty much a violent exercise that can become very dangerous).
* It also may cause emotional pain and resentment (Again I would take more of these two from being physically restrained or being locked in my room than being spanked)

 

[sunni]

I don't spank, but I certainly respect other parent's right to spank. DD is a well-behaved kid. At 4, she has yet to do anything that I feel would require a spanking (knock on wood). What works for my DD, would not work for everyone's children. I don't think of myself as "Super Mom" because I can get by without spanking my child. I think that, as of now, I have lucked out in the behavior department. I know if I had 2 children, things would be a lot tougher. I can't believe how some people on this thread think they are so darn perfect. They know it all because they don't spank.

Bless you, Dare2Wish! Can I hug you?

No two children are alike, that's what makes them so wonderful (or completely exasperating). I'm ok with parents spanking, I've done it myself. I also know that if I were to have a 3rd child that there is a possibility that other techniques would be more effective and half of the techniques I've used with the other two (including, but not limited to, spanking) would never be needed. Some children are incredibly easy. My best friend has a DD that is practically perfect, I kid you not... she has the easiest personality; her DS constantly pushes the limits though. She does not, and cannot, use the same discipline techniques for the two -- it wouldn't work.

 

[sunni]

You asked -rhetorically I suppose but it begs an answer - what you should have done when your 9 yo was going to fall off the balcony. Well, the only answer that makes any sense is that you should have grabbed him up and pulled him off the balcony and told him firmly in terms he could understand that what he did was dangerous. You didn't need to whack him to make the point. Should you have allowed him to fall? What a ludicrous question. But did the smack stop him from falling? No. It also begs the question of why a 9 yo did not have the sense to not climb on a 3rd floor balcony, but I won't go there.

As for your last paragraph, I believe that what you're trying to get at is that sometimes you could be justified for hitting , as in a self defense situation. I suppose, then, if your 9 yo had been threatening you, and you feared for your life or well-being, then yes, the use of force may have been justified. But when he went out on that balcony, nope, no justification.

You didn't read the post very well. His DD was 9 the last time she was spanked (now 20). His DS was the one on the balcony and he didn't give the age. Common sense would suggest he wasn't 9!

 

[Sandy22]

Just bringing up again what you have said you have done. It was pointed out that physically restraining someone has actually killed some kids and from the things I have read these cases were just run of the mill holding a kid in place nothing overt really about it. I have never seen anyone die from the spankings being used on by the people posting here.

I think the deaths you are thinking of are from people who use questionable rebirthing techniques in therapy and accidently smother their children to death.

 

[sunni]

Spanking is an ineffective discipline strategy

That is your opinion, it is not fact. And if I were to say that spanking is a highly effective strategy I would be only spouting my opinion. Each child is a unique individual, there is no discipline strategy that is effective for all children 100% of the time.

the more a child is hit, the more likely it is that the child, when an adult, will hit his or her children or spouse.

That "fact" (if it is one) doesn't differentiate between spanking and hitting or beating, so it means nothing to me. I can assure you that though DH & I were both raised in households that spank, neither of us has ever laid a hand on the other.

Children who get spanked regularly are more likely to lie, to be disobedient at school, to bully others, or to show less remorse for wrongdoing. Children who are spanked perform poorly on school tasks compared to other children.

That "fact" (again, if it is one), uses the phrase "spanked regularly". I don't think anyone here has said they ever spank regularly. I know from personal experience that the above is untrue in homes where discipline is loving and consistent, even if it is a spanking now and then.

 

[sunni]

I thought this was particulary interesting considering many of the pro-spankers used the running into the street excuse:

Since 1977 I have been heading up the only long-term project designed to counteract pedestrian accidents to preschool-aged children. (Surprisingly, getting struck by a car is about the third leading cause of death to young children in the United States.)

Actual observation of parents and children shows that spanking, scolding, reprimanding and nagging INCREASES the rate of street entries by children. Children use going into the street as a near-perfect way to gain parents' attention.

Now there is a promising new educational intervention program, called Safe Playing. The underlying principles of the program are simple:

1. Define safe boundaries in a POSITIVE way. 'Safe players play on the grass or sidewalk.'
2. Give stickers for safe play. That makes it more fun than playing dangerously.
3. Praise your child for safe play.

These three principles have an almost instant effect on increasing safe play. We have observed children who had been spanked many times a day for going into the street, yet they continued to do it. The moment the family began giving stickers and praise for safe play, the children stopped going into the street.

Dennis D. Embry, Ph.D.
University of Kansas
Lawrence Kansas

Do you think that parents that spank don't also use praise when they see their children doing the right thing? SPANKING IS ONLY ONE OF MANY TECHNIQUES WE USE! (did ya hear me now?) It's not like we ignore our kids except for when the disobey and then... WHAMMO...

 

[sunni]

Here's another argument against massaging your children's tired feet:

Foot rubbing as sexual abuse
As in ages past, there are people today who are sexually excited by feet. This trait, which is often expressed in pornography and associated with sadomasochism, is known in scientific literature as foot fetish. While many fetishists seek to engage in consensual foot play between adults, some find the feet of minors to be either more arousing or more opportune.



Get the picture, Sandy22?

suggesting we shouldn't spank because there are sickos out there is absurd. Maybe we shouldn't hug our children either?

 

[Sandy22]

That is your opinion, it is not fact.

How is it just my opinion when the American Academy of Pediatrics says the same thing. When entire countries are making spanking illegal based on years of research that it's ineffective. Why everyone keeps saying it's just my opinion is beyond me. My opinion must have a lot of power throughout the world!

 

[Goobergal99]

Here's another argument against spanking:

Spanking as sexual abuse
As in ages past, there are people today who are sexually excited by spanking. This trait, which is often expressed in pornography and associated with sadomasochism, is known in scientific literature as flagellantism. While many flagellants seek to engage in consensual spanking between adults, some find the spanking of minors to be either more arousing or more opportune.

Since children in this country up to eighteen years old can still be legally and forcibly spanked by parents, guardians, teachers, school principals and other child care professionals, it is often easy for flagellants to obtain positions where they can sexually abuse children with little or no fear of repercussions. As long as society sees spanking as a legitimate act of discipline, and as long as the spanked youths are presumed to have “deserved” it, sexually abusive spankers have an effective moralistic disguise for their true motives. History, court records and current events contain numerous cases of flagellant sexual abuse against defenseless victims, and there is no telling how many instances have gone unreported.

Some adults might rationalize: “Well, I know my intentions are purely nonsexual, so there’s nothing wrong with my spanking a child.” The main problem with this rationale is that it fails to consider all the children who are at the mercy of other adults, among whom there will always be some with motives that are not so pure – and not necessarily obvious. Even spankings that have no sexual motive contribute to the cover that sexually abusive spankers depend on, affirming the old alibi: “Hey, lots of people spank their kids. So what’s the big deal?”

I will start off by saying WOW! This has gotten really heated since I left yesterday. However, Let me say that the above post is exactly what I was referring to when I said the whole idea of "Getting a spanking" was sick and creepy to me. Also, I think the idea of exhibiting such physical control over a child is unnatural anyway. It's just like the bully who becomes a cop because he wants power over the people, some parents unfortunately become parents because they too want control over something in their lives. Since we live in the Dark Ages and technically children are property of their parents until they reach legal age there is no more perfect way to have control over something.

 

[sunni]

The position of the American Academy of Pediatrics:

Many parents occasionally lose their patience or, in anger or fear, may spank their youngster. For instance, if a child runs out into the street, a parent may sweep the child up and, in a moment of anxiety for the child's well-being, spank her to emphasize the parent's sense of urgency or worry.

Spanking may relieve a parent's frustration for the moment and extinguish the undesirable behavior for a brief time. But it is the least effective way to discipline.

* It is harmful emotionally to both parent and child.
* Not only can it result in physical harm, but it teaches children that violence is an acceptable way to discipline or express anger.
* While stopping the behavior temporarily, it does not teach alternative behavior.
* It also interferes with the development of trust, a sense of security, and effective communication. (Spanking often becomes the method of communication.)
* It also may cause emotional pain and resentment

The American Academy of Pediatrics... made up of doctors, right? Well that's good, because as we all know drs never ever changed their minds on anything! They are never ever wrong! We should blindly follow all they say like the sheep we are! Baaa, baaa, baaa

I love my child's pediatrician, but it was she who was wrong about my baby's feeding and vomiting. It was only after 8 months that I dared trust my own instinct (brand new mom)... and it turned out I was right all along.

Sandy22, you quote lots of researchers, drs, and authors. Do you have your own instincts or do you just do what the latest "experts" advise?

 

[sunni]

I used all of the tools that I felt were effective, one was not more important than others. There is no way I can make you understand why I chose to spank, so what is the point? Quite honestly, I don't feel the need to defend why I chose to use any of the disciplinary tools I used to you or anyone else. I just do not see things the same way you do, that is fine...and normal as we all have different views. That is why I raise my children and you raise yours. Your opinion is interesting in a debate, but completely irrelevant in my household. My children are now 11, almost 16 and 18. Spanking is not an issue for us any longer.

same here. thanks for saying it poohandwendy.

 

[sunni]

How is it just my opinion when the American Academy of Pediatrics says the same thing. When entire countries are making spanking illegal based on years of research that it's ineffective. Why everyone keeps saying it's just my opinion is beyond me. My opinion must have a lot of power throughout the world!

See my other post. The American Academy of Pediatrics is made up of human beings. They aren't omniscient. It is still just opinion.

 

[Sandy22]

 

[What the Heck]

Well, I swore I was gone but I was still on line when you posted so I just have to pick this apart.

Battery is battery. Read the definition, or if you'd prefer, I'll pull your state's statute for you. Police officers are granted special powers by the state, which you are not, as a parent. Despite their special authority, however, they can still be charged with battery if they cross the line.

If you think parents who don't hit are as wimpy as you suggest in your example, then I wonder who you hang around with. If you know kids who hit others with bricks, then a "spanking" the way you define it is not going to help. And beating the cr** out of them will only rationalize their behavior. "She hits, we may as well too."

You asked -rhetorically I suppose but it begs an answer - what you should have done when your 9 yo was going to fall off the balcony. Well, the only answer that makes any sense is that you should have grabbed him up and pulled him off the balcony and told him firmly in terms he could understand that what he did was dangerous. You didn't need to whack him to make the point. Should you have allowed him to fall? What a ludicrous question. But did the smack stop him from falling? No. It also begs the question of why a 9 yo did not have the sense to not climb on a 3rd floor balcony, but I won't go there.

As for your last paragraph, I believe that what you're trying to get at is that sometimes you could be justified for hitting , as in a self defense situation. I suppose, then, if your 9 yo had been threatening you, and you feared for your life or well-being, then yes, the use of force may have been justified. But when he went out on that balcony, nope, no justification.

Ok, you say battery is battery. Then why aren't parents by the millions being charged? Perhaps because it is not battery under the law? Funny, but when I was pre-law in college, I don't remember once hearing that a parent could be arrested for battery for spanking a child. Please show me the statute for that. (I noticed you didn't respond to the example I gave when battery might be justified.) Oh, and by the way, the state does allow me special considerations when it comes to my child. Any legislater that attempted to create laws would be laughed down - and voted out the next term. So, please, pull out the statute that says that spanking is battery.

Your next paragraph, I was using a rhetorical example. (Something else I learned in school - a rhetorical question type of deal). Why would you waste time responding to one?

As for my child being on the balcony - wow, I guess I am guilty - of not being superparent. I'm a widower, my wife died when my son was 3 months old. I was the only parent they had. When we moved into this one apartment, while I was busy moving the furniture (we couldn't afford movers, since we only had my salary) my son decided he wanted to check out the balcony. Should I have been holding him down? Should I have restricted his movement? Should I have been watching over him 100% and not moving in? Should I have made my children sit side by side for 16 hours a day, with me watching them so that they didn't do anything wrong or dangerous? Want to make another under your breath crack about my parenting skills? (or won't you go there)

As for the whack on his butt, actually, yes it did bring home the fact to him that what he did was very dangerous. He knew that when "Daddy" went to that extreme in punishment, then he had done something that was very dangerous to him personally. You see, just in case you don't have children, I have found that very few children have a sense of life or death, even my children who had been through 2 directly (my wife when they were very young and my mom when they were a little older). To them, it is an abstract. I have developed a fear of heights since I grew older, my son, at that time, was of the impression he could do anything - including flying from the 3rd floor without a problem. For some things they took dads word for it that something was dangerous (I had already told him not to play on the balcony), for others they needed action from dad.