Is it wrong to spank your child?

[Aidensmom]

If I'm a manager, and I have rules for my employees to follow, and they don't, should I just hit them?

When nothing else works here, the employee gets terminated. You can't terminate your kid.

If I'm a police officer and I pull someone over for speeding, should I take my belt off to show them that speeding is dangerous.

No, but if that speeder is defiant and tries to hit the officer with his car, he can shoot him.

IF you don't eat your dinner, then you get no dessert. IF you don't clean the toys up today, then you don't play with them tomorrow. Those things aren't that big of a deal to me. But I'm not on any kind of power trip either. I know exactly how powerful I am, I don't have to prove it to anyone.

I don't spank for not eating your dinner (and at our house we rarely have dessert, and don't force anyone to clean their plate), nor for not picking up their toys. I am not on a power trip. But I am not going to allow my child to be defiant and uncontrollable.

For the record, I have stated on this thread that I am interested in trying some other things besides spankings and have asked for suggestions. Some posters have very kindly responded with some, which I have not had to try yet because DS has been having a good week so far. Their opinions I respect. If you seriously CARE that spankers may cause problems with their children, then respectfully make suggestions, rather than just judge people and call them bad parents or other insults. Do you think that is going to make any of the spankers see things your way?

 

[tiggersmom2]

Well you obviously haven't read all the previous posts. You have to have thick skin to stick it out here.

Just curious....what do you call people who abuse their children?

You are like a rabid dog with a bone.....you think ALL spankings = abuse. I actually am more concerned about what kind of parent would lock their child in a room as opposed to the parent that uses the occasional spanking for discipline!!!!!! To me that constitutes emotional abuse as C.Ann pointed out earlier in the thread.

 

[alliecats]

I don't spank for not eating your dinner (and at our house we rarely have dessert, and don't force anyone to clean their plate), nor for not picking up their toys. I am not on a power trip.

This thread is out of control!

I don't have kids yet, but when I do, and if I think they need it, I might spank. I respect the decision not to spank as well--I don't want the responsibility of telling anyone else how to raise their kids. I will say I would not spank with a belt or other foreign object. I just think that is a bit much. Otherwise, it's what works for your and your kids.

I think we all need to step back & look at the real outrage here--Aidensmom's kids aren't getting dessert!! Now THAT'S abuse!! And here I was, thinking you were a parenting role model for me! (just kidding, of course, I bet your kids' teeth are perfect!!)

 

[mcnuss]

there is a difference between abuse and spanking!

Perhaps but I think you have to admit that some people do cross the line, and if you never hit, you never will. Spanking is still battery and if it were me you were hitting, even just one time, I could quite easily have you arrested. Definition of battery from my law dictionary: "the use of force on another resulting in harmful contact".

It is also the ultimate power play and it's utter hypocrisy. It tells the child: "I own you. I can do whatever I want to you. I can hit you but you can't hit anyone else, especially me." (Let's stop using the euphemism "Spank" ok? Call it what it is: Hitting.)

It also tells your child that you have no control over him or her. The child can read between the lines. You are saying "I have completely lost control over you. You don't do what I tell you to so I will hit you into submission."

I don't think you're a monster but I think you'd be wrong to hit. I think I read that your child is ten months old and showing signs of "stubborness". You asked also for positive suggestions on discipline. The first thing I'd suggest is to make sure you get yourself a great book on child developmental stages so that you can recognize what is in the realm of normal. I found it much easier to deal with my DD when I could say "ok, this is a phase" and I had some good tips to get through it. I had one but I can't remember which it was - my DD is now 11 so it's been a long time! She has never been spanked and she is not perfect! At 10 months, discipline is an interesting proposition, as you are teaching cause & effect. If you spank at this age, I can almost guarantee he will not know what he did to cause it and he will not understand anything beyond that you hurt him. Infants and toddlers should be physically removed from situations and re-directed. A firm "no, that's not ok" should do it. As they become more volitional (and at 10 mos, they really don't have the ability to form intent), you will use different methods.

I'd like to end with this observation, and then I am done posting here and I wish you all good flaming. The most out of control children I have ever seen all have parents who "spank". It's the ultimate chicken and egg debate, but seriously, if it doesn't work, why not try something else?

 

[Aidensmom]

I think we all need to step back & look at the real outrage here--Aidensmom's kids aren't getting dessert!! Now THAT'S abuse!! And here I was, thinking you were a parenting role model for me! (just kidding, of course, I bet your kids' teeth are perfect!!)

LOL! I didn't get desserts very often either as a kid, and have never had a cavity, don't have a big craving for sweets (though I do enjoy good chocolate )and am normal weight. Not saying we never have them, but when we do it is a treat, I just don't want my son developing a sugar habit!

 

[alliecats]

LOL! I didn't get desserts very often either as a kid, and have never had a cavity, don't have a big craving for sweets (though I do enjoy good chocolate )and am normal weight. Not saying we never have them, but when we do it is a treat, I just don't want my son developing a sugar habit!

Now look at you, rationalizing your behavior! Where will it end, Aidensmom?

I wish I had had this done to me growing up. I've only had 2 small cavities & am skinny but I have a crippling sweet tooth & high cholesterol. My doctor says if I would cut back on the sugar, it would help that. But it's too late for me (save yourselves!), I truly think I have an addiction.

You sound like a very good parent to me, by the way.

And now, back to your regularly-scheduled thread smackdown.

 

[Southern4sure]

And now, back to your regularly-scheduled thread smackdown.

I vote this "the best line in the entire thread!"......

 

[What the Heck]

Perhaps but I think you have to admit that some people do cross the line, and if you never hit, you never will. Spanking is still battery and if it were me you were hitting, even just one time, I could quite easily have you arrested. Definition of battery from my law dictionary: "the use of force on another resulting in harmful contact".

It is also the ultimate power play and it's utter hypocrisy. It tells the child: "I own you. I can do whatever I want to you. I can hit you but you can't hit anyone else, especially me." (Let's stop using the euphemism "Spank" ok? Call it what it is: Hitting.)

It also tells your child that you have no control over him or her. The child can read between the lines. You are saying "I have completely lost control over you. You don't do what I tell you to so I will hit you into submission."

I don't think you're a monster but I think you are wrong to hit.

Um, no it tells the child "I set the rules and you broke the rules. There are consequences when you break the rules, and this is one when you break a major/threatening rule". And calling it battery makes for a nice punchline, but it distorts the truth, such as one poster who said that no one has the right to hit anyone else. Lets go back to your law reference. Don't police officers (upholders of the law, same as a parent) have the right to use force at times? Or is force never authorized? Its a riduculous question, because to take away the right to use force puts the police at such a disadvantage that they would not be able to do their job at all.

To answer the question of why I think not spanking is abuse, I speak of those who not only don't spank but don't use discipline ("now come on little Johnny, it's not right to hit other children with bricks - you have to sit in time out for 5 minutes - oh, your show is on? Well ok, boys will be boys"). And then they find out about discipline as a teenager - in front of a judge.

As for your analogy that it tells the child that the parent has lost control - that is only true in abusive situations. When spanking (not hitting) is used properly, it tells the child that there are consequences for their actions - when they go too far, the parent is using spanking as a consequence. Last time I had to spank either of my children, was when my oldest was 9. My daughter is now 20. And I used one swat on the behind of my son who was playing on the outside of the balcony of our 3rd floor apartment. Wow, send to police to arrest me. I should have let him continue and fall.

And you are right about having someone arrested if they hit you, but you are wrong if you think that there is no circumstance that you could have them convicted. If you are threatening them in such a manner that they feel like they will be hurt (assault) they can have you arrested, and, if correct, you would end up on jail. Please don't attempt to use one black/white instance to judge all situations that happen in a gray area.

 

[MrsKreamer]

I think I read that your child is ten months old and showing signs of "stubborness".

Yes he is stubborn, in that cute 10 month old way.

You asked also for positive suggestions on discipline.

Nope I don't need someone from the internet to tell me how to raise my child.

The first thing I'd suggest is to make sure you get yourself a great book on child developmental stages so that you can recognize what is in the realm of normal.

How about a child psychology book? Yep, betcha didn't know that was Dh's original college major. We have about 4 or 5 developmental text books, thanks and yes I have read them.

At 10 months, discipline is an interesting proposition, as you are teaching cause & effect. If you spank at this age, I can almost guarantee he will not know what he did to cause it and he will not understand anything beyond that you hurt him. Infants and toddlers should be physically removed from situations and re-directed. A firm "no, that's not ok" should do it. As they become more volitional (and at 10 mos, they really don't have the ability to form intent), you will use different methods.

when did I say I spanked him? I said I may spank him in the future.

I'd like to end with this observation, and then I am done posting here and I wish you all good flaming. The most out of control children I have ever seen all have parents who "spank". It's the ultimate chicken and egg debate, but seriously, if it doesn't work, why not try something else?

Yes and I know some children who need a good spanking. Parents who dicipline consistantly (ie using the same methods and following through, whether or not it is spanking or time-out) tend to have the more well behaved children. I know parents who don't do anything, or try to use time-out/spanking when they are frustrated and they tend to have the "bad" kids. Spanking works for some and time-outs work for others, just like I said in another post.

And I stick by that spanking and abuse are different.

 

[mcnuss]

Um, no it tells the child "I set the rules and you broke the rules. There are consequences when you break the rules, and this is one when you break a major/threatening rule". And calling it battery makes for a nice punchline, but it distorts the truth, such as one poster who said that no one has the right to hit anyone else. Lets go back to your law reference. Don't police officers (upholders of the law, same as a parent) have the right to use force at times? Or is force never authorized? Its a riduculous question, because to take away the right to use force puts the police at such a disadvantage that they would not be able to do their job at all.

To answer the question of why I think not spanking is abuse, I speak of those who not only don't spank but don't use discipline ("now come on little Johnny, it's not right to hit other children with bricks - you have to sit in time out for 5 minutes - oh, your show is on? Well ok, boys will be boys"). And then they find out about discipline as a teenager - in front of a judge.

As for your analogy that it tells the child that the parent has lost control - that is only true in abusive situations. When spanking (not hitting) is used properly, it tells the child that there are consequences for their actions - when they go too far, the parent is using spanking as a consequence. Last time I had to spank either of my children, was when my oldest was 9. My daughter is now 20. And I used one swat on the behind of my son who was playing on the outside of the balcony of our 3rd floor apartment. Wow, send to police to arrest me. I should have let him continue and fall.

And you are right about having someone arrested if they hit you, but you are wrong if you think that there is no circumstance that you could have them convicted. If you are threatening them in such a manner that they feel like they will be hurt (assault) they can have you arrested, and, if correct, you would end up on jail. Please don't attempt to use one black/white instance to judge all situations that happen in a gray area.

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.

 

[mcnuss]

Yes he is stubborn, in that cute 10 month old way.


Nope I don't need someone from the internet to tell me how to raise my child.


How about a child psychology book? Yep, betcha didn't know that was Dh's original college major. We have about 4 or 5 developmental text books, thanks and yes I have read them.

when did I say I spanked him? I said I may spank him in the future.


Yes and I know some children who need a good spanking. Parents who dicipline consistantly (ie using the same methods and following through, whether or not it is spanking or time-out) tend to have the more well behaved children. I know parents who don't do anything, or try to use time-out/spanking when they are frustrated and they tend to have the "bad" kids. Spanking works for some and time-outs work for others, just like I said in another post.

And I stick by that spanking and abuse are different.

snipped bc I swore I would not get into it any more.

Bye.

 

[MrsKreamer]

snipped bc I swore I would not get into it any more.

Bye.

I think what we need to understand is that some people will parent differently than others. No one is better than the others. We are all just trying to do our best.

 

[va32h]

Well this thread has become quite a debate, that I don't think I want to get involved in any more, but there is something I feel I must say.

The argument is made: "If you hit your kid, it's called spanking, if you hit another adult, you'd get arrested for assault".

Well - when I put my daughter in her room, it's "time out" but if I forced and adult to stay in a room, I could get arrested for "false imprisonment."

If my son isn't playing nicely with his cars, I can take them away, but if a fellow driver cuts me off, I can't have his Expedition towed to my garage until he proves he can "drive nicely". I'd be arrested for stealing.

You can't apply the standards of behavior expected between adults to the behavior between a parent and child. There is an inherent imbalance of power in the parent-child relationship.

Does this mean spanking is okay? No, that's still for the individual parent to decide. But every method of discipline is based on the presumption that the parent has control over the child.

 

[Sandy22]

 

[MrsKreamer]

There are ways to discipline children that are non-violent, are appropriate to the child's level of development and take the best interests of the child into consideration. Children are better educated with words than with violence. Teaching through beating and pain should not be part of our values as a society.

Spanking is an ineffective discipline strategy and it can even be dangerous because it teaches violence as a solution to problems. Children imitate what they see adults doing: 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. Adults who were hit as children are more likely to be depressed or violent themselves. Spanking most often produces in its victims anger, resentment, and low self-esteem. 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.

I would like to see real stats on this.

 

[teacherforhi]

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.

Ummm....no

The students who are disobedient at school, the ones that bully, and the ones that show no remorse are the ones that receive no sort of discipline of any kind from their parents. They're the ones whose parents make excuses for them. (I had a child throw a desk at me. His mother claimed it wasn't his fault because he was "angry".) They're the ones, that when you call home, the parents tell you "It's your problem, not mine."

The problem isn't that these children are spanked; it's that they have NO discipline at home.

 

[Sandy22]

 

[Aidensmom]

Spanking most often produces in its victims anger, resentment, and low self-esteem. 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.

I was not only spanked, but psychologically and physically abused (and I can describe in graphic detail the difference between spanking and abuse). I am not an angry, resentful person, not even at my parents. I don't lie. I was was very obedient everywhere including school, was not a bully, I show remorse for wrongdoing, and I did exceptionally well in school, even getting scholarships to college (and was offered scholarships at every school I applied to). I have had periods of low-self esteem in my life, but know few people who never have, and I can tell you that came from the psychological abuse.

I am not trying to say I was this way because of the spanking or abuse, but that saying most children who are spanked turn out that way is quite an exaggeration. I think more accurately, it is "some children that were spanked, some that were never spanked, and many that were abused." I think spanking and abuse is being confused here.

 

[Sandy22]

 

[Aidensmom]

We have observed children who had been spanked many times a day for going into the street, yet they continued to do it.
[/I]

This line just strikes me as very odd - where the heck did they observe parents and children who spent their days repeatedly running into the street/spanking? If it was a "controlled" situation, I don't think it was imitating real life, because once the child had run into the street and was spanked, I would think they would then be taken inside, or to the car, etc., and would not have just stood back at the street. Maybe the writer did not mean it as he stated it?