POLL: Spanking

Remove all ads!

In order to not take the "Consequences" thread off-topic, I'll start a new discussion by asking a question. Do you think spanking is REQUIRED as a common method of discipline?

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 43 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Spanking (43 votes.)

Spanking (Choose 1)
* I do not have children, and I think spanking should be used regularly as a part of discipline - 2% (1)
* I do have children, and I think spanking should be used regularly. - 2% (1)
* I do not have children, and I think spanking should be used occassionally. - 23% (10)
* I do have children, and I think spanking should be used occassionally. - 5% (2)
* I do not have children, and I think spanking should be used only in extreme circumstances. - 53% (23)
* I do have children, and I think spanking should be used only in extreme circumstances. - 14% (6)
* I have no opinion but want to see the results. - 0% (0)

 

I don't think spanking can be justified in any scenario. A good parent should be able to discipline their kids without resorting to physical violence, or even a raised voice.

 

I had a few cracks when I was a little bastard as a kid. Never did me any harm. Sometimes kids need a good clip around the ear-hole.

 

Spanking is not required. What is required is unfailing pointing out of the wrong things. Spanking is not necessarily better than reducing everything to money not coming when kids are being bad, though. People too often confuse no spanking policy with no punishment whatsoever and the latter is worse. People need to keep in mind that while spaking is crude and brutal, it has actually worked for ages and provided some good results, while all those user friendly upbringing methods suck because they deprive kids of any sense of right and wrong, let alone willpower. As such, I don't dismiss spanking, although I'm not necessarily a big fan. I believe in a swift proper knocking out when a young bully tries to terrorise a family member with physical force. While parents shouldn't really spank, I don't like the "you shouldn't hit back" policy some parents treat their elder children with regard to younger ones, or other children with regard to other children. People should learn how to use physical force in defence at an early age or it will be a problem later.

What is necessary is that no punishment whatsoever, not just spanking, should come as revenge, and that bringing a child up and teaching him things is not the same as training a dog with staff and carrot. Also, parents are sometimes inclined to use humiliating methods of punishment and IMHO that's very wrong. Children aren't puppies and teenagers aren't toddlers.

Next, there's favoritism and parents sometimes even openly preferring one child over another. No matter how innocently it seems to begin and how justified to be in the beginning, it will always lead to bad things, such as one child being believed and another not believed on principle, without bothering to find out how things really are, or assumed guilty.

Further next, kids are becoming more and more aggressive. For some people it's ADHD (attention deficit and hyperactivity), for others it's bullying. No matter what it is, aggression should never meet concession. It needs to be reacted to swiftly and decidedly. Even if this means spanking. Spanking a bullying child is better than saying, "Oh, darling, don't do it again, please, or mum will be sad." And as I said, a punch in the stomach from the elder brother for waving your hands around has never hurt anyone.

 

I'd like to know where you are pulling this from? How exactly are kids becomming more aggressive? People have been complaining how the youth keeps getting more and more corrupt since the times of ancient rome, and like then I doubt it bears any more truth now. Kids have allways been the same.

As for spanking I think it should be outlawed and here it de facto is out lawed. Spanking might work but I'm not convinced it works any better than grounding or taking away the favorite toy or some other less violent punishment. Also I'm not willing to give abusive parents one inch of manouvering room in the court when dealing with child beatings. Some might be able to control their own emotions when they spank their child but I know very well that all don't share that kind of self control and therefore spanking should definently not be encouraged. Parents have the right to raise their child as they wish but violence towards the child be it only mild spanking or a good ol' beating should not be tolerated

[ March 12, 2006, 18:41: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

 

I'm with Barmy on this one. I don't condone a full out blood and blue bruises beating but a few whacks put me on the straight and narrow when I was being a right b*stard.

There is nothing more effective than physical punishment. The fact is that, when used correctly, spanking works. What is more dificult is administering a non-spanking policy, especially when a child realises that the policy is in place - kids are not stupid, they constantly test boundaries, as is their nature. A spanking firmly cements those boundaries in place, misbehaviour = pain. 'Time-out' is only so effective the first few times, eventually the kid will simply become used to it and in fact not care and WHILE in timeout the child can still misbehave, throwing a tantrum, damaging things around their room.

Spank the kid but don't injure the kid. There's a reason spanking is often associated with the bottom - it causes pain but is hard to damage. Any parent who goes as far as to make the child bleed or do some serious damage (bruises, broken bones -things that won't heal in under 10 minutes pretty much) shouldn't have had children in the first place.

 

Faulty poll, I'm against spanking in all circumstances.

 

Actually, all physical punishment teaches is a child is that the way to respond to anything going wrong is with brutality. That's the only lesson that lasts beyond the sting of your hand on the child's bottom.

Possibly. However, I think that "when used correctly" proviso is a very, very narrow set of conditions that almost no one gets right. It's very easy to screw up.

Well, if THAT'S your idea of a time-out then of course it's not going to be effective! In my house time-out means absolutely sitting still and absolutely quiet, right under my nose. There's no goofing, no tantrums, nothing except proper posture. Time-outs also have to be used correctly - they're not so much for punishing a child who doesn't use proper manners, they're for braking a child out of a pattern of bad behavior and giving the child a chance to collect him/herself and remember what good behavior is.

As with spanking, time-outs aren't the heart and soul of discipline - they're only one technique at a parent's disposal. You have to find what works best for you and your child. What really works around here is loss of privileges - taking away something that arlyn had been looking forward to for a while, and reminding him that it was his own fault that he's not watching TV/having dessert/going to the carnival, whatever. And losing one privilege can't mean falling back onto another - his time is then filled with helping around the house, instead of free play.

I honestly don't care if anyone spanks or doesn't, but in my house I prefer to think that I'm in enough control, and intellingent enough to be able to come up with better alternatives.

 

If I did something bad, I got a slapped arse. I knew not to do it again after that. Simple as.
Being 'grounded' or holding back spending money just doesn't have the same effect on a kid.

Obviously, it's wrong for kids to get smacked around the place and get actually physically injured. But a kid needs to know who's boss and needs a crack when they misbehave badly.

That's why children today are little ****ers, because they don't get enough discipline.

 

Discipline and spanking are not the same thing.

I agree with you that the majority of kids today need more discipline than they're getting, and that kids need to know unequivocably who's boss. They only place we differ is in our methods.

 

Exactly. People who have a problem with spanking most often have a problem with the concept of punishment, discipline or control (or all).

Corrupted yes, agressive no. In ancient Rome, the youth was more into life above stature, big spending, doing hazardous things perhaps, but not really crime. Of course, it's not like the difference is so freaking huge, but there is some. Part of the reason is impunity.

And where are you pulling that from? On what do you base those assumptions? Taking away property IMHO would be even more traumatic than spanking. Spanking lasts a short while and the child, if it's never beaten because the parent is angry but always spanked properly on the bottom and as punishment only, will know the parent isn't trying to harm it.

Taking away a toy is not merely preventing the child from playing with it but it makes the child worry and think about it for a long time. Spanking is more momentary but the effect lasts longer.

Grounding isn't so bad as a punishment for misbehaving outside the house but only then. Not as, let's say, punishment for taunting a sibling.

Next, I have a big problem on punishment based on finding out what the child likes and taking it away. That's more cruel and unusual than spanking is.

Not necessarily and it's not like other kinds of punishment won't have an ill-effect such as teaching the child the best way to deal with problems is to take away property or lock people out or whatever.

Personally, I'm against any form of taking out by parents punishing children. Parents need to cool down and know what they are doing. Eliminating spanking is a trap easy to fall in and makes people think they are so great parents because they don't spank. But not spanking doesn't automatically make them not cruel or not sadistic. I'm in favour of offence-based punishment. It should also take into consideration the child's personality and development, but it shouldn't be an attack. The child needs to feel that it's its bad behaviour which is being negated, not its personality or desires. It must be punished for breaking the expensive vase, taunting the teacher, beating the sibling, whatever, but not for being a bad child, for being obnoxious etc.

Next, many parents don't listen to their children but instead believe in what other people say. Sometimes they aren't really sure but don't care to find out, thinking the child deserves punishment for some other undiscovered offences from the past (or the future) anyway, so no harm is done. That's wrong thinking. Besides, when parents or teachers are confronted by a child when it turns out it hadn't deserved the punishment it got should know what to say and what to do. Or forcing children to admit the offence if the parents think they did it. My uncle spanked his children once until they admitted to breaking something. Later it turned out the dog did it.

In short, there is much, much more to screw up in punishing children than just spanking, and with more dire consequences.

 

I hate threads like this from Rallymama, because there is absolutely nothing for me to add, because she is right on the money.

With all due respect to people here, she is the one who has three energetic young boys so she is better placed than most of you to know what does and does not work.

My son is two years old and I have managed to get this far without spanking him. He often tries to be naughty but we use 'time out' on him and it always works. Just mentioning the words 'time out' makes him stop whatever he is doing instantly because he does not want to be confined to his room and he does not want to be isolated from Mummy and Daddy. The few times he ends up in 'time out' he says "Sorry Daddy" and is on his best behaviour afterwards. I hope that discipline along these lines will still work when he is older.

 

I was exposed to a few episodes of "Supernanny" a while back, which was basically about this woman helping (frankly idiotic) parents deal with their kids. Now these kids were seriously the worst of the worst; they would throw massive tantrums if they didn't get everything they wanted, would beat up their younger siblings, wreck furniture for fun, you name it. I can recall specifically one family in which they had eventually resorted to spanking their kids with a slipper if they misbehaved.
Didn't work.

The method championed by the so-called (and pretty justified) Supernanny was no spanking, and no shouting. In the cases of a lot of kids, shouting or even physical violence on the behalf of their parents constitutes a "victory": they've got a reaction out of them.

Instead of shouting, they were told to use a firm, authoritive tone, and get the child to admit that they had been bad, and get them to apologise. This would mean the child would understand and face what they had done, and feel guilty. Physical punishment doesn't make a child feel guilty: it just makes them angry and upset. It won't necessesarily show them right from wrong, only that they have to make sure they don't get caught next time. Time Out was also an effective method, since it gave the kid time to reflect on why they were there and why what they had done was wrong.

I do Psychology in college, so I HAVE to be right!

 

This is the seldom mentioned 'other side of the coin'. I don't think any form of punishment will be effective unless there are tangible rewwards for being good. If you are grumpy at your kids whether they are good or bad, then the kids will see no point in bothering to be good. The other leg of any child management system is consistency. As parents you have to back up your words with action and not back down when your kid whines or protests. I still think you can be really strict and still not spank. I am ruthless in putting my son in 'time out' when he is naughty, just as I am ruthless in not giving him a chocolate bar just because he whines about it in the supermarket. But I also try and make sure I spend quality focussed time with him when he is being good so that he knows that he doesn't have to make a fuss to get my attention. But then again, I only have two years experience as a parent so I probably don't really know much about what I am talking about and won't know whether I'm doing it right or not until it's too late (in 20 years time).

 

Taluntain:
I said "not necessarily", not "doesn't at all".
From my own personal experience and that of my younger brother, I've never seen physical punishment work as effectively as a stern talking-to.
Usually a smack would shut me or my brother up for a while, but an hour or so later we'd be playing up again.
and I think the point of the talk-to is to esablish such values in the child's mind, as well as reinforcing said values

 

i find this amusing, if your not for physical discipline, how would you enforce this? what if your child refused and walked out or got up and told you to "f**k off"?

 

I was thinking the same really. Whilst it's nice that Rally and Harbs have well-mannered children (obviously good parentage , not all kids will behave simply because they're told to. Some children need to be made to. Which I guess brigns us back to Tal's point that all children are different, and what might work for one little sprogg, might not work for another.

 

Firm, authoritative tones are laughed at by youngsters. They are also often associated with weakness, as in, doing just that and not spanking. For instance.

Making the child understand is good. Getting it to admit fault and apologise without making sure it understands, is dead wrong. Worse than spanking.

Can be said about any punishment which comes unexplained. Can't be said of physical punishment applied with explanation. The obvious conclusion is that punishment must be reasonable and for something real and specific, as well as properly explained.

As with Tal, I was spanked and it did work.

The first real problem with spanking that comes to my mind is when it's administered to older teenagers who are obviously too old for it. Especially if it's done by male parents on female children. Especially bare butt spanking. Generally, bare butt spanking should never be done because it's humiliating and humiliation is not acceptable punishment.

But still, in my mind, physical force is for fighting and raised voice is for quarrel. Quarrel somehow presupposes equality and an exchange of views, so it shouldn't come with erm... administrative measures on one side.