Poll: Do you think spanking is wrong?
- Thread starter Durxom
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't see how anyone could raise a kid properly without spanking them.
Unless you're the type that spoils them into annoying brats.
Unless you're the type that spoils them into annoying brats.
Not always the case and an annoying assumption. Just because some people choose not to smack, does not mean they are spoiling their child. Verbal punishments can work just as well as physical depending on the child and how they react.Home-Skillet said:
I personally was never spanked as a kid, however I was given a rather forceful smack across the face and a stern talking afterward on the proper occasion. I personally think it shaped me to be a very polite person. I have to agree that using it only on severe occasions is justified.
Is verbal punishment just a 'stern talking to'?MelziGurl said:
For some reason I can only think of that as being verbal abuse.
A stern talking to abuse? I don't get what you're trying to say.Home-Skillet said:
Verbal, mental, physical it doesn't matter what form it is all three have the ability to scar a child. The way in which you conduct yourself is important and restraint is key. It is entirely possible to discipline a child in those three ways without abuse and leaving a scar or having them grow up spoilt little brats.
Nope. I have a big family, and if we did something wrong we were spanked for it. We actually used to get free dessert at restaurants because we were very well-behaved, so I'd like to think that it worked.
I got spanked as a kid and I'm telling you right now that not only do I think I'm better off for it but I plan to do the same to my kids should I have any. So many times I've seen parents bending over backwards to please their shouting and crying kids who honestly don't deserve it. Those kids grow up to be entitled arrogant jerks. Maybe it's not the spanking itself, but it's the control. I believe a parent should have control over their kids, and if they think spanking is the best way to go, so be it... now, beating your kid is different.
When I was younger, if I was disrespectful towards an adult, I would get spanked. Not only did I totally deserve it, but I wouldn't dare to even think about disrespecting an authority figure.Chelsizzle said:
well, trying to explain things to kids with words doesn't work sometimes as they simply won't understand, so until they get old enough to do so, physical determent works fine. I speak from personal experience, never have I held being spanked against my parents.
I won't spank my kids, if they do something stupid I'll just smack them immediately in the back of the head. Not to the point where they are really hurt, but enough for them to get the message.
No, it's not wrong, sometimes it just needs to be done.
Note the very, very important word in that sentence: sometimes.
It amuses me that in this thread smacking has been labelled as child abuse and even torture. I don't think any of us are talking about going all Gitmo on the kid (comparing a smack to water boarding is an assinine arguing point - it's hyperbole and bullshit, to be blunt).
I believe that to discipline an unruly child you warn them about their behaviour, if they continue then you opt for time-outs/the naughty corner/step, groundings, removing favourite toys/etc. You explain to the child what they did wrong, and (importantly) why it was wrong. Have you been raising them right (which you should be) then they will come and apologise, after which they can have their *whatever was confiscated* back if you deem them genuinely contrite (with small enough kids they are).
However there are times when children simply don't respond to verbal communication or dialogue.
This has been claimed to be "wrong" in this thread - but how many times have you seen a kid reach for the stove/fire, the parent says "don't touch that, it's hot" (as you can't smack their hand away, that'd be torturous) and then they touch said hot object and burn themselves. The infliction of pain in those scenarios is what teaches the child to not repeat the action (though if you want to argue that smacking a child is child abuse, then I claim allowing them to touch a hot object, which you can't restrain them from doing without it going under the same category, is neglect as you are allowing harm to come to a child in your care
).
Smacking is not about the infliction of pain. However to the child's brain it follows a similar path - a certain action led to an unpleasant consequence. It should, in my opinion, always be used as a last resort for when the child has repeatedly ignored warnings/groundings etc. or done something fairly hieneous. The smack is designed to capture the child's attention rather than inflict pain, allowing you to explain what they were doing wrong.
When smacking is used as a last resort for only the gravest of a child's misdeeds (I dunno, like trying to staple the family dog to the floor) and/or is a situation where they are likely to come to greater harm without the use of a smack; and this is combined with affirming good behaviour, incredibly important to raise well-rounded kids IMO, then it does not cause undue trauma nor induce fear towards a parental figure who should, in the child's eyes, be loving and "safe".
The confusion generated by a smack from a parent is exactly what makes the child not carry the same action out again. It is not fear of the parent, or fear of the consequence, but it is the memory of the displeasure of the parent (rather than the smack/"violence" itself) that causes the child to stop and actually think about what they are doing. This is why rewarding good behaviour (even if it is through simple hugs/stars and not treats) is vitally important in making smacking an effective, non-abusive punishment tool, as after all a loving environment is vital towards a child's development. However the once-in-a-blue-moon smack isn't going to harm the child - the short-term effect is often what is desired, particularly if the child is in a situation that will be highly harmful to them.
Now when I say "smack" I do mean a light tap on the wrist/bottom/back of the legs. It is not a beating in any sense of the word. Also, as you may have guessed, I endorse smacking as ONLY a last resort measure, for either keeping the child from greater harm or for a punishment where a grounding/time-out will not suffice.
Were a parent to smack their child for every single act of disobedience then yes, I'd agree that it was wrong and abusive, and is almost certainly instilling fear rather than learning/respect into the child. But used as a final method in a household that opts for all of the "non-violent" methods of punishment first-and-formost I believe it to be absolutely fine.
After all, the proponents of the idea that smacking = child abuse comment (as evidenced by this thread) cite that non-corporal punishments are more effective and smacking isn't needed. Therefore they shouldn't have an issue of smacking being a last-resort option within a loving and caring family as the other methods will mean it's not actually needed, right? Banning smacking simply removes a tool in a parent's arsenal that can be incredibly important - namely from preventing the child from harming themselves, or another child, further. Thus I believe the option of being able to smack your child is more important than trying to label it as "child abuse" (after all, if a tap on the wrist/bottom is abusive, how do you rate an arm-wrench to keep them from dunking their brother's head in the pan of bioling water or running out into traffic? Has a much higher chance of harming the child, thus should be more abusive)- that designation should be reserved for people who actually beat thier children as a regular occurence and are, indeed, abusve.
Sorry for the wall of text - this topic annoys me greatly, as both sides display extreme...ignorance, almost (forgive me if it's not the right word). From people saying parents should "beat the little shits into next month" to others claiming "touching a child is abuse and torture!". Both have a slight point (however take it to extremes at either end of the spectrum), however both also miss the point-at-large, as I hope I have been able to elucidate in this post.
Note the very, very important word in that sentence: sometimes.
It amuses me that in this thread smacking has been labelled as child abuse and even torture. I don't think any of us are talking about going all Gitmo on the kid (comparing a smack to water boarding is an assinine arguing point - it's hyperbole and bullshit, to be blunt).
I believe that to discipline an unruly child you warn them about their behaviour, if they continue then you opt for time-outs/the naughty corner/step, groundings, removing favourite toys/etc. You explain to the child what they did wrong, and (importantly) why it was wrong. Have you been raising them right (which you should be) then they will come and apologise, after which they can have their *whatever was confiscated* back if you deem them genuinely contrite (with small enough kids they are).
However there are times when children simply don't respond to verbal communication or dialogue.
This has been claimed to be "wrong" in this thread - but how many times have you seen a kid reach for the stove/fire, the parent says "don't touch that, it's hot" (as you can't smack their hand away, that'd be torturous) and then they touch said hot object and burn themselves. The infliction of pain in those scenarios is what teaches the child to not repeat the action (though if you want to argue that smacking a child is child abuse, then I claim allowing them to touch a hot object, which you can't restrain them from doing without it going under the same category, is neglect as you are allowing harm to come to a child in your care
).Smacking is not about the infliction of pain. However to the child's brain it follows a similar path - a certain action led to an unpleasant consequence. It should, in my opinion, always be used as a last resort for when the child has repeatedly ignored warnings/groundings etc. or done something fairly hieneous. The smack is designed to capture the child's attention rather than inflict pain, allowing you to explain what they were doing wrong.
When smacking is used as a last resort for only the gravest of a child's misdeeds (I dunno, like trying to staple the family dog to the floor) and/or is a situation where they are likely to come to greater harm without the use of a smack; and this is combined with affirming good behaviour, incredibly important to raise well-rounded kids IMO, then it does not cause undue trauma nor induce fear towards a parental figure who should, in the child's eyes, be loving and "safe".
The confusion generated by a smack from a parent is exactly what makes the child not carry the same action out again. It is not fear of the parent, or fear of the consequence, but it is the memory of the displeasure of the parent (rather than the smack/"violence" itself) that causes the child to stop and actually think about what they are doing. This is why rewarding good behaviour (even if it is through simple hugs/stars and not treats) is vitally important in making smacking an effective, non-abusive punishment tool, as after all a loving environment is vital towards a child's development. However the once-in-a-blue-moon smack isn't going to harm the child - the short-term effect is often what is desired, particularly if the child is in a situation that will be highly harmful to them.
Now when I say "smack" I do mean a light tap on the wrist/bottom/back of the legs. It is not a beating in any sense of the word. Also, as you may have guessed, I endorse smacking as ONLY a last resort measure, for either keeping the child from greater harm or for a punishment where a grounding/time-out will not suffice.
Were a parent to smack their child for every single act of disobedience then yes, I'd agree that it was wrong and abusive, and is almost certainly instilling fear rather than learning/respect into the child. But used as a final method in a household that opts for all of the "non-violent" methods of punishment first-and-formost I believe it to be absolutely fine.
After all, the proponents of the idea that smacking = child abuse comment (as evidenced by this thread) cite that non-corporal punishments are more effective and smacking isn't needed. Therefore they shouldn't have an issue of smacking being a last-resort option within a loving and caring family as the other methods will mean it's not actually needed, right? Banning smacking simply removes a tool in a parent's arsenal that can be incredibly important - namely from preventing the child from harming themselves, or another child, further. Thus I believe the option of being able to smack your child is more important than trying to label it as "child abuse" (after all, if a tap on the wrist/bottom is abusive, how do you rate an arm-wrench to keep them from dunking their brother's head in the pan of bioling water or running out into traffic? Has a much higher chance of harming the child, thus should be more abusive)- that designation should be reserved for people who actually beat thier children as a regular occurence and are, indeed, abusve.
Sorry for the wall of text - this topic annoys me greatly, as both sides display extreme...ignorance, almost (forgive me if it's not the right word). From people saying parents should "beat the little shits into next month" to others claiming "touching a child is abuse and torture!". Both have a slight point (however take it to extremes at either end of the spectrum), however both also miss the point-at-large, as I hope I have been able to elucidate in this post.
Mine isn't a chemical imbalance. I didn't take any pills and now I'm dealing with it as best as someone with depression can, just through therapy. I'll still have to deal with it for the rest of my life, but I've dealt with it as much as humanly possible.Lord Mountbatten Reborn said:
The other points you're giving are interesting, though. Disciplining your child and hitting them are two entirely different things. A child may not know what he's doing is good or bad, but they do know when they lose something, and taking something as small as a toy from a child would be enough discipline to teach him a lesson. A toy, desert, get creative with the punishments. That being said, make sure they know why they're losing what they're losing. A contributing factor to my depression was my dad just yelling at me for no apparent reason.
What I believe to be the big problem, what's turning kids into little shits these days, is that everyone's telling their kids that they're special and the kids are taking it to heart that it means they're entitled to something. You see all the ghetto people out there who swagger around acting like they're a big deal? That, I think, is the real problem. Make your kid aware that they've got special talents, but make them know that they've got to work at it. Again, the first part is important, because my dad just went for the second part and...
Oh yeah, and don't have kids for revenge. Deal with your furking issues, don't pass them over. Maybe it's just the fact that I like super heroes, but I have a solid belief of "be better than them," which includes your parents.
If you speak to the animal part of the brain, guess which part is going to react?KingGolem said:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/spanking-moms-aggression-kids/story?id=10332882
http://www.parentdish.com/2010/04/12/spanking-makes-children-more-aggressive-study-shows/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175522,00.html
Here's some studies. I have an idea, let's read and study this subject before making opinions about. Everybody. even me, needs to do more of this. And not just read the studies, look at how they were conducted as well.
I don't spank, I beat them with a banana, leaves no bruises and gets the message across...
In all seriousness, I will but I won't use a belt like some....because it hurts, no matter what age you are if you are being assaulted by a belt, its going to hurt in the morning.
In all seriousness, I will but I won't use a belt like some....because it hurts, no matter what age you are if you are being assaulted by a belt, its going to hurt in the morning.
No it is not wrong. Today's kids are selfish and spoiled and just overall idiotic. They were never taught the value or morals or anything and they were let away with it.
Spanking should still be allowed and in my family it IS allowed. When I have children and they misbehave I too will swat them if it is deserved.
Spanking should still be allowed and in my family it IS allowed. When I have children and they misbehave I too will swat them if it is deserved.
I was whacked with a belt...a cat n nine tails to be exact. In my case we got a belt just like a smack, over a clothed bottom and nowhere else. If you are getting it over clothing you will not receive a mark, bruising or broken skin. It never hurt in the morning, heck I don't even think it hurt when it happened when I think back on it but it was enough for some of the worst I kids did and never did again. If it's actually hurting a child then the parents are doing it intentionally to hurt, mine did it for shock. But, like you I won't be using a belt. It's an old punishment that isn't and never was really needed.RandomWords said:
No, Spanking isn't wrong if done properly. The best way to do it is explain to them WHY they are getting spanked and what they did wrong then spank them.