Spanking vs. Other Punishments

[blike]

Seeing as how next wednesday is "National Spank-out Day", I thought it'd be interesting to hear your opinions on spanking children. Yea, I'm stretching it putting it here in "psychology", but I wanted it to be on the active topics list, and it does have to do with behavior enforcement

[Radical Edward]

as a slight side note, looking at the language difference between pro-smacking and anti-smacking (since spank has other connotations) shows that the one that has to resort to the most emotive language is the anti smacking brigade. They commonly use words like Hit, Beat and Abuse, when, more often than not, this does not reflect the actual punishment meted out to the children. Of course if the words hit, beat and abuse are actually applicable, then something should be done about it... and it is amusing to note, that it is in todays atmosphere of high crime, social problems and juvenile delinquency, that they are proposing the removel of a method of discipline.

 

That aside, it strikes me than many parents aren't capable of bringing their children up, and have not instilled a sense of respect and discipline at an early age. When children are very young, they are incapable of understanding many things since they do not have the experience... so trying to explain to a child why something is bad is almost impossible. In the very early stages of develoment, much like a dog, a child has to learn right and wrong through association with some stimulus, in this case pain (since there is no other real immediate negative stimulus that you can associate with). once the child has learned to associate this with appropriate language, then smacking doesn't even need to be used anymore... for example I wasn't smacked at all after a couple of years of age. I certainly don't remember it. Many parents are irresponsible with it though, smacking the child almost indiscriminately for any little misdemeanour... which will not demonstrate to the child the importance of the smack at all. the child will then become immune to it in effect, having been desensitised... while it will cry at the initial pain, no lesson will be learned. This is again as a result of bad parenting.

 

I accept that there will always be exceptions in these cases, but what I have given is an outline of my general feeling on the topic.

[fafalone]

Physical abuse is not neccessary to convey a disciplinary point. My parents never hit me and don't have a discipline problem.

[blike]

Originally posted by fafalone

Physical abuse is not neccessary to convey a disciplinary point. My parents never hit me and don't have a discipline problem.

 

Bahahaha, "abuse". RE called it.

 

Anyhow, physical discipline IS necessary at an early age. Since you grew up as an only child, and I doubt you've spent much time at daycare centers, your view of children misbehaving is pretty skewed. Children sometimes simply DO NOT LISTEN. You can tell them to go to timeout, and they say no. Like RE said, most kids can't grasp the concept of something being "wrong" at a very early age. The only way to get through is through negative physical stimulus. Once they're around four, spankings won't really be necessary anymore.

[greg1917]

Physical abuse and smacking are two different things. I was smacked and i dont have a discipline problem either; if my parents didnt smack me maybe i would have a problem or maybe I wouldnt. Smacking isnt overly authoritarian on behalf of the parents, parents can smack and still be liberal and caring people.

 

In Britain a few months ago a man was jailed for giving his daughter a black eye when she screamed and cried at the dentist and he was rightly punished. Thats different to giving a wailing disobediant child a short sharp smack. if little timmy walks into a room and throws other childrens' toys around then hits someone smaller than him then I say little timmy and a slap are approaching each other at high speed. A burnt hand teaches fire best. I dont agree with a ban on smacking children, its the nanny state telling parents how best to raise their children.

[the GardenGnome]

It just teaches them that violence will solve any problems. If you start disiplining them from an early age without any spanking, it will work.

[greg1917]

Disciplining how? And the idea that spanking promotes violence is wrong anyway because I certainly dont have violent tendencies and nor do any of my friends

[Meerschaum]

my parents never hit me at all... I didnt come out any more screwed up then the next guy... I think if a big fully formed person cannot get a little child to behave without hitting them..it's the big person who should be looked at with scepticism...

 

I wasnt a big misbehaving child doing all sorts of nonsense... and I was never hit..

 

on a sidenote: the reason my parents decided to not hit me ... was because my dad was forced to go to a catholic school when he was a little kid and they used to beat all the kids there with broom handles and other impliments sometimes extremely arbitrarily he says it did little or no good just inspired hatred a spite... and my mother simply objected to it as a good form of punishment...she thought it was sick...

 

I was also an only child ;P

[daisy]

OK - as one who has actually been there and done it I will say this - I started out in parenthood saying "I'm never going to smack my kids". It didn't work out that way. I did smack my two on the rare occasions when they pushed it to the limit but I NEVER just "whacked" them for no reason. I only smacked their behinds or back of hands when they were 2-5 years old and only once in a blue moon when they did something dangerous or downright awful. As they got older it happened less and less. I will admit however that my very big son (6 foot 2 inches) got a "clip on the ear" from me the other day for swearing - I had to reach up to do it and he appeared to be amused by my feeble attempt. And I mean a clip on the ear - not a "beating" or any of the other emotive language that people use. I've also noticed an interesting thing - people who do not smack do not necessarily have children who don't hit or bite. I've known several "biters" of non-smacking parents and I've known several parents who've cured it by giving a (very gentle!) "nip" to the tip of the childs finger to teach them that it hurts to be bitten - I didn't do this because my two weren't biters. I'm not saying that I'm right to be someone who smacked but some kids have easy-going gentle dispositions (I didn't have any of those!!) and others are much more difficult. You handle each child according to their disposition.

[daisy]

P.S I also meant to say that I have a great deal of admiration for parents who can discipline without ever smacking and still raise a child who is well behaved, mannerly and knows the boundaries. Those of you who wish to report me to the social work department may now do so.

[Radical Edward]

heh, all the anti smackers say "hit" and "abuse" again.

 

furthermore, saying "my parents never smacked me and I don't have a problem" and also vice versa, is no real argument, "you" are not a statistically relevant sample.

 

how does one go about explaining to an average 1 year old the concept of danger?

[Glider]

Personally, I have no particular stance on this. I haven't thought about it enough, but...

 

Originally posted by Radical Edward

heh, all the anti smackers say "hit" and "abuse" again.

They (the anti smacking lobby) do this deliberately because they believe that those in favour have done the inverse, i.e. that by using terms such as 'smacking' and 'spanking', they have 'cutsified', and so altered the reality of what the debate is about: An adult hitting a child. The antis feel that people should be aware of precicely what the debate is about before it can be debated effectively. The argument is about 'hitting', which (they feel), is abuse. They argue that as it is unnacceptable (and illegal) for one adult to hit another, how can it be acceptable for an adult to hit a child?

 

Gardengnome raised a point strongly supported by the antis, in that hitting a child serves no other purpose than to teach it that when you get a bit frustrated, the thing to do is to hit somebody.

 

furthermore, saying "my parents never smacked me and I don't have a problem" and also vice versa, is no real argument, "you" are not a statistically relevant sample.

This is very true (see below).

 

how does one go about explaining to an average 1 year old the concept of danger?

The antis argue that tone of voice and volume are sufficient. If you haven't 'wasted' your impact by 'nagging' the child for every minor incident (which only habituates the child to constant negativity, so it begins to ignore it), a loud "NO" tends to do the trick.

 

Originally posted by Blike

Yea, I'm stretching it putting it here in "psychology", but I wanted it to be on the active topics list, and it does have to do with behavior enforcement

It's perfectly valid to put it here I think. This is a major area of research in developmental psychology. One significant finding is that children have been shown to mimic agressive behaviours they observe in adults. This indicates that point raised by the anti smacking group, that hitting a child teaches it that physical aggression is an appropriate response to frustration, is valid. Increased levels of physical agression towards peers, toys and other objects has been observed in (a statistically representative sample of) children exposed to aggressive acts by adults.

[Meerschaum]

I agree about the mis-use of verbal punishment/warning/etc I remember quite clearly when I did bad things as a small child bieng yelled at for them and stopping ...but the fact that yelling was so rare as to stick out in my mind even now so many years later I believe (in my case) demonstrates that it can be effective... my parents where very quiet people and if they yelled it was a big deal...not some every day nagging thing...it meant something when you heard them say 'NO" ... or 'STOP" ... so to me I would react even as a small child...

 

I call it it hit because it is a hit... I'm not talking about abuse or calling it abuse or anything like that..... I dont have a particuler moral judgement against it... it's been demonstrated to be effective for thousands of years... but I do think it's not needed most of the time these days if at all ... If you have a particulerly unresponsive child they now have medicine for that that might be alot of more effective then hitting anyway.

 

[Radical Edward]

hit generally means to cause physical injury, wheras a smack is just to cause pain, that is how I see the difference between the two, and that difference is rather distinct.

Adults should not hit one another, largely because they are capable of understanding one another, young children are not.

Furthermore, when it comes to smacking, it was only ever used on me in times of imminent danger, say if I was about to wander onto the road (as soon as I could walk, I hated being restricted) or something else. My personal view is that if used at all smacking should be related to these types of events. Social misdemeanours should result in social punishments.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Meerschaum

If you have a particulerly unresponsive child they now have medicine for that that might be alot of more effective then hitting anyway.

 

I strongly disagree with this - the use of the word medicine again, is the sort of language that I was pointing our earlier. The things being given to children such as Ritalin are Drugs of the mind altering variety. They should not be administered unless under the most severest circumstances, and definitely not at the rate that they seem to be being handed out over in the US of late.

[Guest Duncan Bourne]

Originally posted by the GardenGnome

It just teaches them that violence will solve any problems. .

 

Actually if you look at the world in general it seems that violence is always used to solve any problem.

 

There is an old civil war (English) folk song with the line "Never call it reason when the sword says treason"

 

Beating and abusing children is indefenceable, and it certainly makes them immune to violence (I know because I have a friend who works with kids with behavioural difficulties who regard violence as a part of normal social interaction) but not using any physical punishment (in the form of the short smack for a specific reason) can also give them a skewed view of the world.

[Glider]

Originally posted by Meerschaum

I agree about the mis-use of verbal punishment/warning/etc I remember quite clearly when I did bad things as a small child bieng yelled at for them and stopping ...but the fact that yelling was so rare as to stick out in my mind even now so many years later I believe (in my case) demonstrates that it can be effective... my parents where very quiet people and if they yelled it was a big deal...not some every day nagging thing...it meant something when you heard them say 'NO" ... or 'STOP" ... so to me I would react even as a small child...

This absolutely the most important thing. It is the fundamental key to guiding a child. It is the rarity and discretion with which such verbal 'prods' are applied that makes them valuable (and more important, effective). If life for a child is one long tirade of arguing and shouting, a raised voice means nothing; it is simply the norm. Such parents will have completely undermined their ability to control their child without resorting to physical assault.

 

Radical Edward: The term 'hit' simply means to apply force of whatever intensity acutely (i.e. rapid onset, short duration, as in a blow or an impact). There is no implication of the intent to cause injury (e.g. we 'hit' a nail with a hammer).

 

I use the term 'physical assault' above, but is not emotive. It simply means to apply physical force without the consent and against the will of the assaulted. The term carries no implicit indication of degree or severity. This is what the anti smacking people are arguing; to debate this subject effectively, we must define clearly our terms of reference, and avoid the use of misleading terms that evoke inaccurate concepts (e.g. 'spanking').

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Glider

Radical Edward: The term 'hit' simply means to apply force of whatever intensity acutely (i.e. rapid onset, short duration, as in a blow or an impact). There is no implication of the intent to cause injury (e.g. we 'hit' a nail with a hammer).

 

We must define clearly our terms of reference, and avoid the use of misleading terms that evoke inaccurate concepts (e.g. 'spanking').

 

I am referring contextually. when one "hits" a person, generally it is regarded as a method of causing pain or injury, whereas the intention in hitting a nail is clear. one rarely "hits" in order to discipline, and should you wish to use the word hit, it must be made clear whether the intention is one of discipline or not. Furthermore, there is another distinction to be drawn between discipline and punishment.

 

sadly I don't have time at the moment to discuss it in more detail, but if you agree, dosagree or feel like coming up with some boundaries, I will be back on monday.

[blike]

The article states "She admits some smart-ass kids may try to get into trouble specifically on SpankOut Day but suggests those kids be given at-home writing assignments such as "why can adults hit kids when they can't hit each other?".

 

Adults do hit each other. Disobey and struggle against police officer and his nightstick or tazer will come out faster than you can say "uhoh".

 

-- Anyhow,

 

Many of you never got to experience the disciplinary hell that was my younger brother about 12 years ago. That kid got so many spankings it wasn't funny. My parents never raised their voice. I remember my mom yelling at me when I was like 6 and I cried because I was in shock. However, yelling at my younger brother did NOTHING. He was a little tyrant, defying everybody. They tried timeout, they tried explanation, they tried sending him to his room, everything. Nothing seemed to phase him. When my mom would raise her voice and say "You want to go to timeout?" He would say YES. My mom hardly ever raised her voice unless it was something serious. It just didn't phase him. (meanwhile it shocked my poor innocent self to tears) Many wooden spoons and belts later, he's turned out fine. He has hardly any disciplinary problems now (except those of a typical 15 year old).

 

I find it hard to believe that spanking promotes violence. 100 years ago they spanked children publically in classrooms with spanking rods. They also hit them over the knuckles. This wasn't just during early childhood, it carried on through grade school. But there wasn't the violence among children at school that we do now. Even 45 years ago spankings were a lot more frequent and common. I wonder how many kids going to highschool worried that a gunmen would open fire on a crowd of people and then kill themselves. How many principals worried that a student would march into the office and blow his head off. The worst you had to worry about was the scheduled fight with tommy-joe after class. Now we have metal detectors at elementary schools. What a pathetic society we've become. I'm not trying to show a correlation between increase in violence and decrease in spankings. I'm just pointing out that violence among kids is at an all time high, but spankings are probably at an all time low.

 

I also disagree with giving (most) unruly children medicine. Its just a bandaid. My brother would probably still be dumping chemicals into his brain to control his anger if he had been put on medicine.

 

Spankings in my household were more than just a physical pain, it was an emotional pain as well. It was a big deal, they weren't spur of the moment beatings. They would send me (or my brother) to my room to wait. Then they'd come in and have a talk about why a spanking was about to go down. Then they'd have us fetch the spoon (ahhhh). My mom would spank and then bust out in tears. This hurt me emotionally more than physically. I remember my last spanking didn't even hurt physically, but i cried because I had hurt my mom. I'd say this was a bigger deterrence than physical pain, I hated to see my mom in such grief.

[Skye]

when one "hits" a person, generally it is regarded as a method of causing pain or injury, whereas the intention in hitting a nail is clear. one rarely "hits" in order to discipline, and should you wish to use the word hit, it must be made clear whether the intention is one of discipline or not. Furthermore, there is another distinction to be drawn between discipline and punishment.

That's the argument of people for physically disiplining a child, that it is reasonable because of the good intent, and neccessary. Those against think it's absolutely unreasonable, and unneccessary. The context, or the individual interpretation of the context, are going to decide the best choice of words, that's semantics for you...I'll use physical discipline because it's a particular sterile term that no one can really disagree with.

 

The point at which it becomes abusive is up to the individual, and law of course. Most people (and law) use their society as a basis. I think the widely differring views are largely due to the established tradition of physical discipline of children, which is contrasted with the lack of comparable physical discipline in any other social context. I'd hope that everyone agrees that, given the choice, verbal discipline is preferrable to physical. If so, then physical discipline is only justified by it's neccessity, or by the benefits outweighing the detriments. Clearly, physical disipline isn't neccessary in all cases, at the same time there are situations in which verbal discipline just doesn't work. In those situations where verbal discipline is ineffective, how well does physical discipline work? Is it neccessary? Is it a better of two evils?

[greg1917]

smacking children isnt an 'evil' thing in any context; the law would have no trouble differentiating between a father who actually injures his child and a father who disciplines his child when they dont respond to verbal warnings. parents should have the right to exercise their right to raise the child as they see fit, not a national guideline written by over protective, over liberal and overly vocal lobbyists.

[daisy]

I never used an implement of any kind if I (or their dad) smacked the kids, only my flat hand on their behind - 1 or 2 smacks. I think our laws are sufficient at present - we already have child abuse laws (Scottish law) wherein if you use enough force to bruise (whether it's an implement or hand) then you may well find yourself being investigated. Whenever I got a smack growing up it was also on the behind with my mum or dads flat hand. I think using implements such as hairbrushes etc. is beyond "smacking".

[NavajoEverclear]

I personal see spanking as one means of a programmed response-- an alternative to actually solving what ever problem is being punished. I know it could be extremely difficult to figure out how to deal with the psychology of a small child--- but I do believe it is possible, and if you love them enough you will take the preperations to parent them as best as possible, which I think includes dealing with problems in ways other than spanking and such, preferably even by prevention.

 

Always have hope and faith for the better way.

[SLither]

Hi everyone

 

I personal dont support any form of punnisment.

 

It seams to me that to punnish someone is to live in a contradiction, i dont belive that anyone enjoys being punnished

so what you get is right Vs wrong where everthing that a person likes is right and everthing that he or she dosen't like is wrong.

 

So if i was to be punnished for something then i would view that

as bad and that the person handing out the punnishment to be bad.

 

So the contradiction is this, (that its ok to treat someone badly if they have done something bad) but isn't it the actions of bad doing that makes a person bad.

 

Or maybe i'm just dribbling :bs:

 

SLither

[Intelligence]

Using physical punishment on children has been scientifically proven to actually INCREASE the amount of unwanted activity a child performs.

 

Thus one should actually spank their child when the child performs an acitivty they want them to perform more often.