The facts about spanking:
Replies are closed for this discussion.
+1 "so long as they're not being harmed" - I think a LOT of people are ignoring the message that Jade here is trying to highlight. If this whole discussion is about feeling pain or physical discipline resulting in blood then why isn't there a clip about "child abuse" or "beating" instead? I see a BIG difference between "spanking" and "beating", they are two completely different words with different meanings.
@PK Dogs are weaker animals and respond differently than humans when faced with the threat of or experiencing spanking. Even though I believe that domesticating animals from the wild and "keeping" them as our own is not the way nature intended, there are different examples that could be used when justifying an owner disciplining their dog with spanking - a pit bull that misjudges a visitor and tries to attack them. Its owner takes control, pulling it back and spanking it. A scenario like this is dangerous and that visitors life was at risk; so, which is more important? Anti-violence or saving the visitors life? The dog's life is not over because of one spanking.
Also, no one here is trying to justify a random stranger walking up and assaulting another stranger or a human going out and senselessly beating an innocent animal on the street, that is wrong. Disciplining your own child is not wrong. It is a parents right and their duty to correct their child's behaviour, whether it be through words or physical discipline; all individuals have a right too choose. Children are young and malleable and must be taught the difference between right and wrong. If they don't feel threatened in some way after their parent witnesses dangerous behaviour that could put their life or the life of somebody else at risk or could potentially see them growing into a criminal etc. they will repeat this behaviour. I'm not saying that all children must be punished with spanking (I repeat, spanking, NOT "beating" or "physical abuse" that causes "pain" or "bleeding"), however it is sometimes necessary for some individuals in order to prevent unacceptable or dangerous behaviour in the future.
Without Pain how can spanking provide any "threat". Discipline works but spanking is never necessary. Can you point to one single example?
But you see, Jade, I believe that one doesn't have to cause welts or dire physical damage in order for spanking to do harm to the child's psyche.
There are many ways to harm a child that don't involve severe beatings. Physically over-powering a child and inflicting even a mild spanking is humiliating and shaming. Not to mention how out of control and small it makes the parent look.
In my opinion that is very harmful.
A thoughtful parent can find better ways of communicating to a child that their behavior is not acceptable than hitting the child.
Let's face it, any form of punishment (grounding, time-out, etc., loss of phone privileges, etc.) is humiliating to a child. It's punishment--it's not supposed to be "fun". When I was a kid, I can tell you for sure that simply "communicating to a child that their behavior is not acceptable" didn't do ANYTHING. I was a stubborn kid--and there are LOTS of stubborn kids out there. Sometimes, a punishment that doesn't make them feel good is the only way to get the point across, and I feel I'm a better person for it. I know children who are never punished with more than "communicating to a child that their behavior is not acceptable". They're brats--every single one of them.
I know children who are never punished with more than "communicating to a child that their behavior is not acceptable". They're brats--every single one of them.
Sounds like you need to meet more people ;)
I could say the same for you.
Yes, we must "travel in different circles", as they say. :)
And as a 'stubborn child' did the spanking do 'anything' to you?
I was spanked, sometimes. My aim was never to cry, never to give in and never to 'break'. This of course leads to natural escalation. Being spanked never did anything except strengthen my resolve not to get caught and distance me from the person doing the spanking. The greatest victories were when my brother and I were beaten and the wooden spoon (mum's weapon of choice when things inevitably escalated) broke. In the end she was in tears and we were the victors. Sad as I look back, for her loss of control hurt her deeply in retrospect. We thought she was angry she broke the spoon.:)
The logic conclusion of the arguement that you teach violence as a corrective response is that war is the innevitable answer to your problems. Ghandi had a pretty good response to violence, and mass non compliance is about the most effective response the world has ever seen. It brought about the fastest and most peaceful dismantling of empire the world has come across.
With children of my own now the impulse to resort to violence comes when they are not doing what I want. I have never acted upon the impulse and in the end teaching them and taking the time to discipline them the hard and admittedly longer way, has much more satisfying outcomes. Its not about letting them roam free or spanking them, there is a middle way, where you teach them to be the adult you would be proud of. In every negotiation or altercation I have been in as an adult, If I was to resort to violence as a means of solving the problem, I would not have solved the problem.
There is no place in a modern society for the spanking of children. It is inneffective, it teaches violence instead of dispute resolution, and it distances and fractures the family unit.
Being a stubborn kid doesn't mean you have a 'spanking deficiency', rather the parents has 'parenting skill deficiencies'.. and this one goes for the brat's parents too, just because they didn't spank their child it doesn't mean that they raised them the right way, as others already mentioned there's much more to parenting than just not spanking or not punishing..
Being a stubborn kid doesn't mean you have a 'spanking deficiency', rather the parents has 'parenting skill deficiencies'..
I never said it meant anyone had a spanking deficiency. I merely support the idea that spanking is one of many techniques that, when used properly by parents, can be integrated into the greater whole of parenting.
@Sultana Actions speak louder than words when dealing with small children who need extra guidance. In my opinion (whether this is relevant or not), an appropriate time frame in which it is acceptable for parents to use spanking as a method of discipline (when deserved) is when children are aged 4-10. Read my above comment: "Children are young and malleable and must be taught the difference between right and wrong. If they don't feel threatened in some way when their parent witnesses dangerous behaviour that could put their life or the life of somebody else at risk or could potentially see them growing into a criminal etc., they will repeat this behaviour."
Spanking babies under 4 years old is wrong because they are weak, vulnerable, don't know any better and quite frankly never do anything wrong because their brain is still developing.
By the time children reach the age of about 10 they have matured enough and learned enough through discipline (whether it be through words or through spanking) that the need for spanking is unnecessary due to their level of understanding between right and wrong and what is tolerated by their parents. Reasons for spanking is a whole different story and seems to be overlooked by many people in this discussion. There are good reasons and non-reasons for such discipline. The only time a child is traumatized because of disciplinary action their parents have taken is when the discipline is physically or verbally harsh, frequent, unnecessary and painful. These four factors do not define the kind of spanking Jade and I are talking about.