How do you do this to your kids?

[shmokes]

You are way too quick to find a reason to disqualify a person's comments entirely if they disagree with your opinions. 

That's probably true.

[horseboy]

You are way too quick to find a reason to disqualify a person's comments entirely if they disagree with your opinions. 

That's definitely true.

[shmokes]

Gimme a break.  I'm no doubt overly argumentative, but we're talking about Chad -- someone who automatically disagrees with everything I say even when I'm agreeing with the last thing he said.  You learn how to deal with certain people and it becomes habitual.  I don't think many here would describe Chad "the yardstick by which people are measured" Tower as someone who is particularly accepting of opinions he does not share.  Some might even describe his as dismissive, hard headed and arrogant.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he wouldn't mind using those terms to describe himself.

[RandyT]

shmokes,

Serious question:  With that many siblings, how was discipline administered in your household?  And by whom?  If you were number 9, by time you got to an age where you could start analyzing parenting methods, there must have been an awful lot of nearly adult children (with nearly adult responsibilities) around your household.

I dare suggest, much of what you experienced growing up would be considered a bit alien to those who might come from the more common smaller families.

Just a thought.

RandyT

[shmokes]

shmokes,

Serious question:  With that many siblings, how was discipline administered in your household?  And by whom?  If you were number 9, by time you got to an age where you could start analyzing parenting methods, there must have been an awful lot of nearly adult children (with nearly adult responsibilities) around your household.

I dare suggest, much of what you experienced growing up would be considered a bit alien to those who might come from the more common smaller families.

Just a thought.

RandyT

   I think there's probably some truth to that.  I had probably changed more diapers by the time I was 15 than most people change in their entire lives.  I was washing poopy diapers out in the toilet when I was five years old (my mom only used disposable diapers on kids she babysat, and they provided their own diapers).

As for discipline, that was all my mom, who is pretty nutso.  As a kid, I would see my parents and older siblings in shouting matches and I would be very angry at my siblings, not understanding what any of it was about, but only understanding that my brother or sister wasn't doing what was right.  As a kid, it doesn't seem weird or unfair that you get smacked about.  It's unpleasant, but that's just the way it is and why would you think it would be any different for any other kid?  The older I got the more I realized how ---fouled up beyond all recognition--- up my parents were (mainly just my mom, but my dad wouldn't stand up to her).  One day, just after I turned fifteen, it occurred to me that I was physically stronger than my mom.  That day she lost the only control she had ever developed over me. 

That incident, which I've kind of glossed over, is one of the defining points in the development of my ideas about parenting.  When it occurred to me that I was no longer afraid of my mom, she had absolutely no control over me (except when she wouldn't sign for my drivers license until I cut my hair -- so I cut it, got a drivers license, and grew it back ).  Once your kids become teenagers, corporal punishment doesn't fly unless you're ready to get serious with the wrenches and cigarette burns, etc..  The only way you can keep your kids from doing things that they want to do is by having a relationship where they respect you and trust you so much that the thought of disappointing you is worse than the thought of missing out on whatever it is you don't want them to do.  And I think that spanking, at any time, works against the development of this kind of relationship.

Also, keep in mind that 15 sounds like more than it is.  At any given time there was never more than ten or eleven kids living in the house because the oldest had turned eighteen and left or the youngest hadn't been born.  Also, three were adopted.  So my mom and dad only personally sired twelve of us 

[NightGod]

I'll agree that spanking shouldn't be the only form of discipline used on a child, but my experiences showed me that, at least at a certain age (say 2 1/2 to 5-6), it was a very effective one when other options had been exhausted. There's a certain age of child when reasoning just does not work-they don't have the mental faculties to participate fully in it.

My personal experience has been that the people I personally know who have never spanked their child have more overall discipline problems than those who used spanking sparingly as a discipline tool. On the flip side, those who over-used spanking find themselves in the same position as those who didn't use it at all.

I've never met a parent who said "Man, I regret those five times I spanked Billy when he was growing up" and I've met alot of parents who say they wish they had when the kids were young enough for it to have done some good. I've also met those who say that they are glad they didn't spank at all, though they are in the minority from my experience. I've also met alot of parents who say they wish they had spanked less, but those are the ones who tended to use it as the main tool, rather than as a final resort.

If something else is working for you, then keep doing it, just sharing my experiences and, by proxy, the experiences of the parents I know personally.

[ChadTower]

One day, just after I turned fifteen, it occurred to me that I was physically stronger than my mom.  That day she lost the only control she had ever developed over me. 

Ha.  I remember that.  Probably 12 for me... my mother just whaling on me one day and me standing there not even moving.  Changed the whole relationship.

[AtomSmasher]

Just remember that sending them to prison to teach them a lesson is not a good idea:  http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/423466/821545

[ChadTower]

Well, clearly he didn't learn not to be mouthy.

[Ed_McCarron]

but it was an effective tool when they were too young to reason with.

Thats the key.  Reasoning only works if the child is old enough to understand it.  My 3 year old still has cause and effect issues - doesn't rationalize that running into the street will get him squished. 

So, he gets a quick swat on the behind when he does so.

He can connect a sore bottom to running into the street.  Pavlov would be proud.

[RandyT]

Clearly, there will never be a consensus on the best way to handle poorly behaved kids.  People are as different as snowflakes (sometimes without the snow part) and children are just  little people.  What works with one, may not have a chance in hell of working on another.  The disturbing thing is that the ones who might need some physical "behavior modification" the most, are now not receiving it.  And because of this, will likely have no respect for figures of authority (like police, teachers, their boss, etc., )   You know, all the people that supposedly are crucial for the running of a civilized society and those your child will depend on to be successful.

The answer of late is to jack these kids up on drugs to keep them under control, so we can add habitual drug use to the list of this person's adult problems.

Everything that happens to you as a child is training for what will happen to you as an adult.  Instilling the values of absolute passivity into your child might make him a scholar and a gentleman.  On the other hand it might make him "food" for those who are not.

Balance is the key.

RandyT

[saint]

Heh. My kids are anything but passive. Purple belts in karate (the two older ones) and anything but shy about asking for what they want.

Everything that happens to you as a child is training for what will happen to you as an adult.  Instilling the values of absolute passivity into your child might make him a scholar and a gentleman.  On the other hand it might make him "food" for those who are not.

Balance is the key.

RandyT

[shardian]

When I was a kid, I got spankings for bad grades in school. They never had any effect on me - as in I still got bad grades. It was a worthwhile trade-off to get 6 weeks of no homework for 1 minute of butt whoopins. What my parents should have realized was that I was smart enough to realize grades don't mean ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- until high school. I should have been rewarded for being so clever.  

Side note: Once I got into High school, I graduated with a 4.1 GPA.

Another funny butt whoopin story:
One time when I was either 5 or 6, I was told I was gonna get a butt spanking. I went to my room and put on a pair of sweat pants. I then put a book in there on my butt, along with the entire contents of one of my clothes drawers. I came out with a totally straight face, and said I was ready. After my dad nearly choked to death from a laughing fit, I got a bare butt spanking for my efforts. Geeze, you think he would have given me some credit for creativity.

 Some children (as in my case also) will go out of their way to get spankings because it is the only form of attention they get from their parents. My Aunt beats and screams at her kids on a regular basis, but she ignores them other than to yell or hit.

Final assesment from my point of view, spankings do not work as a singular form of punishment, and they are not needed for parents who are actively involved in their childrens everyday lives.So, spankings do not work.

[shmokes]

So, spankings do not work.

Before anyone jumps on this, I think what he really means is that spanking is unnecessary.  I think that spanking can be effective in some cases.  But, like Shardian, I think it's unecessary because better alternatives are available.

[Ed_McCarron]

I think it's unecessary because better alternatives are available.

I'm open to suggestions.  Since you obviously know everything there is to be said on the matter, would you care to enlighten us?  How d'you handle your kids?

[shmokes]

Generally speaking, first I spank her.  And if that doesn't work, I shake her.

[Ed_McCarron]

Generally speaking, first I spank her.  And if that doesn't work, I shake her.

Wait, are we talking about wives or kids now?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

He's the little bastard type who - check THIS out - looks out the window when I pull up, and hides his hand behind the curtain so mom can't see him, and flips me the bird.  I've already spoken to her about him, she told him "knock it off".  That's it.  Now I just lean on the horn when he's doing it. 

This scenario cracks me the f' up for some reason. Sounds so "Raising Arizona"... 

Maybe the kid reads your postings on Pn'R? 


mrC

[Grasshopper]

FWIW I'm against adults spanking kids.

I've met too many wackos who claimed it never did them any harm.

[Dartful Dodger]

I'd like to think I wouldn't hit a child, but I've seen kids that if they were mine they'd be in a hospital.  All kids are different and I'm going to assume parents are the best judge at what their kids need.

With all these school shootings I think if parents are doing something to control their kids we should leave them alone. 

DCF should be going after parents who don't control their kids at all.

[DrewKaree]

He's the little bastard type who - check THIS out - looks out the window when I pull up, and hides his hand behind the curtain so mom can't see him, and flips me the bird.  I've already spoken to her about him, she told him "knock it off".  That's it.  Now I just lean on the horn when he's doing it. 

This scenario cracks me the f' up for some reason. Sounds so "Raising Arizona"... 

Maybe the kid reads your postings on Pn'R? 


mrC

I keep getting the feeling his middle name is "Dexter".

He's a little bastard who has learned that mom is unwilling to do something that might make him "hate" her.  He was the last kid, the one she had before splitting with LoserDad, but too young to know LoserDad.  The other two kids know what an ass LoserDad is, and also how NutsMom is.  NutsMom lavishes all kinds of attention on the youngest, trying to "save" him.  Meanwhile, she's training him to manipulate situations to get himself out of trouble, get his wishes met, etc.  She's training him to undoubtedly face serious problems in life when it becomes apparent that nobody else cares how his mom dealt with him and that they expect far more from this little asshat and WILL deal out consequences for his prickitude.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Disclaimer: I don't have kids of my own, however, both myself and my fiance' have spent loads of time in positions of authority over children (Counselors, etc), as well as in positions that have allowed us to observe various methods of parental interaction/discipline, and the subsequent consequences of those interactions with the children (when the parent is not around).

From both our experiences, it was easy to conclude that the children of parents who did *not* use spanking/corporal punishment were usually easier to deal with and generally more well behaved. If the parent tends to use a beating as an extreme measure of control, that leaves everyone else who will ever interact with that child at a disadvantage, since (obviously) they as teacher, family member, aquaintence, cannot haul off and belt the child if they're doing something really wrong.

We both feel that the only thing spanking does is teach a child that they need to behave *just* well enough to avoid being spanked. It creates a confrontational atmosphere, rather than a solutions-based one. It does not impart on them them a true understanding of the consequences of their behavior, other than that they can be hit for something that is "wrong". How does this prepare them against making wrongful decisions later in life? A Boss won't hit them if they are doing wrong, etc...

There are two couples in our lives (a friend of ours and his wife, and my fiance's brother and his wife), both have two children and neither couple spank their kids. They've used positive reinforcement from their first interactions with them, for even the simplest, most trivial things. So, when it comes to punishment time, there is less of a need to ramp up the threat. As soon as the kids sense a change in the parents demeanor, they know it's serious. They ask the kids a LOT of questions, and help them to come to their own conclusions about behavior.

They never say, "NO!" or "Don't" or "Stop that!"...instead saying things like, "What should you be doing instead?", or "If you throw that again, we'll have you donate it to someone who will take care of it", and when the kid throws it again, they've taken a trip down to the Salvation Army and had the kid walk up to the counter and donate the toy themselves. Tears and all.

My in-laws and their kids stayed with me and my fiance' for 12 days, about a month or so ago, and I have to say that we were "retrained", in a sense, on how to speak positively. It was reeeeeeeeeally difficult to remember to do, but once we got the hang of it you could just sense how much it improved almost every situation. It makes the kids less defensive, and more apt to listen and understand a given situation. Most importantly, when the kids were left only with "Unca' Daze" (Me=Uncle Dave) and Auntie Rae, we adults had the EXACT SAME tools for punishment that their mom and dad have when they're alone with the kids. Which was refreshing. I didn't have to worry that they'd misbehave to the extent that I would need to "spank" them, but couldn't...it never, ever comes to that. There are so many other tools available, and bringing the child into a better understanding of their own behavior and the consequences of that behavior through a more positive approach...seems to stick with them more effectively.

I will be using the methods I've learned from both these couples, should we ever decide to have children of our own.

I think it's unecessary because better alternatives are available.

I'm open to suggestions.  Since you obviously know everything there is to be said on the matter, would you care to enlighten us?  How d'you handle your kids?

[DrewKaree]

I just don't think that using the physical advantage you have over your kids is acceptable.  I cannot think of a reason why it's not okay for a man to hit a woman, but it's okay for an adult to hit a child, when the size and strength disparity is all the more pronounced.  I think it also teaches children that having a physical advantage over another person gives the stronger a legitimate authority to exert their will over the weaker.

I just think it ain't right, it gives unhealthy, mixed messages, and that any possible good that can come of it can be accomplished in ways that don't carry with them the negative baggage that corporal punishment does.

You're confusing abuse with discipline.  You're using a ridgid definition of spanking to fit it into a definition by which spanking indeed IS NOT acceptable. 

Reading YOUR definition above of "using your physical advantage over a child", "giving unhealthy mixed messages", and your assertion that "any possible good" can be accomplished in other ways leads me to believe you quite simply stated this out of either anger or resurfacing of old feelings about how you felt when getting spanked.  It sounds as if your family either LED with the spankings OR used it far more quickly due to the size of your family. 

I believe this, because I cannot fathom how you can state what you did, then turn around and claim THIS:

I think that spanking can be effective in some cases. 

The first quote from you paints quite a stark black/white picture.

I'm guessing the second quote demonstrates that even you can see the efficacy of such a disciplinary method.

The words this woman used when talking with her children, IMO, MOST DEFINITELY were far more damaging than a spanking.  Used improperly, ANY disciplinary method or measure can be taken to extremes and lead someone to believe "it should NEVER be done".  Painting such an extreme picture of such methods closes off the possibility of using something that may be the only thing that will work, as well as lead to the potential that such a method STILL might end up being used, and if so, will most likely be used in anger - anger that a child has caused you to resort to a method you may have mentally swore NEVER to use.

To equate spanking as a disciplinary method with hitting your child because of physical advantage is simply foolish.  If that helps you sleep at night, I hope you're now suffering sleepless nights wondering how you could have ever stated that spanking could be effective in ANY case after equating it with what can reasonably be described as "abuse" - a DEFINITE difference in what we're talking about.

[DrewKaree]

If the parent tends to use a beating as an extreme measure of control, that leaves everyone else who will ever interact with that child at a disadvantage, since (obviously) they as teacher, family member, aquaintence, cannot haul off and belt the child if they're doing something really wrong.

I find the extreme is always used when talking about spanking.  Does NO ONE know of a person who doesn't "beat" their kids?  I'd tell you that you do - ME - but this is about as "personal" as it gets with you knowing me.  I'd also venture a guess that there are many here who DON'T "give their kids a beating".

"belt", "beat", "haul off", "whack", "smack", "pound", "whale"..... the term is "spank".

spank (spăngk) pronunciation

v., spanked, spank

[ChadTower]

That sounds about right.  I have had occasions to spank my older son.  Rare, but they happened, with an open hand and not even enough to leave a mark.  But he got the point and it was more effective than the 50 previous times we yelled at him for the same thing, put him on timeout, took things away, etc.  And I can truthfully say it hurt me 25x more than it did him when I did it.  I had to stop him from grabbing boiling pots and nothing else had worked.

What my brother and I got were beatings.  Sometimes not so bad, sometimes pretty bad.  I suspect that the "not so bad" line migrated towards the "pretty bad" line after a while and I just don't remember it happening. 

[shmokes]

Drew, you seem to be reading and responding to one line at a time of my posts rather than taking them as a whole.  My first post didn't paint a black-and-white definition of spanking.  It talks about hitting in general and specifically says that spanking is generally less severe than slapping, slapping than hitting, etc.  In general, I'm talking about run-of-the-mill, open hand spanking that is physically painful, but does no permanent or severe physical injury.  Of course, spanking can get a helluva lot worse than this, but just so you know we're on the same page, rest assured that I'm talking about the type of spanking you believe in, not the type of spanking I sometimes received.

You misunderstand, or see too little of what I'm saying if you think I'm contradicting myself up there.  In many cases, spanking can probably be an effective way to stop a particular behavior or a particular type of behavior, at least in the short term.  That's obvious. 

But my position on whether it's an acceptable method of behavior modification takes more into account than its efficacy.  Beating your kid or berating them constantly can also be effective forms of behavior modification.  Hell, cutting your kids hands off would be an effective way of making him stop a number of behaviors, including hiding behind the curtains and flipping off the neighbor 

I simply think that spanking has negative baggage that outweighs its benefits, especially in light of alternative, non-violent methods of punishment that work at least as well.

[DrewKaree]

....rest assured that I'm talking about the type of spanking you believe in, not the type of spanking I sometimes received.

You misunderstand, or see too little of what I'm saying if you think I'm contradicting myself up there.  In many cases, spanking can probably be an effective way to stop a particular behavior or a particular type of behavior, at least in the short term.  That's obvious. 

But my position on whether it's an acceptable method of behavior modification takes more into account than its efficacy.  I simply think that spanking has negative baggage that outweighs its benefits, especially in light of alternative, non-violent methods of punishment that work at least as well.

Good to know on the first part up there.  I didn't bother responding to anyone for a while and may not have looked back at everything.

I don't look at spanking as something that should be used to stop a behavior, rather to reinforce the seriousness of the behavior and the escalating consequences that can happen.  In Chad's instance, I think we can all see that his child got the message that further actions could lead to more serious consequences.  The child doesn't understand that the consequence could very well have been a severe (and perhaps deforming) burn that Chad would have had no control over. 

It's about stepping in while your child ISN'T in serious trouble and working to head off the problem (or at least try to limit the exposure or consequences) before it gets to that point.

There even becomes a point at which you simply have to let your kid experience the consequences of their actions.  I believe that age is beyond the point where spanking should be used.  I believe spanking a child becomes less useful the older a child gets, when they CAN be talked to, reasoned with, and understand the consequences of further behavior, not because they become physically equal to (or stronger than) the parent giving them a spanking.

Like I said before, I just see far too much "beating" talk and it negates any reasonable discussion about spanking a child as a disciplinary method, much like the opposite reaction of "we'll just talk to him and he'll end up setting himself on fire because he won't listen".  Neither is reasonable, both are extreme positions, and painting with such an extreme brush leads to someone possibly ignoring a very valid point because they see the other person as an equally-as-extreme person with no clue about "real life".

[Ed_McCarron]

Dang, I hate agreeing with Drew.

Hes right.  Theres the occasional spank on the bottom (with our son, maybe once or twice a month - mainly when he does something inherently dangerous to himself), and then theres abuse.

Don't confuse the two.  I was often hit with a belt.  Not every day, like Chad seems to have been, but often enough that fear became the control my father had over me.  I'd like my kids to respect me, not fear me.

I've found that in most cases, a three minute time-out does work.  Especially if the kid has some guilt issues.

On the other hand, I don't think I'll be putting him on time out after he gets hit by a car.  We live on a 4 lane road.  Time out ain't gonna cut it.

[RandyT]

Let me make sure I understand this.  Most of the people involved in this discussion have been beaten when young.  (I took some closed fists to the face when I was 15, but that's another story)

shmokes (and others) would have everyone believe that corporal punishment (we are talking about spankings here, not the aforementioned fist-to-face) would turn a child into a social deviant, a cowering mass of quivering flesh, a maladjusted miscreant, or someone who, god forbid, pumps gas for a living.

Strangely, (and I'm making a bit of an assumption here) there seem to be quite a number of fairly successful, fairly intelligent people involved in this discussion.  I'm guessing you don't spend three days a week paying someone hundreds of dollars an hour to listen to your problems, you didn't kill your parents/teachers/classmates, and you don't have to take 13 pills a day to "cope with life."

Did anyone here actually get disciplined the way you are suggesting is now the "right" way?  Has anyone stopped to consider that perhaps the adversity you experienced made you the stronger  / smarter individual you are today and that it quite possibly played a vital role in getting you here?

I don't know.  I've always been a big fan of the idea that the "result" is a good indicator of the viability of the "method".  Maybe it doesn't apply in this instance.

Then again, maybe it does and we are all so twisted that no-one should take heed to anything we write on the subject.

(Is that enough drama for you, shmokes?  )

RandyT

[Daniel270]

I was one of those who got the receiving end of a leather belt a time or two.  I'd also say that I probably deserved it those times I got it, usually knowing I was risking it when I did whatever it was I did (which usually boiled down to me not doing what I was told, after having been told quite a few times to do it). 

I'm no deviant, have no criminal history or offenses (other than driving, but I doubt seriously that's something that'd warrant a "spanking")....

There were a few I'd question now that I got, mostly from school....  my 3rd grade teacher paddled me on a near daily basis, once for tripping someone (which was NOT my fault.. then she had the gall to call me a liar) as well as writing in a book that was MINE, not school property.  Then there was all those incomplete homework assignments that I got paddled for, etc....

 

[shmokes]

shmokes (and others) would have everyone believe that corporal punishment (we are talking about spankings here, not the aforementioned fist-to-face) would turn a child into a social deviant, a cowering mass of quivering flesh, a maladjusted miscreant, or someone who, god forbid, pumps gas for a living.

Funny, until I read your last line I was fully intending to reference the return of the drama queen. 

The neat little package you tie everything up into, however, doesn't take into account that Chad is a successful software engineer in spite of beatings, not just spankings.  I'm a talented network admin on his way to law school in spite of outright abuse, not just spankings.  Applying your simplistic formula to these examples seems to indicate that the success of your kid varies directly with the degree of corporal punishment.  I just about think that those closed fists you got in the face are the direct cause of your owning your own business today.  What else could it be?

The fact is, people from all walks of life were spanked and/or beat as kids.  But when you tap into the message board of a community of people who have the various skills, aptitude and commitment to build something like an arcade cabinet you are obviously going to be talking to people who are, in general, well above average in terms of life success. 

You can hardly call a bunch of geeks like us a random sample.

[ChadTower]

The neat little package you tie everything up into, however, doesn't take into account that Chad is a successful software engineer in spite of beatings, not just spankings. 

Well, it wasn't as often as Ed says, but when it happened it was usually enough to get the attention of teachers/peers the next day.  The usual response was "I got into a fight on the way home".

There were a couple of factors academically working extremely in my favor that I don't really want to get into here. 

And yes, getting abused as a kid leaves a person with permanent psychological issues.  No one who has ever been there would claim otherwise.  I never particularly cared much about getting slapped around.  Psychological abuse is 100x worse.  So is watching someone else get slapped around.

[RandyT]

The neat little package you tie everything up into, however, doesn't take into account that Chad is a successful software engineer in spite of beatings, not just spankings.  I'm a talented network admin on his way to law school in spite of outright abuse, not just spankings.  Applying your simplistic formula to these examples seems to indicate that the success of your kid varies directly with the degree of corporal punishment.  I just about think that those closed fists you got in the face are the direct cause of your owning your own business today.  What else could it be?

The fact is, people from all walks of life were spanked and/or beat as kids.  But when you tap into the message board of a community of people who have the various skills, aptitude and commitment to build something like an arcade cabinet you are obviously going to be talking to people who are, in general, well above average in terms of life success. 

You can hardly call a bunch of geeks like us a random sample.

shmokes, you seem to have an uncanny way of putting words in my mouth.  The comment was meant to invoke some introspection.  It was not a proposed "formula for success".  The fact that the people in this discussion seem to have that one variable in common might say something to those who are interested in listening.

You cannot say that X is a direct effect of Y when it comes to human beings.  It's not possible because the variables are too great in numbers.  But you, as a person, are the sum of those variables.  And while you can't specifically say that the result of something as insignificant in a humans development as a spanking would be better or worse, you can accurately say that the result would be different.

Who you are is a direct result of those variables and to state otherwise would be saying that you were somehow immune to environmental conditioning.  The question I am posing is "what is that thing about you, that you can absolutely attribute to the form of discipline you received,  that you find so terrifically disturbing, you want to make damn sure your kids don't inherit?"

It's simple for one to sit back and say what a crap job your parents did to raise you (maybe the fact that you question that is proof enough) and it's even easier to do it if you have never raised children of your own, particularly those with a set of "difficult" variables.  But you wouldn't be you if things were different, and some of this discussion could perhaps be interpreted as people blaming their parents for some of their own personal shortcomings.  I'm not saying that this is the case, but only you would know that through some real, in-depth introspection.  And that's what is truly important when administering discipline to your children, as well as deciding which form it should take.

RandyT

[ChadTower]

I know a lot of people who never became much of anything and fully blame their parents and their childhood.  Most of the time it's just lack of work ethic and real ambition.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I'd also venture a guess that there are many here who DON'T "give their kids a beating".

"belt", "beat", "haul off", "whack", "smack", "pound", "whale"..... the term is "spank".

The couples I mentioned do not lay a hand on the children, as far as I have ever known (and as far as they claim).

As far as "spanking" being somehow less physical than a "whack", "smack", etc...well, it seems to me to be a rationalization of the action. It's a physical punishment, designed to scare or intimidate the child into changing their behavior based on a response to pain/humiliation/fear. And I imagine it makes no difference to the child whether you use the term "spank" or "beat"...

I'm not against hitting/smacking/fighting/corporal punishment in general, etc., it's just when it comes to the idea of child-rearing, I'd rather use another method of training. I don't see how spanking addresses the root cause of any problem, nor do I see how it encourages disciplined behavior based on reasoning, rather than conditioning.

You train a dog using physical methods of punishment, because they cannot reason. I don't want to "condition" my child in the same manner.



mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

...and for the record, I was "spanked" (with a belt, a paddle, by hand)...and I don't think it helped me understand the causality of my actions other than certain things=spanking.

I was an introspective and observant kid...and I credit that for the fact that I am not (nor ever was) a deviant, not the corporal punishment. Because, believe me, I had access to a lot of "bad things" (ie: hard drugs, alcohol, guns, knives, etc) and I was surrounded by loads of troublemakers..and my parents never knew. I chose not to engage in deviant behavior because I saw what it did to the people that engaged in it (ie: causality).

This just reinforces my support of a more interactive/engaged approach to punishment, as opposed to the physical type. I can see the appeal of "spanking", since it's certainly the quick and easy way of dealing with an issue ("Spank! Go to your room! Don't do that bad thing again or you'll get another!")...however, this makes it a less engaged form of rearing. Thus, not for me.



mrC

[ChadTower]

That's another reason we shouldn't be using my childhood as an example.  There was causality when I got whacked around but it was rarely something I did.  It was usually just as a result of being in the wrong place when the wrong thing happened.

That's why that line between spanking and beating is so relevant.  A spanking  pretty much always follows something the kid did wrong.  A beating often follows something that didn't involve the kid at all.  Like a playoff loss and 12 beers.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Yeah, I think it's pretty safe to say your childhood shouldn't be a test case.


mrC

[fredster]

The only times I spanked my son was for lying and once for stealing.  I didn't hit him very hard. The act in and of itself was enough to accomplish the mission. 

Doing it all the time is worthless. It's like yelling. Yell at them and they get deaf, spank them and they will get used to it.

The trouble with spanking is that people use it for a "cure all". I used it only to:
1) establish that I can freaking do it
2) show him that his worst fears can be realized
3) Make the occasion very memorable

My mom used it very sparingly, but when used it was very dramatic. She would make me get a "switch" and then I'd get it. 

...and for the record, I was "spanked" (with a belt, a paddle, by hand)...and I don't think it helped me understand the causality of my actions other than certain things=spanking.

Well yah, duh! Kids can't think introspective like. They don't have the development or experience to reflect on life deeply.

The way I look at it my kid has to respond to what I tell him, right then, right there. Why? Because I might yell "RuN!" and I don't want to hear some smart ass "why" because "why" might be he's standing in front of tree I just cut down, etc.  (maybe a bad example, but you catch my drift).

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Well yah, duh! Kids can't think introspective like. They don't have the development or experience to reflect on life deeply.

I'm not saying that *can*, intuitively. I'm saying that I'd rather use a method that encourages introspection, helps develop that reflection. I think the rest of what you've said is just fine.

I also agree, as you say, that there are parents that use physical discipline all too frequently.


mrC