Is It Ok To Hit A Child?

[Cal]

A posting by Traveler got me thinking about this subject.

Knowing what we now (as opposed to say, 1830) about human nature and child psychology, is it EVER appropriate to lay a hand on a child? Has it been your experience that spanking EVER accomplished anything positive?

Lets start by agreeing that hitting a child ANYWHERE, for ANY REASON, beside the backside is prima facia child abuse, is it still okay to "paddle" the behind?

[pushka]

I find this such a difficult question to answer fully honestly!!

My instinct is to try to reason with the child (my 2 children, don't wish to sound 'cold'!) rather than to use any form of physical force...as I despise all forms of abuse, however mild, if it scares the child then I think it is incorrect...no child should feel in fear of their parents, they should be able to learn to converse about the rights and wrongs of their actions.

However, I know that in reality, it is often difficult to reason with a child who may be throwing a tantrum, I have been known to give my children a light tap on the wrist to remind them that I will not take any more when they are winding me up to the hilt...they are aged 12 and 16 now, btw...but I hate to have to resort to that, and choose rather to ignore them and their tantrums until they are willing to discuss the issue.

I have always held this belief, unfortunately my ex husband didn't agree with it, so whenever the children stay with him they live in fear of getting pushed around or just generally manhandled unless they do exactly as they are told...as he once said to me (since our divorce)...'In my house I rule, it is not a democracy...they do as they are told or else.' Sort of reminds me of Saddam Hussein and a few other world leaders I could mention.

[Jenda]

For general usage, I would say No because it loses it's "specialness" (for lack of coming up with a more appropriate word). I believe spanking to be necessary when other forms of discipline are not effective in teaching a child something, especially when the action that you are trying to discipline out of them is very dangerous, or when other measures are repeated and are ineffective. However, I don't believe it should be done as a first time intervention or out of anger.

I would like to say that my parents spanked all of us, and we have grown up better for it. We respect our parents, we honor them, etc. (but we were not afraid of them), but the kids of today that don't receive physical punishment have no respect for anything. At least the ones I see. I believe that "spare the rod and spoil the child" is a very accurate assessment.

[Amillia]

Being strongly firm with a child, taking away priviledges and having effective time outs works wonders.

I don't think hitting a child, back side or not, is an effective tool. It only teaches violence.

[Guest curvette]

The only time I think it's okay to spank a child is when they do something life threatening. If they run out into the middle of the street, and you need to get the message across to them immediately that they cannot ever do that, I think a spank on the rear end is appropriate. Otherwise, natural consequences are a better teacher.

[DisRuptive1]

I got spanked for beating up my friend with a wooden practice sword. Crazy ain't it. Getting spanked in order to learn not to hit.

[Cal]

Good comments, guys. Back in my younger days, because I had been spanked and worse at times, I thought it was appropriate to "rule with an iron fist". With my first two children, I came to realize that all it accomplished was resentment and a lowering of their self esteem. With my third child, I simply stopped any form of physical approach. I found that when hitting is off the table, the child will respond to lesser forms with greater effect. With my third child, the worse would be that I would start counting...1.....2.....3..... Usually by the time I got to 3, she would run off and do what was asked. I never got passed three, and virtually never spanked her. ( I think I might have once when she ran into the street.)

Thinking back now, I never would have started off with a spanking policy. Eventually, kids do what their parents want because they want to please their parents. And they eventually won't want to if they resent you or fear you.

I was curious if anyone still thought that spanking was a good idea. So far no one seems to think so.

[pushka]

A good thread Cal...

I think we've all 'been there' when our child has done something like running into the road, and automatically either smacked them or spoken sharply to them...out of sheer shock of the thoughts of losing them!! I don't think this is akin to spanking/smacking for naughty behaviour in non dangerous situations.

I think my dad used to use his powerful voice and the 1..2..3 method on us when we were children, because I know that I was never smacked and I had a great respect for my parents for that...however my dad wasn't easy to reason with either because he just shouted lots!!! sigh...

[Jason]

Spanking to discipline is not the same thing as spanking out of anger. I will not spank my children when Im angry.

[Meridiani]

Originally posted by pushka@Mar 12 2005, 05:10 PM

I find this such a difficult question to answer fully honestly!!

My instinct is to try to reason with the child (my 2 children, don't wish to sound 'cold'!) rather than to use any form of physical force...as I despise all forms of abuse, however mild, if it scares the child then I think it is incorrect...no child should feel in fear of their parents, they should be able to learn to converse about the rights and wrongs of their actions.

However, I know that in reality, it is often difficult to reason with a child who may be throwing a tantrum, I have been known to give my children a light tap on the wrist to remind them that I will not take any more when they are winding me up to the hilt...they are aged 12 and 16 now, btw...but I hate to have to resort to that, and choose rather to ignore them and their tantrums until they are willing to discuss the issue.

I have always held this belief, unfortunately my ex husband didn't agree with it, so whenever the children stay with him they live in fear of getting pushed around or just generally manhandled unless they do exactly as they are told...as he once said to me (since our divorce)...'In my house I rule, it is not a democracy...they do as they are told or else.' Sort of reminds me of Saddam Hussein and a few other world leaders I could mention.

Your 12 and (especially) 16-year-old still have tantrums?

Well, that says more about the parent and/or parents than you care to expound, maybe.

[Meridiani]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 13 2005, 05:22 PM

Spanking to discipline is not the same thing as spanking out of anger.  I will not spank my children when Im angry.

Very thoughtful and thought-provoking response, Jason.

PS: For those parents who have a family "pow-wow" (which may or may not be FHE), on a regular basis, it has occurred to some that involving the kids in at least somewhat of a democratic process, in coming up with family rules, gives them the real sense that they have a definite say in how the family is governed: in order to actively promote harmony and good will, in their own home. (They are, after all, not mere objects who are subject to the imperious demands of [their] parents.)

I have often heard parents say, "And, what do you feel is an appropriate "disciplinary reward", here, Johnny?"

And, the "kid" (the conscientious child) is often much more harsh--on himself--than his parents would ever be, in "prescribing" his own disciplinary "reward".

Just don't "cater to" a child who declares, "I ought to be hanged by my neck until dead!"

That wouldn't be wise.

[Meridiani]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Mar 13 2005, 02:10 AM

I got spanked for beating up my friend with a wooden practice sword.  Crazy ain't it.  Getting spanked in order to learn not to hit.

Maybe you don't recall the Old Testament idea

"Spare the rod and spoil the child."

Specifically, the reference that I'm thinking of is "the rod of correction".

(I don't suppose it was talking about "rods and crankshafts", do you?)

(Or, "rods and cones", if the person is an optomotrist)

(Or, "reinforcing rods"---ie, rebars--if they're into construction)

[Meridiani]

Originally posted by curvette@Mar 13 2005, 12:44 AM

The only time I think it's okay to spank a child is when they do something life threatening.  If they run out into the middle of the street, and you need to get the message across to them immediately that they cannot ever do that, I think a spank on the rear end is appropriate.  Otherwise, natural consequences are a better teacher.

I agree with this idea.

The puzzling thing would be in what a set of parents "might" think was "natural".

(To others, as observers, some such natural consequences might be horrifically unnatural.)

[Meridiani]

Originally posted by Jenda@Mar 12 2005, 08:12 PM

For general usage, I would say No because it loses it's "specialness" (for lack of coming up with a more appropriate word). I believe spanking to be necessary when other forms of discipline are not effective in teaching a child something, especially when the action that you are trying to discipline out of them is very dangerous, or when other measures are repeated and are ineffective. However, I don't believe it should be done as a first time intervention or out of anger.

I would like to say that my parents spanked all of us, and we have grown up better for it. We respect our parents, we honor them, etc. (but we were not afraid of them), but the kids of today that don't receive physical punishment have no respect for anything. At least the ones I see. I believe that "spare the rod and spoil the child" is a very accurate assessment.

Maybe you will agree that today's young adults have probably never even heard that [old] saying that you quoted: much less been on the receiving end of that "rod" stuff, that it speaks of.

[pushka]

Originally posted by Meridiani+Mar 13 2005, 05:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Meridiani @ Mar 13 2005, 05:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--pushka@Mar 12 2005, 05:10 PM

I find this such a difficult question to answer fully honestly!!

My instinct is to try to reason with the child (my 2 children, don't wish to sound 'cold'!) rather than to use any form of physical force...as I despise all forms of abuse, however mild, if it scares the child then I think it is incorrect...no child should feel in fear of their parents, they should be able to learn to converse about the rights and wrongs of their actions. 

However, I know that in reality, it is often difficult to reason with a child who may be throwing a tantrum, I have been known to give my children a light tap on the wrist to remind them that I will not take any more when they are winding me up to the hilt...they are aged 12 and 16 now, btw...but I hate to have to resort to that, and choose rather to ignore them and their tantrums until they are willing to discuss the issue.

I have always held this belief, unfortunately my ex husband didn't agree with it, so whenever the children stay with him they live in fear of getting pushed around or just generally manhandled unless they do exactly as they are told...as he once said to me (since our divorce)...'In my house I rule, it is not a democracy...they do as they are told or else.'  Sort of reminds me of Saddam Hussein and a few other world leaders I could mention.

Your 12 and (especially) 16-year-old still have tantrums?

Well, that says more about the parent and/or parents than you care to expound, maybe.

I knew someone would pick me up about that bit!! Perhaps tantrum was the wrong word to use, but I believe lots of 12 and 16 year olds still start yelling and whatnot when they don't get their own way...sort of the 'teenage tantrums'? Well, I just let them yell if they ignore what I'm saying to them, and then when they've cooled off they usually come to me and apologise for being silly, we discuss the issue in a rational way and decide together what is gonna happen next...Of course if they are doing something really bad, then I just shout at them to stop and they usually do! My kids are pretty well behaved for me tho, they just have the usual sibling arguments going down at the moment, but I've promised to withold spending money and treats if they keep it up, and it's working a little now...:)

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Meridiani@Mar 13 2005, 05:34 PM

I agree with this idea.

The puzzling thing would be in what a set of parents "might" think was "natural".

(To others, as observers, some such natural consequences might be horrifically unnatural.)

For instance: If you won't eat your lunch, the natural consequence is that you will be hungry until dinner.

[Cal]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 13 2005, 04:22 PM

Spanking to discipline is not the same thing as spanking out of anger.  I will not spank my children when Im angry.

Then you have no "heat of passion" defense--your crime was premeditated!

I once heard a psychologist quoted as saying, "Only hit a kid in anger". At first I was taken back--but, think about it. Perhaps a kid can forgive you for hitting him when you are out of control. But when you hit him with cold premeditation, under total control, now how does he forgive you?

A better policy---respect your child as a REAL human being, and keep your hands off. If you can't find the self control and wisdom to handle a child gently and reasonably, then DON'T BE A PARENT.

I didn't always believe that, but I do now, without reservation. Hitting a child for almost ANY reason does the child almost nothing but harm, and does the parent no good but relieve his/her tension of the moment. The spanking is for the parent's benefit, not the child--and that benefit pales in comparison to the damage done to the child.

[Jason]

Then you have no "heat of passion" defense--your crime was premeditated!

Spanking is not a crime, Cal.

I once heard a psychologist quoted as saying, "Only hit a kid in anger". At first I was taken back--but, think about it. Perhaps a kid can forgive you for hitting him when you are out of control. But when you hit him with cold premeditation, under total control, now how does he forgive you?

When he grows up, he'll thank you. (As opposed to his friends who are in jail...)

A better policy---respect your child as a REAL human being, and keep your hands off. If you can't find the self control and wisdom to handle a child gently and reasonably, then DON'T BE A PARENT.

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." (Proverbs 1:7) And this: "He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him." (Proverbs 13:24)

I didn't always believe that, but I do now, without reservation. Hitting a child for almost ANY reason does the child almost nothing but harm, and does the parent no good but relieve his/her tension of the moment. The spanking is for the parent's benefit, not the child--and that benefit pales in comparison to the damage done to the child.

It does? So creating an unrealistic world for the child, where they believe that consequences don't apply is better?

Also, I suggest you re-read my post. I don't spank my children in anger. I spank them because I love them, and I want them to be rule-obeyers, not rule-breakers. I want them to be responsible members of society, not one of the undisciplined children who believe that the rules don't apply, or that they won't be punished if caught.

[pushka]

I hate to disagree with you Jason, but spanking them because you love them and don't want to see them end up in jail? My children are not tearaways, I don't spank them, never have done, we talk about what is right and wrong, about obeying authority figures, but not being afraid to speak up if that authority figure is using their position in order to take advantage of them...neither of my children have been in trouble with the police or school for bad behaviour and friends have commented on how well behaved and respectful they are when they sleepover at their houses...I might argue with them, and they may argue with each other, but that is normal...

[Jason]

I hate to disagree with you Jason, but spanking them because you love them and don't want to see them end up in jail?

Don't get me wrong, I do "time out" as well. I use spanking as a last resort. It's kinda hard to reason with a toddler.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 15 2005, 05:29 PM

I hate to disagree with you Jason, but spanking them because you love them and don't want to see them end up in jail?

Don't get me wrong, I do "time out" as well. I use spanking as a last resort. It's kinda hard to reason with a toddler.

Especially Jason's children.

[Jason]

Especially Jason's children. 

[shanstress70]

We have not spanked my now 2 1/2 year old, and do not plan to. My thinking is that if you hit them, you are teaching them that it's OK to hit. Trust me though... I have been tempted! But I try to be the adult in the situation and try to come up with a punishment that will work without making my child fear me, or think that it's OK to hurt others.

However, I respect everyones' right to parent as they see fit... as long as they don't cross the line to abuse. We can only parent the best we know. Maybe I'm right, or maybe Jason's right. Who knows? So I can only do what seems to be best for me and my family.

I will say that a book called '1 2 3 Magic' has changed our family life, and has made my child much more well-behaved. It uses the counting method, as Cal mentioned earlier. If you get to 3, the child goes to his/her room for a time-out. We rarely get to 3 anymore... except on THOSE days... he is 2, after all! There are a few points in the book that I disagree with, but we have tailored it to fit our thinking.

[Cal]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 14 2005, 09:38 PM

Then you have no "heat of passion" defense--your crime was premeditated!

Spanking is not a crime, Cal.

I once heard a psychologist quoted as saying, "Only hit a kid in anger". At first I was taken back--but, think about it. Perhaps a kid can forgive you for hitting him when you are out of control. But when you hit him with cold premeditation, under total control, now how does he forgive you?

When he grows up, he'll thank you. (As opposed to his friends who are in jail...)

A better policy---respect your child as a REAL human being, and keep your hands off. If you can't find the self control and wisdom to handle a child gently and reasonably, then DON'T BE A PARENT.

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." (Proverbs 1:7) And this: "He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him." (Proverbs 13:24)

I didn't always believe that, but I do now, without reservation. Hitting a child for almost ANY reason does the child almost nothing but harm, and does the parent no good but relieve his/her tension of the moment. The spanking is for the parent's benefit, not the child--and that benefit pales in comparison to the damage done to the child.

It does? So creating an unrealistic world for the child, where they believe that consequences don't apply is better?

Also, I suggest you re-read my post. I don't spank my children in anger. I spank them because I love them, and I want them to be rule-obeyers, not rule-breakers. I want them to be responsible members of society, not one of the undisciplined children who believe that the rules don't apply, or that they won't be punished if caught.

Interest---I never ONCE spanked my youngest daughter, and she has turned out (don't tell my other kids this) better than the ones I did spank? How could that possibly be, by your philosophy.

As to your old testament quote; In old testament times, a child could legally be KILLED for his misbehavior. I thought we had made some progress since then.

Third, what does spanking teach? That it's appropriate to HIT someone when you are displeased or disagree with what they are doing? That's exactly the message you are sending when you do it. I seriously doubt that kids whose parents calmly discuss their behavior with them do worse than kids that are hit all the time.

Fourth, physical violence accomplishes only one thing--resentment. You think kids thank you for HITTING them? If they do, its only because they thought you cared---but you can care without hitting them. My daughter never complained that I DIDN'T hit here and she has thanked me many times for being a caring Dad. What she DOES also have is a tremendous amount of self esteem--she is strong, ambicious, independent and a caring parent herself. She's hardly suffering from a lack of being HIT. And even more important, perhaps, she doesn't hit her kid. And he is doing just great.

On the other hand, early on in my parenting, I too, thought spanking appropriate. I experienced the pain of seeing the resentment it caused. That is why I quit doing it.

Your little plattudes from 2500 years ago, hardly impress anyone in this day and age.

As a school teacher I see lots of kids. The ones doing the worst are those who are physically abused, not the ones who say their parents never hit them.

I will agree that kids need to know their parents care. But there are better ways to show it than spanking.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Cal@Mar 12 2005, 04:04 PM

A posting by Traveler got me thinking about this subject.

Knowing what we now (as opposed to say, 1830) about human nature and child psychology, is it EVER appropriate to lay a hand on a child? Has it been your experience that spanking EVER accomplished anything positive?

Lets start by agreeing that hitting a child ANYWHERE, for ANY REASON, beside the backside is prima facia child abuse, is it still okay to "paddle" the behind?

I wonder Cal - in light of things you have posted on other threads. If parents really want to hit their children often and hard (for no reason just hit them) - I mean they really want to and think they have always wanted to just beat the tar out of their children - does that make it okay? How about harsh beating of children if you have always wanted to beat children since you were born? How about if you think beating children is the only way you can be happy or fulfilled? Is it okay to whip you children if you can find another society that has done it for generations and somehow survived? How about if some child says they want to be beat up by their parents? If some society (say in the south Pacific) used strong corporal punishment with children - Does that make it right or what is best?

What justifies beating Children?

The only reason I can think of - is if there is a direct relationship to needs in society to the punishment being used. If there is no need or benefit for society I do not think we encourage parents to beat their children in order to fulfill the personal fantasy of the parents. And I really do not care how fulfilled parents think they feel – if there is no benefit – I say it should not be forced by law that beating children is okay, just so certain parents can feel good about what they are doing.

The Traveler