Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Smacking Children, good or bad?


seeder

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, barbco196 said:

My daughter is 22 and is pretty close to perfect. Never spanked her, never smacked her. I was smarter than that. Now, she's a mom and won't spank her child either. Why? Because there's other, more intelligent ways to discipline.

People never remember slapping a toddler's hand, for trying to touch something hot, before they could comprehend the spoken word. At the very least, you yank them away from it, which is as much of a shock to them. They don't understand the word hot and won't until they get burned a little.

Edited by Michelle
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, barbco196 said:

My daughter is 22 and is pretty close to perfect. Never spanked her, never smacked her. I was smarter than that. Now, she's a mom and won't spank her child either. Why? Because there's other, more intelligent ways to discipline. 

'By example' and 'tone of voice' come to mind.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Tone of voice", never raise your voice until it's important.

I have a loud baritone voice and could freeze a room full of six year olds. To kids my 'normal' voice is a gentle soothing rumble. I learned that from my brother-in-law, speak low and when you give a child a 'talking to' put yourself in the corner and have them facing you, NOT the other way around.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Likely Guy said:

'Tone of voice", never raise your voice until it's important.

I have a loud baritone voice and could freeze a room full of six year olds. To kids my 'normal' voice is a gentle soothing rumble. I learned that from my brother-in-law, speak low and when you give a child a 'talking to' put yourself in the corner and have them facing you, NOT the other way around.

I have a belly laugh that puts people at ease and a look that can stop a freight train. It works wonders on kids...other people's kids. I never wanted any of the crumb snatchers myself. :D

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, bubblykiss said:

Sitting through a toddlers temper tantrum is never much fun.

 

Sometimes a kid needs a little wallop on the behind to remember that things can always get worse, or better, depending on their behavior.

If you can't handle a child's "temper" then don't have children. I never understood how adults feel so easily irritated and aggressive because of what a child does. Now that I am an adult I understand it because they are either broken or can't handle life and use their children as a punching bag.

@fear to control people

As for fear at work, fear diminishes productivity, hierarchy diminishes productivity and so on. I studied business administration and economics and I had enough courses about working conditions. All systems which are anti hierarchical and in which people are motivated not by fear but by positive encouragement, work better and are more efficient. That is why most successful enterprises adopt such a non-hierarchical system. Thus, nope,  from an economic point of view fear is stupid. However, a person who thrives for power and control and not for efficiency and productivity would pick fear as a mean to handle his or her subordinates. Personally, I quit my job if i would have to work in such an environment and I am pretty sure other good people would do the same.

Edited by hellwyr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, hellwyr said:

that topic again? Anyway, anyone who smacks their child in front of me will get a smack from me, or a punch depends on the situation. So abusive parents be careful when smacking a child in public.

 

So, you are illustrating how much you abhor violence by being violent?

That seems rather stupid. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

 

So, you are illustrating how much you abhor violence by being violent?

That seems rather stupid. 

Did I say I am against violence? I am against violence directed at children or innocent people or as a mean to control people ;).

Edited by hellwyr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, barbco196 said:

I'm just suggesting there are less primitive ways to correct a child's naughty behavior. Kids are just being kids and that's what kids do, they push boundaries. They act out for attention. 

Corporal punishment is not "primitive", it's part of an effective method of teaching.

You have chosen a different way of raising your children, fine, but that doesn't mean "your way" is "better". All children need to learn about consequences, if they don't the probability they will make horrendous mistakes and decisions in later life rises dramatically. Corporal punishment in tandem with conversation and explanation as to why it was necessary has been shown historically to be an effective method of teaching children about this, and has never been shown to cause psychological damage to children. Conversation and explanation without the attention-getting shock that corporal punishment provides can prove effective, but it also carries a greater risk that lessons will not be learned and the child may be more prone to making poor choices in later life.

Different children learn differently, of course, and neither method is "worse" than the other - but one of them, the one without corporal punishment added as that attention-getting shock, carries a greater risk of not teaching the child what was intended. Your children may be fine with your method, great, but that only suggests your children are better learners, not that your method was "better".

Edited by Leonardo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I chose not to hit my children...doesn't mean I didn't punish them though. There were many times when certain toys remained on top of my refrigerator, the small chair that faced a blank corner in the living room was occupied, the Nintendo 64 was unplugged, certain parties or events were not attended. My kids learned about the consequences of their actions and personal responsibility. Consequently, both of them are now educated, employed, law abiding adults.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Leonardo said:

Corporal punishment is not "primitive", it's part of an effective method of teaching.

You have chosen a different way of raising your children, fine, but that doesn't mean "your way" is "better". All children need to learn about consequences, if they don't the probability they will make horrendous mistakes and decisions in later life rises dramatically. Corporal punishment in tandem with conversation and explanation as to why it was necessary has been shown historically to be an effective method of teaching children about this, and has never been shown to cause psychological damage to children. Conversation and explanation without the attention-getting shock that corporal punishment provides can prove effective, but it also carries a greater risk that lessons will not be learned and the child may be more prone to making poor choices in later life.

Different children learn differently, of course, and neither method is "worse" than the other - but one of them, the one without corporal punishment added as that attention-getting shock, carries a greater risk of not teaching the child what was intended. Your children may be fine with your method, great, but that only suggests your children are better learners, not that your method was "better".

There is no dislike button :(? Anyway, poisonous pedagogy is one reason for Hitler's rise. History has proven that your way sucks. And I bet your chidlren when they grow up or their chidlren will detest your way, that is the normal reaction of a human beeing. You don't teach them consequences you teach them what you deem right or wrong, it is conditioning, learn the difference. (Since, obviously, any action has consequences whether or not you use your "methods" )

Edited by hellwyr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, hellwyr said:

There is no dislike button :(? Anyway, poisonous pedagogy is one reason for Hitler's rise. History has proven that your way sucks. And I bet your chidlren when they grow up or their chidlren will detest your way, that is the normal reaction of a human beeing. You don't teach them consequences you teach them what you deem right or wrong, it is conditioning, learn the difference. (Since, obviously, any action has consequences whether or not you use your "methods" )

Any learned behaviour is "conditioning", so according to you no method of teaching children the consequences of their actions would pass your test. As for your using the example of Hitler to show corporal punishment is "bad", that is just laughable.

You need to step back from your over-emotional response to the topic and add a little perspective to your understanding of it.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lilly said:

I chose not to hit my children...doesn't mean I didn't punish them though. There were many times when certain toys remained on top of my refrigerator, the small chair that faced a blank corner in the living room was occupied, the Nintendo 64 was unplugged, certain parties or events were not attended. My kids learned about the consequences of their actions and personal responsibility. Consequently, both of them are now educated, employed, law abiding adults.

Your method was fine, Lilly - for your children. Not all children are equal and some may require more direct methods of adjusting their behaviour.

And if we are to talk of the potential for psychological damage (I know you haven't raised this point in your post above, but others have in the posts they made), there is no real difference to the damage that may be inflicted with physical punishment as there may be by the denial of social activities. I'm not saying you did inflict lasting psychological damage on your children, just making the point that no reasonable method is better or worse than the other.

Edited by Leonardo
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in itself, all punishment is neither good nor bad if the child knows it is coming with a certain type of behavior. Now, personally I prefer methods that do not hint that it is OK to resolve conflicts with violence.

Edited by questionmark
garble
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see anything unreasonable about mild corporal punishment as a last resort for an unruly child. Obviously, though, other methods need to be exhausted first and if the physical reenforcement does no good it must be stopped. 

Not sure I buy the whole "psychological trauma" line that's thrown around so freely when this subject comes up. All of us were spanked. Practically everyone I knew growing up was. Did it cause us to resent our parents for it? Absolutely not, and it surely didn't teach us to be violent. And if your kid can't tell the difference between this sort of discipline and outright abuse, I don't know what to say. Kids aren't stupid. 

Know what really caused me to resent my mother? The psychological trauma she continues to punish her children with to this day. Mental scars are far, far worse than receiving a tap on the butt for continuously misbehaving. 

Again, all of this is purely anecdotal and in no way am I saying that corporal punishment never causes lasting ham in any kid. It just never did for me or anyone I know. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Leonardo said:

Any learned behaviour is "conditioning", so according to you no method of teaching children the consequences of their actions would pass your test. As for your using the example of Hitler to show corporal punishment is "bad", that is just laughable.

You need to step back from your over-emotional response to the topic and add a little perspective to your understanding of it.

Well I am not the person who is emotional, since I don't feel offended when a child learns and does things which doesn't fit in with my understanding of the world. I have a healthy distance and understand that a child is not an adult and that any action taking against a child has far-reaching consequences due to their openness and innocence. The only reason a child needs guidance is to teach him or her to use all of his or her potential to succeed in life and to have a fulfilling life. I am always surprised, if not disgusted about the willingness of some adults to use any mean to teach a kid what they deem to be right or wrong. Such methods only create problems for the children when they grow up. Suddenly they are confronted with a world where they have to determine how to act and how to get what they want and to have a fulfilling life. However they then are not able to do so cause they are trained to become mindless zombies and they have learned to neglect their potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Leonardo said:

Corporal punishment is not "primitive", it's part of an effective method of teaching.

You have chosen a different way of raising your children, fine, but that doesn't mean "your way" is "better". All children need to learn about consequences, if they don't the probability they will make horrendous mistakes and decisions in later life rises dramatically. Corporal punishment in tandem with conversation and explanation as to why it was necessary has been shown historically to be an effective method of teaching children about this, and has never been shown to cause psychological damage to children. Conversation and explanation without the attention-getting shock that corporal punishment provides can prove effective, but it also carries a greater risk that lessons will not be learned and the child may be more prone to making poor choices in later life.

Different children learn differently, of course, and neither method is "worse" than the other - but one of them, the one without corporal punishment added as that attention-getting shock, carries a greater risk of not teaching the child what was intended. Your children may be fine with your method, great, but that only suggests your children are better learners, not that your method was "better".

No, I am definitely saying my way is better. You don't need to EVER physically correct anyone for anything. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, barbco196 said:

No, I am definitely saying my way is better. You don't need to EVER physically correct anyone for anything. 

Within the limited experience you have you believe yourself to be correct, I get that but do not have the arrogance to profess you know all children and how they may behave or respond. Doing so only gives you the appearance of hubris.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Leonardo said:

Corporal punishment is not "primitive", it's part of an effective method of teaching.

 

It doesn't have to be. I know plenty of people grew up being spanked and they turned out fine. That doesn't mean no one has ever had any better ideas. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought I'd be a dad who spanked his kid occasionally until the day I had my own.  I could never hit him and have never found it necessary as there is always a better way of dealing with normal kid behavior.   I only have one child and had him late in life so probably far more patient than a younger person but still, I can't understand how you can hit something so small and trusting?  Lot's of time outs  and one time, when he was whining and carrying on in the car, I threatened to sing along with the radio, he yelled "Who cares!" so I started singing and he started begging me to stop and promised to quit whining forever.  We still laugh about it (Dad's singing is a WMD Mom). 

I know not all kids aren't the same but our friends don't hit their kids either and they all seem to be well behaved children so obviously hitting is not necessary.  I guess the question I have is what kind of behavior would warrant a beating? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will re-iterate physical violence committed against a child is abuse, regardless of the intent.  And I think Merc's point is well made, it takes a certain special kind of adult to inflict physical harm against their own child.

There are plenty of methods out there to deal with all sorts behaviours.  But this is the point, if you smacked an adult, there are a number of things that may happen, they might smack you back, they might call the police and have you arrested for ABH/assault, or they might make a phone call and have someone do it for them, see it is not acceptable to smack another adult, so why another child?  The only difference being the child is likely not going to be experienced enough or too scared to raise the consequences.

And for those who talk about corporal punishment, well it has been years since corporal punishment has been acceptable, even in prisons, and just because you were smacked as a child doesn't mean you need to perpetuate that legacy.  If you as a parent cannot come up with distraction techniques etc to manage behaviour then there is something wrong.

And I speak as a parent and as a Social Worker

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got smacked by a teacher..... and CANED by a headmaster..... before I was even 13...what was my school teaching me? Should they have been charged with assault? I mean they were not even parents of mine.....

 

anyway....a sort of light relief for a money, do watch and LISTEN!   short vid...funny...with a message....especially the bit about a kid calling Child-Line....DO WATCH ALL

 

 

 

Edited by seeder
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lilly said:

The main problem with spanking is that it just doesn't work very well. Spanking can momentarily cause a child to stop a behavior but in the long term it does not teach them the appropriate behavior. See this article:  http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/07/case-against-spanking-it-doesnt-even-work.html

That is why I said "it is coming with a certain behavior". The point is not to punish but to make a child learn that certain behavior is socially unacceptable. That can be trained without violence too... if you have enough patience. I had it, most parents don't. And I have to respect their attempts with their limited potential.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironically, despite what I said earlier, I'm very much in agreement with Merc, Lilly and others. If I had kids of my own, I highly doubt I'd ever spank them. 

Honestly, the number of times I was spanked as a kid could be counted on one hand with a couple fingers missing. I was a quiet, well behaved child. My father had this "look" that could burn holes in your soul, however. That's all it ever took for me. My fears weren't of physical punishment, but disappointing my father. Knowing I'd upset him was more painful than anything and it didn't take long for me to learn my lesson. 

RIP, dad. I love you. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.