I'm fine with spanking, if you're not using "spanking" as an excuse to beat the shit out of your kids.

In my terms, spanking is a swat on the butt, for severe disobedience (such as almost running into traffic). It's certainly not with anything other than an open palm, and generally no where other than the butt. Slapping is too violent, yanking by the arm, or repeated swats that actually lift the kid off the ground are also too severe.

I know I sound 100 years old, but I remember that fear of the very, very rare swat on the butt was enough to keep me in line, at least until age 9 or 10. But agreed that it's not an excuse for actual abuse, just a sort of ultimate reminder that what the parent says must be obeyed (when verbal reminders weren't enough). BUT...I don't have kids, and have no idea whether I'd spank. Probably. I sure want to spank other people's kids when they run screaming through public places.

Agreed. I'm not a parent, either, but I was spanked rarely, so that when it happened there was no doubt I'd done something *really* wrong, probably something that scared the crap out of my parents. It wasn't painful, just shocking (the swat on the butt that redvixen and TAE refer to), and only used in extreme situations. (Running into traffic is the classic example, though being out of control in a social situation, to the point where reasoning wasn't going to work, was another situation that warranted it.)

I've been trying to start a business, similar to pet motels, called the KiddieKlinks. When a four year old, for instance, disobeys his parents, he can be taken to one of our facilities and dropped off for a period of time between 6 hours and two months. During that time, he learns valuable lessons like Hard Work, the Value of a Dollar, and Respect of Elders thanks to our wide range of KiddieKlink activities. Those activities will include breaking rocks, sorting rocks into piles, unsorting rocks that others have piled, moving piles of rocks, and sewing clothing targeted at well behaved children their own age abroad. Every evening the Kiddies will be encouraged to single out the weakest member of their group, who will then be denied food overnight, while the other, stronger, children will be allowed to abuse them as much as their hearts desire. During future episodes of childish behaviour after a stay in our program, all the parents will need to do is casually mention heading back to one of our fine facilities and even the most disobedient young rebel will quickly conform back into being a model child.

If you would like to learn more about KiddieKlinks, please write for our investor prospectus.

I had the shit slapped out of me from as early as I can remember, sometimes with reason, but more often just because my parents felt like it, or were taking out their frustrations and disappointment with the world on an easy target. I still cringe every time I see a parent slap a child, even if it's one of those quick, sharp slaps when all else has failed.

Yeah, not into it. I was spanked very rarely, only for the most severe infractions, but I also had an extremely verbally violent stepfather who scared me shitless and now when I see a kid get spanked (especially in public, even if it's a quick swat) I cringe and turn away.

I guess I kind of see it like dog training. You are never, ever supposed to hit a dog if they misbehave, so why would you hit a child?

I was spanked as a little one (only on the butt via either open-faced hand or belt) and don't really have any remorse or hard feelings towards my parents for it (other reasons, yes, but that's neither here nor there) and I'm not against it on principle. However, I think doing it in public is a bit over the top, not only for the discomfort it may cause others (as noted above) but for the fact that it adds insult to injury via public humiliation, and that, to me, is going too far.

(fair disclosure - not a parent, not ever going to be a parent).

I'm not law enforcement, but I do represent parents whose kids have been removed by the state, sometimes for what is called excessive corporal punishment in New York. It's a tough job, and one that I don't relish most days. While you're unlikely to lose your kids for an occasional swat on the bottom, much more than that will probably at least earn you a visit from the Administration for Childrens Services, particularly if you're a poor parent of color.

WRT to how I feel about it, I regularly turn away cases where the parent has clearly just lost her or his shit on a kid, and inflicted what I consider to be inexcusable harm to the child, both physical and psychological. I know that, because of my feelings about such punishment, I couldn't fulfill my duty to represent my client zealously. I grew up with an enormously abusive parent, and have little tolerance for such "behavior-modification" tactics.

But, my girlfriend's a teacher in the NYC public school system, and sometimes the stories she tells me about the way kids behave makes me wish there was a little more corporal punishment in the world. At the end of the day, though, I don't see it accomplishing much, I guess.

I don't think there is ever a reason to hit a child. I have two girls, as many of you know. I, frankly, abhor the idea, and I believe that anyone who really thinks it over would agree.

I have a co-worker who routinely makes the same mistake. Even though I've explained it to her a number of times, she repeats the mistake. I would no more slap her to "try to get through to her" than I would slap my child to try to do the same. She, arguably, has a greater capacity to understand what I explain to her than a three year old would to boot.

I've heard parents yelling at their children, telling them to "stop yelling at me, it's not respectful". It breaks my heart. Somehow, they think that THEY are allowed to yell, but the children? No, they aren't. I've also been told stories by friends - one was beaten pretty severely by his father, as a lesson that he shouldn't hit girls.

Children become what they are taught. The most powerful teaching tool we have is by modeling behavior. If you model that might makes right, or that the bigger person demands respect, there is a great likelihood that they will perpetuate this BS.

My wife and I are pretty polite types (hell, we're Canadian after all) and both of my girls say thank you, and please, about 80% of the time. When Sophie was about three, she neglected to say please to an older person. They asked her what the "magic word" was, and Sophie replied "abracadabra?" because she had never heard the phrase before. We had really done nothing BUT model respect and politeness, and so she picked it up without all that dogmatic bullshit about magic words, and rote behavior. When she says thank you, she MEANS it. When she says please, she MEANS it.

Fuck me, I'm sounding pious I fear, but dammit, I HATE HATE HATE how disrespectful so many people are of their children. They go to the trouble to have them, and then seem to run out of energy, and think they can give their kids whatever they have LEFT. That's not how it's supposed to go. You're growing a HUMAN fucking BEING. If you fuck it up, they will pay the price THEIR WHOLE LIVES. And, there's a good chance they will fuck OTHER PEOPLE up. GIVE IT YOUR ALL PEOPLE.

The law in California, as far as I understand it, is that spanking with an open hand is allowed. Using any sort of implement (belt, shoe) or a fist is not allowed, and any mandated reporter who knows that a parent is doing that is required to call Child Protective Services.

I was spanked when I was growing up. I don't think it was bad, but I will not spank my own kids. I think it's too easy to do so in anger or frustration rather than out of a calm sense of "This is a reasonable punishment, and one that I am putting into place without any emotional attachment to it."

Being very firm is as far as I'd go(no hitting)As for myself,I had the living shit beaten out of me every day by them both.California? I was hit with an "open hand",but it still left bruises. Hey,Richat..*drinks* cheers to that!

I guess I kind of see it like dog training. You are never, ever supposed to hit a dog if they misbehave, so why would you hit a child?

I'm not buying that comparison. Granted, I'm much, much more well-read on the science of dog-behavior than I am toddlers, but when I was spanked as a kid, I knew why. Hell, most of the time I knew it was going to come even before I was caught doing whatever it was that led to the spanking.

Dogs, on the other hand, can only react two ways to spanking/swatting/whatever. It's either going to to make them resent/fear you or make them more aggressive. There's no way to communicate a rationality of that "punishment" to a canine. Even if it's done scant seconds after the less-than-desired behavior was exhibited.

It's certainly a fine line, and I don't feel real strongly either way on the children argument (like I said, I'm fairly ignorant on the subject and will never have to deal with it myself), but anyone that thinks smacking a dog is going to change or help anything is either woefully misinformed or willfully ignorant.

Bah, sorry for the minor rant. Don't mean to derail. Been a long, long day and I've taken care of no fewer than 14 tail-waggers today.

I spanked all mine. My feeling is that it's only okay IF done right:
a. NOT in anger
b. ONLY if the child ALREADY UNDERSTOOD that what he or she did was a spanking offence.
c. No spanking for normal childish foolishness.

What this leaves is spanking for what we in the parenting trade call willful defiance.

You tell the child what they are getting the spanking for, you whomp their little butts (NO bruising, please) then you hug them and affirm that yes, you love them, but they must listen to mommy and daddy.

I don't believe in abusing children. My husband came from that sort of household, and it breaks my heart. But spanking a child -again, in a correct manner-WILL get their attention, and it will clear the air. Once spanking is over, life should be back to normal.

I always did get compliments on my children's behavior while we were out in public, and now as adults all three are healthy happy individuals who are a pleasure to know. And they still love me. ;-)

For what it's worth, I'm still reading the thread, and out of respect for the original poster, and fellow mechazens, I'm not going to engage in a debate.

I am heartened to see others agree, however.

I spanked my kids, back in the 70s, when it wasn't as uncommon as it is today. Mostly for safety reasons, to themselves or playmates, or if they didn't heed my raised "Now Hear This!" voice.

A few points, from my experience in that long ago era.

Spanking a toddler that isn't toilet trained isn't effective, and can be counter-productive. Diapers and training pants make the endeavor fairly pointless, and drippy, poopy diapers only punish the parent who has to clean up the mess (typically, the spanker). Infants and kids too young to be toilet trained don't generally remember any "lessons" you're trying to teach, any way. 2 & 1/2 to 3 is about as young as spanking is going to be effective, as a corrective mechanism. A child beyond that age also typically has the physical development to be quickly picked up, and handled by an adult, whereas infants and younger children don't.

How you spank a kid does make a difference. I spanked my kids by sweeping them off their feet and bending them over my left forearm at their waist (face down and butt up), while gripping their pants with my left hand, and applying my right palm to their bottoms, in a quick upstroke or two. The point was to disorient them a bit from the situation, while at the same time not sending any shock up their spines, or twisting them. You can pop a kid's buttocks sharply (but not hard blows), telegraphing the slap to the child with your left arm tension, without risking serious injury to them that way, and you have good physical control over them and yourself.

I always followed a swat on the butt with an immediate, face-to-face confrontation, with them back on their feet, at a distance of about 2 feet between our faces, and a short verbal dressing down, generally with me holding their hands so they couldn't turn away. If they cried in anger or frustration, it was OK, but they had to look me in the eye, or get another pop. Looking me in the eye was usually more serious and memorable to them, especially as young children, because looking into an adult's face from 2 feet away is intimidating, even for older children. And I always made the point that even though I had to spank them, I always loved them.

As the kids got to school age, their mother introduced her paddle board, which hung in her kitchen. She occasionally paddled them, usually making them go get the paddle board, and recommend and count off their own "licks," until they were teenagers. In public settings, she also occasionally "thunked" them, by snapping her finger, typically on their ears.

I didn't spank my older son past about the age of seven, but my younger son was a different matter. He sort of operated in a world of his own much of the time, and often failed to pay heed to verbal warnings and commands until he was about 9. That was often of practical consequence, since we frequently went out on backwoods trips, or visited factories and other industrial sites together, on our summer trips, and my younger son was worrisome for wandering off, until he was about 10. Eventually, as they each got appropriate mental maturity, they recognized that my "Now Hear This!" voice, which I took straight from own father, meant that they had better "hove to" right damn now! or face a serious licking and further discipline for not paying heed. After that realization set in, actual paddling or spanking was superfluous.

They'd have much rather taken some "licks," than get dressed down in my "Now Hear This!" voice, and so I rarely actually had to discipline them, directly. They knew the house rules when they were at my house, and what was expected of them, and if I so much as raised my voice to them once a month, when they stayed with me, it was very unusual. But their mother, not having a 110 decibel no-nonsense roar at her command, kept her paddle board in her kitchen, until the boys were 16 or 17. She rarely used it on my older boy, but kept it dusted off for my younger one, and the 2 kids she had later with her second husband.

According to her, (and I give you this only because she was a social worker with a Masters degree in psychology, who got to be one of the 3 highest ranking civil service employees in her state's Family and Child Welfare department, before she retired to head a private adoption agency), paddling a teenager embarrasses them, more than the corporal punishment aspect of a paddling discourages a behavior. I don't know that it was all that effective with my second son, past his 16th birthday, but he was very, very bright, incredibly independent in his thinking, and enjoyed being thoughtfully perverse in his adolescent behavior, more than most kids. He did have a physical confrontation with her, just after his 17th birthday, because she found some marijuana in his room. But this had more to do, according to him, with his overall inability at that time to handle his own anger at what he regarded as an undue invasion of his privacy, than any suppressed rage at being paddled by her as a younger child.

I do think all parents have a moment with each child, sometime in the child's late teens, where there is a sudden, two way realization that physical confrontations aren't going to be one-sided any longer. It may be the moment when your son or daughter is as tall as you, or it may be when they've got their brown belt in karate class. But sooner or later, there's a point where the parent and the child take each other's measure anew, and a bridge to adulthood is mutually crossed. While that can occur prematurely as a result of physical abuse, it's my experience that normal physical discipline doesn't precipitate that realization, any more than physical growth does.

At any rate, my younger son is getting it all back with his three kids, now. And his wife is definitely "no spank." Which his oldest boy is working, 6 ways from Sunday...

I think another thing to recognize is that corporal punishment is only one aspect of a system of family discipline, in which all members participate, and which has to reinforce the idea that no person is above the "law." For example, I made it point to have "dollar jars" in my house, every year, when my kids came for summer visits. Basically, this was a means by which they could discipline me, for infractions like cussing, or smoking in the house, or whatever character flaw I was working on self-correcting that year. And they took great delight in catching me out, and seeing me "pay the fine," whenever I'd slip. It was also fair game for them to criticize my driving, if I failed to signal, or was speeding, etc., and this gave them another sphere in which to "push back" on discipline, while keeping us safer. So, if they did something bone headed enough to warrant a spanking, or a dressing down, they generally knew it, before punishment was meted out, and mostly just wanted to get the punishment over, and get back on track, partly so as to be in a position of being "paid up" on discipline, and therefore, able to judge me again, in our agreed spheres.

I'm frequently appalled by the behavior of children today, particularly in public. This includes my nephew and niece, who are my sister's poorly behaved youngest children, age 9 and 14, who haven't been spanked much, if at all. They're impulsive, loud, inconsiderate little boors, but my sister dotes on them, as many single parents do. She herself says she is ineffective as a disciplinarian, and that she hopes her kids will want to learn better manners as adults. For society's sake, I hope they take Miss Manners to heart, soon, but I fear it is too late for them, already.

Very often, I see parents pleading with children and wheedling them in public settings, trying to get them to behave, and not being effective in doing so, to the detriment of others around them. I often see that those parents have no means of interrupting the young child's mental processes, and refocusing their attention beyond their own wants of the moment. It's been my experience that if you can't interrupt and refocus a child's mental processes when they are misbehaving, you stand little chance of controlling or changing their behavior. I think judicious, careful spanking can be an effective parenting technique, in a larger system of family discipline, because it does provide a means of refocusing the child's thought processes, quickly, at an earlier age than reason, memory and other cognitive processes are in place. And frankly, I don't see much different about spanking, than "hug restraint," or other means of physically controlling a struggling toddler, who can't or won't respond to voice instructions.

I was spanked (and yelled at and smacked) as a child and I have incredibly mixed feelings about it. On the negative side, I'm sure it's a contributing factor in a lot of my less desirable personality traits. On the positive side, it toughened me up and taught me the early lesson that the world is an often unfriendly place (and I learned firsthand what violence was like, rather than it being some mystery).

I don't believe in spanking. I don't spank my children.

Someone say spanking?
≡ Click to see image ≡

Interesting and eloquent posts, ufez and paulsc. To continue with a theme Brittanie raised upthread, sometimes it's particularly difficult to watch verbal abuse. In fact, I find it as difficult or more than watching mild corporal punishment, because I know that what the parent is trying to do is to break the kid's spirit a little, and I see the kid get broken a little, diminished in her confidence, stifled in his love of life and that, to my mind, is worse and more long lasting than spanking a child's bottom. I know that kids are resilient, but if you're cruel to them again and again, it can't help but have an effect, yes? All the caveats I raised in my prior post remain, but I just thought I'd pop in to toss this out there.

I would never do so in public, but our kids get the occasional slap on the backside. Never enough to really hurt, just a swat when they get out of control. I know there is a fine line between discipline and abuse, but I am positive that I am well and truly short of that line. I cringe when I see parents trying to persuade their kids to do something, because kids these days are not taught to do what they are told. Of course kids should be encouraged to be individual and to take responsibility for themselves, but a large part of life is doing what you have to to and the earlier kids learn that, the happier they will be as adults.

If the only method of discipline you use is smacking, that's bad. If it is a "use only as a last resort and with only enough force to make your point" (ie, it shouldn't hurt at all beyond the initial sting), it is effective and reasonable. If your kids are left with red marks for long periods or (god forbid) bruises, you are abusing them.

I too have mixed feelings about it. I was spanked and smacked quite a bit as a kid and not just with an open hand and not just on my butt. Belts, spatulas and wooden spoons were also used. The verbal abuse and neglect I suffered were just as bad if not worse.

I've said that a quick smack on the butt to get a kid's attention isn't the worst thing in the world especially if it's in response to something dangerous (running into the street, etc.). But I'll never have to worry about it as I don't and won't have kids.

However, that's not to say I'm without parenting experience. Two of my nieces and a nephew lived with me for two or three years. I rarely had to discipline them in any form; they just knew they had to behave with me. Their parents (my youngest brother and his first wife) were amazed that they behaved so well since I hadn't had any kids of my own. I gave the kids good rules and guidelines and Bro and his wife were really erratic with what they enforced and rewarded, unintentionally, bad behaviour. And the verbal abuse my (now ex) SIL heaped on the kids was awful. "I wish I had never had you", etc. The woman should have been sterilized at birth.

richat, yours was a very eloquent argument, and it sounds like you and mrs. richat are great parents. You gave me pause on my comment on the subject, because I agree with much of what you say. I do think, in many cases (obviously not yours), that some parents make the mistake of trying to be friends with their children, to the detriment of providing guidance and sometimes being a hardass. Your job is not to be their friend. Their mentor, guide, guardian, confidant if possible, and many other things, but not their pal to the point where you don't assert your authority (based on your position as elder with, presumably, lessons learned from experience). I've also experienced the effects of parents who (later on--from about 10yo) were afraid to assert authority and offer guidance, much to my detriment. The effect was disastrous. It could also be that with everything else that went on, the 'swat on the ass' seemed inconsequential. Who knows. Reading everyone's comments I realize that, as one who will never have kids (a decision which may bear looking at on its own), I am ill-qualified to offer an opinion.

Smack the little buggers. A bit of a spanking isn't going to harm the little toads as much as learning the lesson that they can get away with anything.

Punishments are really hard.

We were pretty gentle with our 8-year-old and now he seems to just ignore us a lot. After asking him to do something repeatedly and he still doesn't even answer me? Yeah, I'll go up to him and give him a little smack on the back of the head, or more often, repeat my request suddenly VERY LOUDLY in his ear. It definitely gets results when other things don't.

We don't spank in an organized way where you calmly explain to them what they did wrong and "well, you know the punishment, son, go outside and pick your switch". I don't think I could hit my boys when I wasn't "in the moment". In those situations the punishment is usually more the loss of some privilege for some period of time.

My 3 year old is really too young for the back o' head / sudden yell method. But he's very, uh, strong willed. Much more so than his brother ever was. He will probably have to be slapped more often, unfortunately. It is kind of breaking their spirit, Lassie, and I really hate doing it. But I do it when it seems needed and still believe I'm a great father, as do my boys.

If you model that might makes right, or that the bigger person demands respect...

I model that the parents demand respect, hopefully even when children have outgrown them.

If it were me, I would have taken the kid into the bathroom or outside for a time out and left if the behavior continued.


I do not have kids and do not ever want them. But I have learned that telling them WHY they can't do stuff helps: If the toddler heads for the door, "You can stand in the doorway and look, but you can't go outside"; the kid is climbing the bookcase "This isn't safe because it isn't bolted into the wall--you can climb on a jungle gym"; "When you scream, it hurts my ears"

I don't remember being disciplined per se for something I did--it was more having untreated manic rage and frustration inflicted on me out of the blue: Joan Crawford night raids, shoved into a corner, verbal abuse...I have said in previous threads what happened the one time my cunt of a mother left a mark on me. FUCK THE BLUE COCOON!!!!!!!!!!

danostuporstar, I wasn't talking about smacking/sudden yell stuff when I talked about breaking their spirit. I was talking about "You're stupid/you're a little bitch/you're a whore/what the hell's the matter with you, you too stupid to understand me?/you made your father leave me/you're the reason I do drugs/drink too much/if it weren't for you, the state wouldn't have taken my other kids" kind of stuff. Words that are put out there for the sole purpose of hurting a kid and making her question her value in life. That's what I was talking about when I said "verbal abuse."

I'm not buying that comparison. Granted, I'm much, much more well-read on the science of dog-behavior than I am toddlers...

The reason you aren't supposed to hit a dog is because more often than not the dog will begin to fear you, and in some cases even turn against you. This is not a healthy way to maintain a constructive teacher/student relationship, and the same applies to children, in my opinion.

As I said before, my stepfather was so verbally abusive (he definitely got physical with my younger half-brother and I'm pretty sure he got physical with my mother) but even without him getting physical with me I was living in fear of him.

I remember one time in particular wandering away at a store or something, somehow getting separated from my mom, and having that panicky, lost feeling and thinking in my six-year-old head that I was going to be left behind, and so when I finally reunited with my mom I knew I had misbehaved by running off and the first thing I asked her, through tears of relief but still fear, was not to tell my stepfather.

Six years old, and I was terrified of him. That's fucked up.

That's not to say that spanking is inherently bad, per se. As I also said before, I was spanked occasionally, but I also think it's way too difficult for most parents to separate themselves from the heat of the moment, the anger and frustration, and do it in a way that is conducive to the "lesson."

My 3 year old has had some minor behavioural problems (mainly just highly strung / borderline hyperactive). We've tried many, many different ways of disciplining her when her behaviour crosses the line - including a light smack - and in my opinion it simply isn't effective.

Some form of cool-down or withdrawal technique, in which she is consistently removed from the environment in which she is misbehaving, and in which the reason for the withdrawal is simply and calmly explained really is the only thing that has had a lasting effect on her behaviour (it's improving a lot, thankfully). Losing temper in any form has always been counterproductive.

Problem is, effectively disciplining a child often has an undesirable outcome for the parent too (eg leaving a restaurant or social event early), and many people just can't stomach this. In my opinion - tough - it's part of the price of having kids (not to mention bloody rude forcing other people to endure a ranting, tantruming, badly behaved child).

I'm open-minded in general on the issue, and not arrogant enough to think that my way is best, but so far as I can tell for spanking to be effective it has to put kids in genuine fear - presumably of actual, genuine physical pain. What sort of psychopath wants to do that?

When kids are very young, like two or three, sometimes they throw a pretty big tantrum... this can descend into terrible sobs and hysteria. Sometimes the only thing that will snap them out of this sort of state is a little swat on the arse.

I don't agree with spanking an older kid... now, the threat of 'no telly or computer for a day'? That's pretty effective.

"... What sort of psychopath wants to do that?"
posted by bifter 23 November

I have, thanks.

I think your assumed premise is entirely without merit, bifter:

"...but so far as I can tell for spanking to be effective it has to put kids in genuine fear - presumably of actual, genuine physical pain. ..."

Spanking a child is not torturing them. There shouldn't be any "actual, genuine physical pain" involved, and it doesn't work on operant conditioning involving pain memory. Spanking is more like a quick situational redirection, that interrupts their immediate fixation and reminds them of your parental role. Far, far less "painful," when properly done, than a slap to the face is for an adult, but done for the same effect.

Because, generally, if you want to hurt an adult, you punch him, with a closed or tensed fist, or a major limb stroke or sweep, not slap him with an open hand. And then you have to deal with anger and hormonal fight/flight reflex, and defensive reaction, before you can get on with changing behavior. Professional boxers do this expertly, and the process of watching a professional fight is seeing how each fighter can effectively apply pure operant conditioning to the other fighter's body, so that the other fighter flinches, changes his behavior, and is ultimately forced to submit, physically, in reaction to pain inflicted by his opponent. That can't reasonably be compared to slapping, or spanking, in any regard.

A slap, properly done, avoids all this, just as a simple spanking does for a truculent child. But if you slap inexpertly, you can quickly provoke the fight/flight reaction, and find yourself in a real fight. In the same way, if you spank a child improperly, you will not get the result you intend. While spanking is not appropriate for children with neurological problems or abnormal psychology, if your child is of normal capacity, and you find spanking ineffective, it may be that you are spanking improperly.

But nobody will think less of you or your child, for not spanking, presuming you have other, equally effective parental controls for your child. But neither should anyone, in my opinion, find your approach morally superior, for being based on what I challenge as an incorrect assumption about the technique of spanking.

Seems that spanking to focus attention, and spanking as punishment are two very different things, and honestly, I'm not sure I really agree with either. In the former case because it seems readily possible - as you explain in your own anecdote paulsc - to gain their attention without it (and without then facing the natural follow-up problem of helping your children understand the difference between "good hitting" and "bad hitting".) In the latter case, because children will soon reach a point where they realise that hitting without pain is an easy punishment. I vividly remember the point in my own life when I realised that the levels of physical pain to which a child is exposed through spanking (in my own case of course, thankfully I didn't have physically abusive parents), playground fights etc were totally trivial. It was around 6 years old. Again, you seem to acknowledge this yourself, saying that your own children preferred a paddlin' to a dressing down.

Personally, I found better long term effects (ie less risk of bad behaviour next time), to come from punishment other than spanking. I have never had need of spanking to gain attention. I don't wish to teach my children a double standard on the use of violence to resolve problems. So far as I can see there is no benefit at all to the use of spanking, that can't also be gained using non-physical methods. Simple as that.

Still not sure what the start of your post means in the context of your first quote - hit post too soon?

"... Still not sure what the start of your post means in the context of your first quote - hit post too soon?"

posted by bifter 23 November

Your use of the word "psychopath" seemed unduly pejorative, since you didn't, from context, intend it clinically.

"... In the former case because it seems readily possible - as you explain in your own anecdote paulsc - to gain their attention without it ..."

It seems you're being disingenuous here, bifter. I specifically cover, at length, the mechanism by which spanking children between 2 & 1/2 and 6 or 7 generally works, which is "to disorient them a bit from the situation." You're actually invoking the startle reaction when you spank a child, but creating it using their butt, not their face, as you do when slapping adults, since children's necks and faces are too weak and generally too low for an adult to slap effectively. A child that has been effectively spanked will often blink, and have watery eyes, not because of pain, but because of the startle reflex.

I go on to say, at length, that I think spanking is generally unnecessary once a child has the mental capacity to heed verbal correction, and that this develops differently in different children, as it did in my sons. I specifically stated that it was my children's mother who continued to paddle after that, as punishment, not I. But I also said that I had the advantage of having a stentorian voice when I want to use it. I'm entirely capable of producing a massive physiological startle response in any hearing human, any time I wish, if they are in the same room with me.

If you're going to argue, please argue with what I actually wrote, not what you think I wrote.

"Personally, I found better long term effects (ie less risk of bad behaviour next time), to come from punishment other than spanking."

Not surprising, if you don't understand the psychology or physiology of spanking, and aren't doing it appropriately, or effectively.

Well, not really disingenuous. If you'd included the few words before the ellipsis in your quote (hope the choice of editing wasn't a little rhetorical flourish of your own...), then I don't think you could misinterpret what I was saying: that the intent to place children in fear of genuine, physical pain is psychopathic (in the vernacular, not clinical sense).

Your quote from my post is confusing as you seem to be using it (rhetorically) to self-identify as a psychopath in the context of my post, while the substance of your argument seems to say that you advocate spanking for entirely different reasons ie seeking to "disorient them a bit from the situation" rather than "put kids in genuine fear - presumably of actual, genuine physical pain".

Pointless semantic arguments aside, I've stated my personal opinion already. Not sure if I really want to invite more sniffy digs about not understanding the optimum method for hitting my children, but what the hell. :) I'm totally unclear about what you think the benefits of spanking are, given that you acknowledge that there are more effective (as measured by your own childrens' preferences), non-violent alternatives (which indeed, you chose to use yourself). In the context of my statement that I have had better results from not spanking, you appear to be implicitly stating that it is the "best" method (and that I'm just not doing it right...) Assuming I'm not missing something, I'm genuinely fascinated on this point. What benefit is it going to achieve that I'm not already getting?

"... What benefit is it going to achieve that I'm not already getting?"
posted by bifter 23 November

For young children, between the approximate ages of 2 & 1/2 and 6, judiciously applied spanking can effectively interrupt dangerous or otherwise harmful behaviors. It is of particular use in situations where the child is too young to have the vocabulary or developed reasoning skills to understand and respond to verbal correction. It can be particularly appropriate in situations where a parent needs to quickly regain physical control of an uncooperative, but highly mobile, struggling child in a potentially dangerous situation. It works better than trying to invoke a startle response by auditory means, because young children don't reliably track the source of loud sounds, or associate them readily with desired behaviors.

As for my personal choices in correcting older children capable of limited reasoning and reliable response to verbal communication, I've said I had the innate capability to generate a startle response, followed by a corrective action, at will. Pretty much what a drill sergeant can do at Parris Island, but more nuanced, and without the profanity or implied threat a drill instructor typically follows up with. I've said that my children's mother didn't have this capability, and chose to continue paddling my boys, as punishment, for reasons of her own, that were, as she explained them, unrelated to physical pain.

Whether or not my methods were more "effective" than hers, I never offered any opinion one way or the other. If they'd have had the option as early teenagers, they'd have chosen being paddled by their Mother, to being dressed down by me verbally, every time, because they've said so, for more than 20 years, but I think that inferring from that, that my verbal corrections were somehow more "effective" than her paddling is an unwarranted leap. I don't think either I, or their mother, chose disciplinary measures based on "effectivity," but instead, on what seemed appropriate to us, as individuals doing the discipline, given our individual capabilities, and those of our children. To conflate those choices into some either/or set of choices as you do, as some argument against spanking, is a stretch, as I see it.

And what do mean when you talk of "non-violent alternatives?" Do you mean to imply that spanking is somehow "violent?" Because it's not.

Even a spanked child understands that.

Not sure if I really want to invite more sniffy digs about not understanding the optimum method for hitting my children, but what the hell. :)
posted by bifter 23 November

Do you mean to imply that spanking is somehow "violent?" Because it's not. Even a spanked child understands that.
posted by paulsc 23 November

Thanks for continuing to elevate the discourse... ;)

Anyway, you have set a very tightly defined set of parameters for your interpretation of a much broader concept. Let me turn your question around and ask you if you mean to imply that spanking is never "violent"?

It may well be true that under some circumstances within the narrow parameters that you have set smacking can be effective and non-harmful (but what do we have to go on but our own experiences?), but to think firstly that this is likely to be understood by all adults, let alone all children is - frankly - staggeringly naive. There are enough personal testaments to the damage caused by physically abusive parents in this thread alone to prove that.

Personally I'm far happier using methods that have proved to be at least as effective in my own experience, and that don't involve physical admonishment. I'm equally happy for there to be general societal disapproval of smacking (if not outright prohibition) for a practice that is potentially very damaging when misapplied. If someone chooses to smack despite this, well at least they are forced to consider at some level the costs and benefits for the practice.

I think that the 'naughty step' (or wherever the parent deems is a good locale) is pretty good alternative... but you may still have to physically restrain the child and carry them over to said area.

When my kids were little, I was also introduced to the idea that making them explain their actions, admit the truth, and say WHY they were wrong was much more effective (as a 'punishment') than any spanking.

"... Let me turn your question around and ask you if you mean to imply that spanking is never "violent"? ..."

I would think that at the point a spanking became violent, it would have become a beating, an assault, an attack, perhaps even a battery, a mugging, a fight, or a battle. Pretty much anything but a spanking, and actionable under existing laws, based on the facts of the case.

If you can't distinguish a spanking from a beating, it's good that you don't try to spank any child, or serve on any criminal jury. Being able to distinguish action by degree, judge accordingly, and act appropriately and specifically while maintaining self-control is basic to being able to act with the restraint and nuanced care children deserve. But I don't think parents who spank children are abusive, simply because they spank, and so I don't concede your moralistic points, whatsoever.

In fact, I find what I think to be your references to spanking as "smacking" still more evidence of your personal pejorative bias in this area, and your continued effort to mis-direct the discussion to some conflation of physical aggression by adults against children, with simple parental correction. That's not a basis for discussion, it's simply an invitation to quarrel. And it's narrow mindedly moralistic because it smacks of you wanting to extend your personal views, distorted and ill "proven" though they may be, to society in general, as you state:

"... I'm equally happy for there to be general societal disapproval of smacking (if not outright prohibition) for a practice that is potentially very damaging when misapplied. If someone chooses to smack despite this, well at least they are forced to consider at some level the costs and benefits for the practice."

I'm not suggesting that your rights to raise your child without physical discipline should be abrogated because your choices may at some point endanger your child, when swift physical correction could have saved your kid, and I don't understand why you think it is necessary to force your views on all other parents, whose children and circumstances you can't possibly individually consider.

I think if you asked a large number of children that sustained physical injury at the hands of their caregivers whether they were subject to something characterised as a "spanking" or a "smacking", you'd be surprised how many said yes.

In fact, I find what I think to be your references to spanking as "smacking" still more evidence of your personal pejorative bias in this area, and your continued effort to mis-direct the discussion to some conflation of physical aggression by adults against children, with simple parental correction. That's not a basis for discussion, it's simply an invitation to quarrel.

D'oh! I'm english. In England, "smacking" is, in fact, the most common term used for physical admonishment of a child. Overthink things much?

"... Overthink things much?"
posted by bifter 23 November

In a discussion where the opening question is "What are your feelings on spanking children?" I guess the answer would be, "No. D'you?"

Well, it isn't me trying to make a detailed psychoanalysis of someone I've never met, based on 20 lines of text. Funny how foolish that can make you look, eh? :)

There's absolutely no need for spanking. It's not a disciplinary tactic that's particularly effective; what the child remembers is the shock of his/her parents losing control and doing something utterly inexplicable. It's the shock at the parental extreme, not the 'punishment' of spanking, that changes their behavior. If you have a decent toolbox of disciplinary techniques and an understanding of child development, there's just no need to ever raise a hand to a child. In fact, it's a lot less productive than other forms of discipline, because it teaches negative rather than positive reasons for modifying behavior. Of course children need to be held accountable for their behavior - discipline (aimed at gradually creating self-discipline) and character development are two of the most important jobs of parenting, and I agree that they are far too often neglected in today's indulgent, child-centered society. But spanking isn't required for that.

I understand that some people do it and are capable of administering a one-time smack in a non-cruel way, but I also believe it reveals a lack of general strategies for parenting and does not provide children with a good example of anger management or comfort with authority. People who were spanked as children are quite a bit more likely to have favorable attitudes toward spanking their own children; that may be because we have to create stories that help us see our parents as basically good people. Good people wouldn't do something bad to their children, therefore, hitting children as punishment must not be bad.

I've spent too much time involved in the lives of too many children to think it's a good idea. The happiest, best-adjusted children I've known were not spanked. There are also plenty of happy, well-adjusted children who were, but the existence of the former category indicates there is really no need for the latter. The same ends can be accomplished using better means.

"Well, it isn't me trying to make a detailed psychoanalysis of someone I've never met, based on 20 lines of text. ..."
posted by bifter 23 November

An inference of a "personal pejorative bias" is hardly an attempt to "make a detailed psychoanalysis of someone" as I understand Freud et al.

But, shine on bifter!

I wasn't spanked, and I was raised in a time where this form of punishment was pretty much a matter of course in parenting, and corporal punishment was still administered in schools. This seemed shocking and barbaric to me, and I can distinctly remember the feeling I had whenever a child was brought up to the front of the class to be hit with a ruler or paddle - a sort of heaving, burning feeling inside, and a sense of "how dare they?"

It's a good thing that I was never threatened with this, because I had already determined that I wasn't going to sit still for it no matter what.

So... no, I'm sure I wouldn't - but I don't have kids. All kids are different, all parents are different, and - vitally - the dynamic in any given family is completely unique. It's easy to imagine parents with entirely different parenting techniques from each other, for example, becoming a bit desperate, if, say, one parent's behavior reinforces the idea of "negative attention" while the other strives for the rational, measured, and consistent framework. I can imagine that some children who constantly test their limits and boundaries and are naturally more rebellious may drive their parents to resort to more (relatively) extreme methods to establish order. So I wouldn't feel comfortable making any kind of sweeping statement about what other people should do, up to a point.

I would definitely agree that "spanking" for pain - something beyond the startle effect- is way out of bounds.

chuckdarwin, when a 2-3 year old is having a tantrum, a true tantrum...it's because they are still learning to deal with the emotional storms that they are feeling. They are not in control. They need you to help guide them through it, and smacking them for their trouble is inherently cruel.

Now, if you feel like pointing out that the child was having a tantrum in an attempt to "get what they want" it means one of two things, I think. The first is that they've learned that this will work, and the second is that we are dealing with a child who is more sophisticated emotionally than the one I refer to above.

This thread makes me sad. I don't have the energy to argue with you, paulsc, but I really feel that you are making an argument that excuses the wrong that you've done. Hitting is violence, and any argument to the contrary is semantics. We shouldn't be hitting each other, and for damn sure, we shouldn't be hitting the most vulnerable members of our society.

Would you also smack an elderly person if they are acting out due to senility? They are also vulnerable, and may not respond to verbal explanations.

I really and truly believe that if you think that hitting a child is the only thing that will work that you've not looked hard enough. THERE ARE BETTER WAYS TO HANDLE WHATEVER SITUATION YOU THINK CALLS FOR HITTING.

We do have options in how we raise OUR children.

"... Hitting is violence, and any argument to the contrary is semantics. ..."
posted by richat 23 November

I don't believe spanking is "hitting," so I don't think it is violent, and I certainly don't think I've done "wrong" in that regard in raising my children, nor that I have anything to excuse on that account. Therefore, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this, and I think your personally directed accusations border on CAPITALIZED HYSTERICS.

I had dermatographia as a child (still do, to some extent) and can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I was smacked. All were very brief episodes, and for situations I can totally understand in retrospect, when I was unreasonable or hysterical.

After my dermatographia (undiagnosed at the time) caused me to come out in a big handprint-shaped wheal at the top of my leg one time, my mum was too scared to smack me ever again :-). I turned out a reasonably well-adjusted adult.

Whether I'd smack my children, I don't know. I'll discuss it with the SO as and when we have them.

I agree with spanking children if they've done something particularly egregious at a young age (i.e. stealing, burning something on purpose).

For smaller problems, explain to them why they shouldn't do it again.

I don't have any kids, so the above is all purely theoretical.

Paulsc, I'm cool with the agreeing to disagree. I can't for the life of me understand how you can accuse me of CAPITALISED HYSTERICS though.

I'm kidding of course. As I'm sure everyone can tell, this is an issue that is close to my heart.

Too bad Mefi (for the most part) can't have fairly calm discussions like this about something controversial. Well done, Bunnies.

As my siblings and I got older our punishment was changed into loss of privileges, confined to our bedroom (no punishment for me, yay books!), grounded, etc.

I remember the last time my mum went to smack me (yes, in the face); I was 12. She raised her hand and I grabbed her arm and we just looked at each other. I let go and she didn't smack me. We were of a height and size and I guess it could have gotten pretty ugly. I'm very glad it didn't. I left, not intentionally, bruises on her arm.

I normally just favourite everything that Miko says, and I'm going to follow suit here... even if it's just a memory (bereft of actual HTML).

I don't think I can see bunnies as cuddly, warm, and fuzzy anymore...

I am really thankful that my parents always gave me reasons & explanations. There was never a "Because I said so!" or much of any other brutish behavior. I guess there is a difference between "raising children" and "helping a child grow into an adult human being"... I am really quite shocked that there are people who would never hit a dog, but feel it's good to hit a child.

I have also never understood the whole "I was spanked, and I'm ok" mentality... but I am used to being in the minority. It has always seemed to be teaching "might is right" rather than giving any reasonable life "lesson"...unless you're trying to teach that life is unfair, but that doesn't really need any extra help to be understood...

I have also never understood the whole "I was spanked, and I'm ok" mentality...

For me, part of that's because I know both my parents grew up with a lot more physical punishment than I did, and in my mother's case, actual over-anyone's-line physical abuse. They were parenting at a time when spanking was considered normal and appropriate, and they consciously tried to use it as an appropriate, non-angry punishment. They made a conscious decision to raise my brother and me better than they had been raised, they did a lot of work to learn about appropriate and effective parenting methods, and I believe they really did their best with the information and advice that was available (in addition to having good heads and hearts).

I think there's been a lot of changes in standard parenting advice over the past few decades, with time-outs and other "isolate from stimulus" punishments gaining favor and rewarding good behavior being considered more effective than punishing bad behavior in general. But the books I've read on childrearing are not the same books that were available to my parents.