NationStates Jolt Archive

Seeing as this got brought up on Naltir's B'day thread...


What do you think about spanking/corporal punishment for children?

Seeing as this got brought up on Naltir's B'day thread...


What do you think about spanking/corporal punishment for children?

I think a good parent rarely has to, but knows when he or she must.

I think a good parent rarely has to, but knows when he or she must.

i completly agree

[QUOTE=Lunatic GoofballsI think a good parent rarely has to, but knows when he or she must.[/QUOTE]

Having been on the deserved recieving end, I'd agree. Although Dad's "talking too"s were far worse than a spanking with a belt...

Having been on the deserved recieving end, I'd agree. Although Dad's "talking too"s were far worse than a spanking with a belt...

Yup..

The worst one you can do is the whole disappointed thing.

Having been on the deserved recieving end, I'd agree. Although Dad's "talking too"s were far worse than a spanking with a belt...

Yeah I always felt the silent treatment worked best against me. It always made me feel so guilty for hurting my parents that bad

I think that children should be beaten at irregular intervals. It was regular intervals, until someone pointed out that it might be better to keep them on their toes. I hate all this politically correct bullshit: the threat of violence, i.e., a good smack on the bottom, kept me in line, and if that failed, my dad might threaten to spank me on the bare bottom in public. That never happened, cause the embarassment is as powerful as the act.

a good number of problems in today's youth could be solved by a good smacking.

Having been on the deserved recieving end, I'd agree. Although Dad's "talking too"s were far worse than a spanking with a belt...

Same here. My mother could correct me with just a raised voice. The rare few times she ever smacked me, I needed smacking. And you can all imagine what a sweet well-behaved youngster I was. :)

Seeing as this got brought up on Naltir's B'day thread...


What do you think about spanking/corporal punishment for children?

Well I essentially agree with LG on this...

I think a good parent rarely has to, but knows when he or she must.

But to expand, there are generally much more effective methods of discipline, and to some extent it should be tailored to the child's interests and personalities. Taking away the books from a child who loves to read will be a real punishment to them. Denying ice cream to a child who has a special fondness for sweets can be a much better deterrent than a smack on the bottom. And you should always take care to explain the reasons for your actions as fully as possible, IMO. While they may not understand your reasons, at the very least they know you do not punish them without reasons of some kind.

Same here. My mother could correct me with just a raised voice. The rare few times she ever smacked me, I needed smacking. And you can all imagine what a sweet well-behaved youngster I was. :)

Riiiiiight. ;)

Yeah I always felt the silent treatment worked best against me. It always made me feel so guilty for hurting my parents that bad
I nearly prefer the smacking to the horrible silent treatment. Got a wooden spoon around the backs of the legs a few times.;)

I think a good parent rarely has to, but knows when he or she must.yep.

Having been on the deserved recieving end, I'd agree. Although Dad's "talking too"s were far worse than a spanking with a belt...being on the recieving end of both a wooden spoon as well as dad's talking to...


shows I was a regular L'il Hellraiser... :p

Same here. My mother could correct me with just a raised voice. The rare few times she ever smacked me, I needed smacking. And you can all imagine what a sweet well-behaved youngster I was. :)

:D Since I've taken up teaching kids, I've amazed myself at my ability to produce a "Command Sgt. Major" voice. It has a totally AMAZING effect.

Of course I'm not allowed to smack my kids, but the BIG SCARY VOICE from normally funny, friendly, clowning Dai-sensei has an electric effect. And that's before I send a kid out of the room... That's always in tears, but has always resulted in a marked behavioral improvement.

I nearly prefer the smacking to the horrible silent treatment. Got a wooden spoon around the backs of the legs a few times.;)

Heh. My father broke a paddle on my behind once. Whether you take that as an indication that I was a hard-ass or that he was using a bad paddle is up to you. :cool:

I’m personally very much against it, each parent must have their own style but when/if I have children than I’ll use a democratic punishment systems.

I’ve always believed that sitting a child in seclusion for several minutes with an explanation as to why then getting them to apologise and explain themselves what they did wrong and why it was wrong ingrains morality. It seems to build a more powerful internal conscience which can be references by the child once they’ve grown up in my opinion.

As opposed to more physical forms which, in my opinion, illustrate that: “power controls” so that one day they can rebel, violence is okay to keep anybody in-line, and that once the threat of punishment is taken away it’s perfectly okay to do the occasional evil thing… just as long as nobody sees. Overall, that seems to generate people more likely to hit their own children and people less likely to be introspective.

Of course, there are those few children which cannot be made moral by all the alternative methods so physical punishment is necessary... I went to school with quite a few of them.

And you should always take care to explain the reasons for your actions as fully as possible, IMO. While they may not understand your reasons, at the very least they know you do not punish them without reasons of some kind

That was Dad's worst sort of talking too.... a logical Socratic walk through of what was wrong....

(And yes, my students get that as much as I can give them...)

Well, I don't see a problem with using a paddle as long as it isn't used profusely. Being paddled once or twice on the ass isn't to much and it gets their attention and they understand what wrong the did and will have an incentive not to do it again or they could think of a better way of not getting caught next time.

Now on the other hand, if you constantly beat the hell out of them and you lose your cool in which your aim is a bit off by hitting legs, back, etc... Now that leads to abuse.

I vote it's okay to use a paddle on the butt once or twice to pass the messege of wrong doing.

My dad had a paddle, he actually engraved in large cap letters "THE BOSS" on one side and the other side in smaller letter size "The Persuader" He liked the BOSS side. A lot of times you could read BO on my ass.

I know in the day and age people like to ground their kids and send them to the bedroom. Usually kids have a TV, radio, video games, computer, etc... in the bedroom.....now that's some effective punishments. Geez.

Personally, I've never felt any need to spank a child in my care (and it's not like I've only taken care of little angels, by a long shot), and I don't plan to spank any children of my own I might theoretically one day have. I think spanking is too often used in place of more thoughtful punishments. However, I don't see spanking in and of itself as a terrible, horrible, evil thing. The line I draw is pretty simple - if the intent of the spanking is to cause the child pain, that's not okay. If the intent is simply to get across the message that Mommy and Daddy are really serious about this, I see that as fine, so long as it's not overused into meaninglessness. (Mommy and Daddy really don't need to be as serious about "don't dump your crayons on the floor" as they are about "don't run out in the middle of the street.")

Heh. My father broke a paddle on my behind once. Whether you take that as an indication that I was a hard-ass or that he was using a bad paddle is up to you. :cool:
You should have gone to an irish Christian Brothers secondary school.Now there we learned to be tough.(I'll resist the use of the word 'hardass' in relation to these guys.:p )

I think a good parent rarely has to, but knows when he or she must.

That's probably the best I've heard it put.

As long as they are older then 3 then it is fine.

My daughter just turned two, and because I spank her, she's one of the most well behaved children on the earth. It's not only the spanking, to be sure, but the fact that after she's done sniffling, I'll sit her down and show her what's wrong with what she did. I rarely have to restort to spanking, but when I do she knows I damn sure mean business.

My own father dropped bombs, which I will always love him for. I was a monster as a kid, and deserved every slap and whack I ever got. Of course, times were different then, and he came right out of the old school of 'I WILL FUCK YOU UP.' If he'd slacked off or pulled his punches, I doubt I would have turned into the wonderful person I am today. Instead, he wouldn't hesitate to put me on my ass for screwing up.

I don't intend to straight backhand my kids like he did, but again, times were different then. He was never malicious when he hit me, but he did mean business. Today, the cops would be called and my father probably hauled off to jail to be tried as a child abuser, which I find ridiculous.

In fact, my dad is a good man who saved his malice for those who deserved it, like the man who slapped his eleven year old daughter at a baseball game for speaking 'out of turn'. So casual a slap, right there in public, that a hush fell over the stands. Little did this man know that there was a 6'4, 220lb redneck sitting next to him that didn't take well to seeing shit like that. I'll never, ever, ever forget that guy's ruined face when he promised my father he'd never hit her again, followed quickly by an apology to his daughter. *pride*

I would slap a child that's too young to understand reasoning, but only as warning not to touch/do something, not as a form of punishment.
I wouldn't use any form of corporal punishment on a child older than 4 or 5.

I grew up with it, and I don't think it did me any good at all. It did turn me into a very insecure, taciturn, frightened and painfully shy person up until well into my 20s. I will not submit any child of mine to the same.

Through personal experience, I can say that spanking allows the child to rationalise his or her parents as the ones in the wrong, to paint them as the villian. It gets a lot harder to do with the disappointment angle.

I am anti-spanking, I don't use physical punishment at all and won't.

I am actually anti-punishment for the most part.

I once reduced a couple kids in a high school class to tears because I was so angry with their misbehavior while I was out sick that I did not yell, I simply poured out how disappointed, hurt, and embarrassed I was to have to be told by my colleagues that my class had been rude, disruptive and uncooperative...

"It may sound corny to you, but when you are one of my students, I feel like you're one of my kids, and I am just as embarrassed as your parents would be if you acted like you hadn't learned proper manners in front of their friends!"

I was so angry at that point I knew if I said more I'd say something I really regretted, so I threw the format of the business letter on the board and told them to write me a letter explaining PRECISELY what had gone on in my absence and why, then told them, "I am going to mark papers because I am so angry I don't want to talk to you right now."

About two minutes into the silence, I started to hear sniffling from the back of the room. They all did the assignment quietly, and the next day before I even said a word, one of them stood up and apologized about the way they had acted. We went on from there without any more problems.

Through personal experience, I can say that spanking allows the child to rationalise his or her parents as the ones in the wrong, to paint them as the villian. It gets a lot harder to do with the disappointment angle.
But the disappointment angle allows the child to remain indifferent to its parents' preferences. Corporal punishment does not.

I never received corporal punishment at home, but I did at school. I didn't think it was terribly justified at the time, and I still don't (I had failed to do something I hadn't actually been told to do). But the kids in the school feared that leather strap, and it mostly kept us in line.

But the disappointment angle allows the child to remain indifferent to its parents' preferences. Corporal punishment does not.

I never received corporal punishment at home, but I did at school. I didn't think it was terribly justified at the time, and I still don't (I had failed to do something I hadn't actually been told to do). But the kids in the school feared that leather strap, and it mostly kept us in line.

You would have perceived the school as a sort of external authority, though.

Personally, I found it impossible to reconcile the idea that someone who hurt me so much could possibly love me. I still don't believe that either of my parents does that, and I find it hard to accept and understand that some people may actually love me even now.

Simply put, spanking/corporal punishment is primitive and a bad parenting technique.

Yup..

The worst one you can do is the whole disappointed thing.

yeh, i grew up constantly feeling guilty even if i hadn't done anything. that kept me in line pretty much til i discovered alcohol and didn't care anymore.

Simply put, spanking/corporal punishment is primitive and a bad parenting technique.

In your opinion.

In your opinion.

And in experts' opinion. Only people lazy/ignorant enough not to do 10 sec google search would disagree.


Spanking can lead to more bad behavior by children

By Jared Wadley
News Service

A new U-M study that used stronger statistical controls than previous research lends additional support to the belief that corporal punishment can be detrimental to children.

Andrew Grogan-Kaylor, assistant professor in the School of Social Work and the study's author, used data from three years (1994, 1996 and 1998) of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, which examined the effects of corporal punishment. The analysis attempted to determine if corporal punishment, which typically involves spanking, affected children's antisocial behavior in later years.

"Even minimal amounts of spanking can lead to an increased likelihood in antisocial behavior by children," says Grogan-Kaylor, whose findings are published in the September issue of Social Work Research.

In addition, the study found no evidence for differences in the impact of physical punishment across racial and ethnic groups.

Corporal punishment has been part of a long-standing debate in how parents discipline their children. Some researchers believe corporal punishment will lead to compliance to desired behaviors among children. Other experts say it will teach children that the use of physical aggression is normal and appropriate to solve conflicts.

The U-M study analyzed data from more than 1,800 children. Mothers were asked about their children's particular bad behavior, such as cheating/lying, bullying, breaking things deliberately or getting in trouble in school. In addition, they were asked the frequency of times they spanked their child in the past week.

"This study provides further methodologically rigorous support for the idea that corporal punishment is not an effective or appropriate disciplinary strategy," Grogan-Kaylor says.

Parents, he says, should use other forms of discipline.

http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/0405/Sept13_04/24.shtml

Simply put, spanking/corporal punishment is primitive and a bad parenting technique.

Not always. It should, however, be a last resort -- and NOT done in the heat of anger.

I think my brother and I were spanked maybe 3-4 times in our lives, mostly because of the three warning rule. My parents always said clearly what we were doing that was not appropriate. They then warned a second time that we were still doing that inappropriate thing, and that the third time they had to remind us, we'd get smacked.

Getting to warning three was a *very* rare thing, but when we got there, BAM! one slap across the (clothed) bottom made the point.

then told them, "I am going to mark papers because I am so angry I don't want to talk to you right now."

that line would be the one that did it, would be my guess.

I personally don't think there is ever a need to spank a child. My mother would grab me or my sisters arm, turn us to look at her eyes, and would deliver a very firm "no". We got the message very quickly. Things like that are more effective. It got to the point where my mom would only have to grab our arms and we would stop before she could even turn us. To this day, it gives me chills if someone grabs my arm.

mind you, the grab wasn't as punishment...it was to get our attention and eye contact...but we both associated it with getting in trouble. Definatly more effective.

And in experts' opinion. Only people lazy/ignorant enough not to do 10 sec google search would disagree.


http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/0405/Sept13_04/24.shtml

Yeah. That's why there are so many more ill-behaved kids when I was a kid and my parents were....

Oh wait! THERE WEREN'T!

My mother talked and/or spanked as neccessary for us, growing up. I'm always amazed by people saying how terrible corporal punishment is for children - unless it's by unloving or deranged parents, in which case the excessive or inappropriate punishment is a symptom, not a cause, of bad parenting.

Mild smacking, bare hand to bum or back of the legs is fine, it reinforces the point. To an extent, smacking/no smacking isn't the issue, good or bad parenting is - both sorts of parents can use smacking, and all other forms of disciplinre and teaching, correctly or incorrectly.

Not always. It should, however, be a last resort -- and NOT done in the heat of anger.

I think my brother and I were spanked maybe 3-4 times in our lives, mostly because of the three warning rule. My parents always said clearly what we were doing that was not appropriate. They then warned a second time that we were still doing that inappropriate thing, and that the third time they had to remind us, we'd get smacked.

Getting to warning three was a *very* rare thing, but when we got there, BAM! one slap across the (clothed) bottom made the point.

It's not even legal here. I know most of you have been spanked or keep spanking so it's hard for you to accept but I suggest you to follow Smunkeville's (sp?) method.

My mother talked and/or spanked as neccessary for us, growing up. I'm always amazed by people saying how terrible corporal punishment is for children - unless it's by unloving or deranged parents, in which case the excessive or inappropriate punishment is a symptom, not a cause, of bad parenting.

Mild smacking, bare hand to bum or back of the legs is fine, it reinforces the point. To an extent, smacking/no smacking isn't the issue, good or bad parenting is - both sorts of parents can use smacking, and all other forms of disciplinre and teaching, correctly or incorrectly.

It might have to do with different perceptions of corporal punishment, and different experiences with it. To me as a child, it was horrible to live with the assumption that nobody loved me, reinforced by the occational breaking of a wooden spoon on my back.

As I said, I wouldn't object to a slap on the bottom. I would seriously object a slap in the face.

Having been on the deserved recieving end, I'd agree. Although Dad's "talking too"s were far worse than a spanking with a belt...

Oh I am so there with you. Growing up I was like, whip me with a strip of barbed-wire, just please NOT "the talk"!

I'm not really for spankings as it was overdone by my parents and I swore I would never spank my kid. Of course, that didn't stick. When my son tried to burn down the house by melting army men in his room. a spanking certainly ensued. I hate it, but it seems like sometimes a spanking is necessary.

And in experts' opinion. Only people lazy/ignorant enough not to do 10 sec google search would disagree.


]

Coming from you, that's a compliment.

that line would be the one that did it, would be my guess.
Possibly. I really was angry, and I feel it's healthier for both me and for the class for me to simply express it in a clear, calm manner than to shriek like an air-raid siren. I'm usually so easy-going that it tends to shock them when I tell them I am upset. God forbid I yell (only yelled five times in eight years.)

I personally don't think there is ever a need to spank a child. My mother would grab me or my sisters arm, turn us to look at her eyes, and would deliver a very firm "no". We got the message very quickly. Things like that are more effective. It got to the point where my mom would only have to grab our arms and we would stop before she could even turn us. To this day, it gives me chills if someone grabs my arm.

mind you, the grab wasn't as punishment...it was to get our attention and eye contact...but we both associated it with getting in trouble. Definatly more effective.

I'll agree with you mostly -- but allow that in rare circumstances, more than a grab and a glare may be necessary. In my opinion a smack should be rare, and it CERTAINLY should not be hard enough to leave a mark. Enough to get the attention.

My girlfriend's daughter had a habit of kicking and punching adults when she was younger. (She broke her mother's nose with a kick to the face!) They gave her time outs, they talked to her, they took away toys and privileges... she kept doing it to them, and to other adults...

Until the day she took me by surprise and slapped me in the face for no discernable reason.

I reacted lightning-quick -- she was still wearing diapers at the time (at five, but that's ANOTHER story. She WAS old enough to know better.) I grabbed her shoulder, spun her to face away from me, and gave her one swat against her very padded bottom. I doubt she felt much through the diaper, but she was outraged that I had actually hit her back. I said, "Well, now you know how it feels. Don't do it again."

She never tried it on me again, and I've never had to do anything more than tell her how disappointed I am with her behavior when she's being beastly (she's a young lady of twelve now). And funny enough, I'm her "favorite" aunt, with whom she wants to hang out with and go places.

Go figure.

I'd use physical punishment only as a last resort. Easy for me to say, I have no children.
My mother broke numerous wooden spoons on me, but I was quite the wild child.

Yeah. That's why there are so many more ill-behaved kids when I was a kid and my parents were....

Oh wait! THERE WEREN'T!

Better behaved, maybe.
Mentally better off? No.

Coming from you, that's a compliment.

No, Ny does slip into fits of logic from time to time.

You would have perceived the school as a sort of external authority, though.
Everyone who isn't me is an external authority. I don't particularly care what they think of me, but I care how what they think of me affects me.

It's a reasoned position.

I'd use physical punishment only as a last resort. Easy for me to say, I have no children.
My mother broke numerous wooden spoons on me, but I was quite the wild child.:eek:
you TOO!


I had 4 broken on me... what's your count?

It's not even legal here. I know most of you have been spanked or keep spanking so it's hard for you to accept but I suggest you to follow Smunkeville's (sp?) method.

well, what works for one doesn't work for all. Smunkee's method should be attempted but it won't always work. :cool:

Everyone who isn't me is an external authority. I don't particularly care what they think of me, but I care how what they think of me affects me.

It's a reasoned position.

What a teacher thnks of you does affect you a whole lot less than what your parents think of you though.

It can work, but it's unnecesary, and can cause more problems than it solves. In my childhood, my behavior was (mostly) corrected through verbal threats, loss of privileges, and discussions regarding what I did. I turned out just fine. In fact, when I entered school, I was far more disciplined than many kids. I didn't just know that I wasn't supposed to do certain things, I knew why I wasn't supposed to do them.

Worked for me, and I imagine it'll work for my children.

Ironically enough, I just had an argument about this in my English class. I don't agree with spanking, not just because it's cruel, but because it's ineffective. I know from first hand experience. Because I was having a tantrum, my mother spanked me when I was about three. It didn't dissaude me at all in my fit; in fact, it just made me put up a bigger fuss, because I was scared and angry. The most effective punishment in my eyes is not a punishment at all; it's figuring out the root of the issue. Obviously, it's hard to deal with two-year-old tantrums (I have had to), but that doesn't mean you can smack the child 'till it shuts up. Kids are either too young to really understand that what they're doing is wrong, or they have some reason they're doing it that should be dealt with.

NB: If you're a parent with a misbehaving child, I'm not nessacarily citing you as the reason the child causes trouble.

The harder you beat them, the better they'll learn. Any method of beating short of something causing permanent damage is fine -- use at your own discretion.

What do you think about spanking/corporal punishment for children?

What do you think about spanking for adults (as a punishment)?

My mummy still smacks me. :(

Spanking, I believe, should be a method of last resort; and you shouldn't do it if you are angry, or it will serve to terrorise rather than teach the child. I don't believe that fear is an effective teaching tool, or at very least there are far more effective tools.

I also don't think it's appropriate to use anything more than your hand, and never a closed fist. Adults often don't realise their own strength or the comparetive fragility of their children; so you are in danger of seriously injuring a child if you use a closed fist or an object.

Ironically enough, I just had an argument about this in my English class. I don't agree with spanking, not just because it's cruel, but because it's ineffective. I know from first hand experience. Because I was having a tantrum, my mother spanked me when I was about three. It didn't dissaude me at all in my fit; in fact, it just made me put up a bigger fuss, because I was scared and angry. The most effective punishment in my eyes is not a punishment at all; it's figuring out the root of the issue. Obviously, it's hard to deal with two-year-old tantrums (I have had to), but that doesn't mean you can smack the child 'till it shuts up. Kids are either too young to really understand that what they're doing is wrong, or they have some reason they're doing it that should be dealt with.

NB: If you're a parent with a misbehaving child, I'm not nessacarily citing you as the reason the child causes trouble.
For pre-linguistic kids, of course spanking wouldn't work. They need to understand what they've done wrong in order to understand the punishment.

But for older kids, there needs to be some sort of stick opposite that carrot. Otherwise they have no reason to follow any rules at all. A 7 year old with a brain in his head is going to figure this out pretty fast.

Smunkee's method should be attempted but it won't always work.

I trust that you were taking it as given that smacking doesn't always work too? :) If not... then I suggest you do now. :p

I agree with you about "not working for all". In England, it's almost illegal to smack a child (and should be entirely illegal in my opinon) and we have a great many parenting guides or shows on TV which show psychologically more effective techniques.

It ultimately relies on one's culture of origin, I think the UK and Europe tend to defer to more "experimental" approaches whereas the US defers to "if it isn't broken, don't fix it". Both equally valid :)

spanking, open hand on the bottom, is not going to permanently harm any child but its a piss poor parenting technique

spanking is only ever necessary because you have failed as a parent and this is the only way you can think of to regain control of the situation. its better than not correcting/controlling your childs behavior at all but there are dozens of better techniques you could be using. most of them require that you start well before the infraction that causes you to resort to spanking.

spanking with a belt, paddle or fist, slapping a child across the face, yanking arms or legs, and shaking a child are NEVER appropriate. some of those things could and should land you in jail.

I find it amazing (as I generally do with education as well) that so many people seem to think there's a "one-size-fits-all" solution to parenting when disciplining children. There are quite a few references in this thread that basically say, "My reaction to being spanked/not spanked was 'X', therefore that will be the same for all children." Such a claim is not only idiotic, it's counter to anything resembling good parenting. Children are individuals, not little robots that come off an assembly line. Different children will respond *gasp* differently to different forms of discipline, reward, punishment, explanations, etc.

A good parent doesn't start out with a one-size-fits-all parenting plan and then try and stick with it. A good parent will learn how best to deal with their children. In some cases, that might mean including corporal punishment (spankings, not beatings or any other form of abuse). In some cases, punishment might not be necessary at all. In some cases, taking away a priviledge works. And so on.......

Possibly. I really was angry, and I feel it's healthier for both me and for the class for me to simply express it in a clear, calm manner than to shriek like an air-raid siren. I'm usually so easy-going that it tends to shock them when I tell them I am upset. God forbid I yell (only yelled five times in eight years.)definatly. But the beauty of a statement like that and then silence is that is just kinda resonates in everyones head and really makes them have think about it. "Wow...Ms. Kat was actually so mad that she couldn't talk to us..."



I'll agree with you mostly -- but allow that in rare circumstances, more than a grab and a glare may be necessary. In my opinion a smack should be rare, and it CERTAINLY should not be hard enough to leave a mark. Enough to get the attention.

My girlfriend's daughter had a habit of kicking and punching adults when she was younger. (She broke her mother's nose with a kick to the face!) They gave her time outs, they talked to her, they took away toys and privileges... she kept doing it to them, and to other adults...

Until the day she took me by surprise and slapped me in the face for no discernable reason.

I reacted lightning-quick -- she was still wearing diapers at the time (at five, but that's ANOTHER story. She WAS old enough to know better.) I grabbed her shoulder, spun her to face away from me, and gave her one swat against her very padded bottom. I doubt she felt much through the diaper, but she was outraged that I had actually hit her back. I said, "Well, now you know how it feels. Don't do it again."

She never tried it on me again, and I've never had to do anything more than tell her how disappointed I am with her behavior when she's being beastly (she's a young lady of twelve now). And funny enough, I'm her "favorite" aunt, with whom she wants to hang out with and go places.

Go figure.
Of course, I have no children, so have never really put my parenting ideas to the test...
I personally was never hit due to how my mother and father were raised (father was never hit and is very even tempered...mother was hit horribly, and refused to ever do it to her children). To be honest, I don't know how I would respond to that situation...a light swat, I would say, is different from a real spanking, and yeah, I guess would be acceptable. I think part of my parents success was that they rarely got mad. When they finally raised their voices (I've heard my dad yell once in my entire life) you knew you were about to be killed, and were in such shock that you just stopped whatever you were doing.

I find it amazing (as I generally do with education as well) that so many people seem to think there's a "one-size-fits-all" solution to parenting when disciplining children. There are quite a few references in this thread that basically say, "My reaction to being spanked/not spanked was 'X', therefore that will be the same for all children." Such a claim is not only idiotic, it's counter to anything resembling good parenting. Children are individuals, not little robots that come off an assembly line. Different children will respond *gasp* differently to different forms of discipline, reward, punishment, explanations, etc.

A good parent doesn't start out with a one-size-fits-all parenting plan and then try and stick with it. A good parent will learn how best to deal with their children. In some cases, that might mean including corporal punishment (spankings, not beatings or any other form of abuse). In some cases, punishment might not be necessary at all. In some cases, taking away a priviledge works. And so on.......

Uh-oh, that sounds uncannily like common sense. Don't you know you're not allowed to use that when debating on the internet? ;)

Uh-oh, that sounds uncannily like common sense. Don't you know you're not allowed to use that when debating on the internet? ;)

Oops! You're right.

Um...... SPANKINGS ARE TEH DEBIL!

better?

=)

Oops! You're right.

Um...... SPANKINGS ARE TEH DEBIL!

better?

=)

I think you might need a gun smilie in there, too, but you've definitely got the right idea now. :)

Oops! You're right.

Um...... SPANKINGS ARE TEH DEBIL!

better?

=)

Thank you for restoring my faith in the quality (or lack thereof) of internet debate.

Care for a spanking? :cool:

Thank you for restoring my faith in the quality (or lack thereof) of internet debate.

Care for a spanking? :cool:

*coy look* Have I been a bad girl? =)

*coy look* Have I been a bad girl? =)

Very, very bad.

Remember, this is for your own good. And it hurts me more than it does you. ;)

Spare the rod, and spoil the child I say!

Sometimes, when a kid's being a screamin' idiot, throwing a temper tantrum and all that, the only thing that'll get their attention is a good stern SMACK!

Once you have their attention, THEN you give them the 'I'm very dissapointed' speech. Thus, the wisdom does not fall on deaf ears.

Thank you for restoring my faith in the quality (or lack thereof) of internet debate.

Care for a spanking? :cool:

<_<
>_>

Greetings from the Armed Republic of Wicky Woccy Woo.

Here we don't spank children, we shoot them.

Now go away. All of you. We mean it.

Now go away. All of you. We mean it.

Or?

I found that smacking was very effective on a very occassional basis. I couldn't do it myself though, I don't think. Just like my mother never spanked me, it was always my father.

Having been on the deserved recieving end, I'd agree. Although Dad's "talking too"s were far worse than a spanking with a belt...

If you'd asked me this question 30 years ago, I'd have said no. Of course, I'm 33 now. :p

I also think that a parent who rarely has to but knows when to is the best one. I also am a firm believer in the "talking to." But my dad has one more trump card: "The look."

I'm all for caning and flogging criminals, but for kids a paddle is it, and it can't be done in anger.

I my opinion, violent punishment should only be used in cases where the child has lost all respect for their parent, and all other tecniques fail. At that point, when the child just flat out refuses to listen, will not take time outs, ect. That is when there is no choice but strict discipline.

What do you think about spanking for adults (as a punishment)?

My mummy still smacks me. :(

My mother-in-law still spanks her 30 year old daughter at times. Or so I've been told by my 10 year old nephew, who has seen it happen. *laugh* I know I shouldn't think that is funny, but she acts like a spoiled pre-teen often, or even a spoiled toddler, and if she acts like it, it can be funny if she's treated like it.

I spank my 2 1/2 year old occationally... but only for certain things, and she knows exactly what for. She gets spanked if she tells me "no" and is being rebellious, because there is no "equivalent" punishment. Most things she goes to her room for, and it is much more effective than spanking. But for sheer disobedience and rebelliousness, nothing does quite like a spanking, with an explination as to why. And always along with hugs and kisses, and a requirement of an apology, and a "yes mommy".

EDIT: And I only ever use my hand, becuase I can gague exactly how hard I'm spanking. The idea is not to cause pain so much as convey an idea.

:D Since I've taken up teaching kids, I've amazed myself at my ability to produce a "Command Sgt. Major" voice. It has a totally AMAZING effect.

Of course I'm not allowed to smack my kids, but the BIG SCARY VOICE from normally funny, friendly, clowning Dai-sensei has an electric effect. And that's before I send a kid out of the room... That's always in tears, but has always resulted in a marked behavioral improvement.
It works out great, doesn't it?

It doesn't even have to be in Japanese. ;)

Greetings from the Armed Republic of Wicky Woccy Woo.

Here we don't spank children, we shoot them.

Now go away. All of you. We mean it.Or?
http://www.world-of-smilies.com/html/images/smilies/sonstige/popc.gif
for some reason... this looks more interesting than the rest of the thread...

Kinda like watching an idiot going up to a sleeping tiger to poke it with a stick...

Hope the Kat doesn't cause too much damage to the poker...

Children are like animals. Time is everything. The punishment needs to be immediate. 5 minutes later is 5 minutes too late. There is nothing else that fills that requirement.

Having been a teacher. It is very obvious which children have been trained between 1 and 6 and which students have had "time out". If you don't train children between 1 and 6 you will have problems for the rest of your life. If you get them trained early, you will find little need of punishment afterward.

Children are like animals. Time is everything. The punishment needs to be immediate. 5 minutes later is 5 minutes too late. There is nothing else that fills that requirement.

Having been a teacher. It is very obvious which children have been trained between 1 and 6 and which students have had "time out". If you don't train children between 1 and 6 you will have problems for the rest of your life. If you get them trained early, you will find little need of punishment afterward.

do you and I really have to get into this again?

children are NOT little dogs, or cats, or mice or whatever you think they are.


There are many forms of discipline that are immediate that do not involve physical violence, and some that don't even involve punishment.

The reason there is a difference between kids discipline levels (their ability to self disclipline) is because there are two types of parents

1. effective
2. ineffective.

No. All it teaches is that violence is an acceptable solution to problems.

What do you think about spanking for adults (as a punishment)?

I know some adults who could use one....

My mother-in-law still spanks her 30 year old daughter at times. Or so I've been told by my 10 year old nephew, who has seen it happen. *laugh* I know I shouldn't think that is funny, but she acts like a spoiled pre-teen often, or even a spoiled toddler, and if she acts like it, it can be funny if she's treated like it.

It works out great, doesn't it?

It doesn't even have to be in Japanese. ;)

Often it works better if it isn't. :D

do you and I really have to get into this again?

children are NOT little dogs, or cats, or mice or whatever you think they are.


There are many forms of discipline that are immediate that do not involve physical violence, and some that don't even involve punishment.

The reason there is a difference between kids discipline levels (their ability to self disclipline) is because there are two types of parents

1. effective
2. ineffective.
I didn't bring this up again.

The fact is children between 1 and 6 are little animals. They don't have the verbal and mental skills and development to understand in the same way as an adult. They are NOT miniture adults. They are partially developed animals. Unfortunately, you can't wait until they have the development of an adult or they become a mustang rather than a saddle horse. Training has to be early while the brain is developing. And it has to be at the level of the mind and verbal ability at that time.

I think a good parent rarely has to, but knows when he or she must.

Agreed.

The fact is children between 1 and 6 are little animals. They don't have the verbal and mental skills and development to understand in the same way as an adult. They are NOT miniture adults. They are partially developed animals. Unfortunately, you can't wait until they have the development of an adult or they become a mustang rather than a saddle horse. Training has to be early while the brain is developing. And it has to be at the level of the mind and verbal ability at that time.

An excellent point. I agree completely. I think you start spanking when they're clearly old enough to understand what they did wrong, and you stop again as gradually they react to verbal influence instead of physical influence just as later on you gradually transition from instruction to influence, and teach the kid to become an adult.

Or?

We will taunt you a second time.

I'm certainly not going to disagree with people who won't resort to corporal punishment. I will, however disagree with parents who cannot or do not try to discipline an unruly child in a manner effective for that child. Whatever that manner may be.

Sometimes children need a spanking, otherwise they grow up to need a punch in the face.

My jerking knee says 'No, spanking bad'. But I'm not a parent, so I don't really know what I'm talking about. Call me back in a few years and maybe I'll have a better answer.

I was spanked as a child...but I can count the instances on one hand. Always empty, open-handed as well.

I fully intend to do the same to my children if necessary, which it will be if they are anything like me. :p

Sometimes the mere threat of a spanking is more effective than the spanking itself.

When I was 12 I started shoplifting...nothing spectacular, just stupid stuff like toys and candy. When my mom found out, she threatened to tell my dad.

Just thinking about his reaction made me freeze with fear. My mom then doled out the worst punishment I have recieved before or since (extended grounding, removal of variuos priveleges, etc.), which I heartily agreed to on the condition that dad NEVER find out about the incident in question.

He still doesn't know...and yes, I stopped being a little punk. :)

I didn't bring this up again.

The fact is children between 1 and 6 are little animals. They don't have the verbal and mental skills and development to understand in the same way as an adult. They are NOT miniture adults. They are partially developed animals. Unfortunately, you can't wait until they have the development of an adult or they become a mustang rather than a saddle horse. Training has to be early while the brain is developing. And it has to be at the level of the mind and verbal ability at that time.

If the child is too young to understand what they are doing is wrong, they are too young for any type of punishment or discipline to "stick" anyway.

when they are older and can understand wrong v. right, they are able to understand rules, you don't need to smack them to get their attention (or whatever you think it does) because they will know what the rules are.

You say they are not minature adults and I agree, that's one of the reasons I am against spanking, children have a very limited view of the world and someone they love using physical violence on them is bound to be hurtful and confusing.

You say they are not minature adults and I agree, that's one of the reasons I am against spanking, children have a very limited view of the world and someone they love using physical violence on them is bound to be hurtful and confusing.
True, but pain is a built in teacher (and I know I am about to be dogpiled so hang on before buring me in effegy). We learn by pain, pain teaches us to avoid doing what it was that was painful in the first place (LG and strikes to the groin being an exception of course).

Now I think that parents who rely on spankings as their primary tool have failed, but in terms of absolute lessons, for safety for example, I could support that.

I have a memory of something of that sort. I had managed to release the parking brake on my father's car when I was two and the car rolled into the street before my dad got to the car and got it under control. I got paddled for that and I learned my lesson, don't touch the brake.

True, but pain is a built in teacher (and I know I am about to be dogpiled so hang on before buring me in effegy). We learn by pain, pain teaches us to avoid doing what it was that was painful in the first place (LG and strikes to the groin being an exception of course).

Now I think that parents who rely on spankings as their primary tool have failed, but in terms of absolute lessons, for safety for example, I could support that.

I have a memory of something of that sort. I had managed to release the parking brake on my father's car when I was two and the car rolled into the street before my dad got to the car and got it under control. I got paddled for that and I learned my lesson, don't touch the brake.

I am pretty extreme on this, I probably won't be convinced ;)

I am pretty extreme on this, I probably won't be convinced ;)
*lol* The new NS General jihad... spankings...

Wait, that'll just encourage a number of people... never mind. ;)

I still don't feel the need to spank often, if it all. In going through my memories, I note that my mother threatened a lot more than she actually delivered, but whatever works best for you and your children is, of course what works best.

For my sister and I, knowing that the spoon could be pulled (Or grandfather called) was usually enough to make us behave for a bit. Of course my sister and I were more hellions that what your kids sound like. :p

*lol* The new NS General jihad... spankings...

Wait, that'll just encourage a number of people... never mind. ;)

I still don't feel the need to spank often, if it all. In going through my memories, I note that my mother threatened a lot more than she actually delivered, but whatever works best for you and your children is, of course what works best.

For my sister and I, knowing that the spoon could be pulled (Or grandfather called) was usually enough to make us behave for a bit. Of course my sister and I were more hellions that what your kids sound like. :p

yeah, my kids have been conditioned to follow the rules. it's not very often at all that they rebel, but when they do, it mostly is a decision they make and they have to follow through with the consequences, I don't punish them, they punish themselves (in effect)

I think that spanking works, just like any form of conditioning, but that doesnt make it right. the psychological damage and developmental problems it causes are just not worth it. Unless my kid does something that will actually kill them, I wont spank them.

next time you do something wrong, imagine how you would feel if someone hit you for it, and you couldnt do a damn thing about it. It would just make you afraid and resentful. You might learn not to do that thing again, but it would have the same psychological effect as being mugged; it makes you feel shit and theres nothing you can do about it. thats exactly how you are making your kid feel.

I think every child has to be punished differently. For example, I was the type of kid that if you set me in "time out" or sent me to my room with no threat of consequenses if I did not accept that punishment, I would just do as I pleased. So spanking was the right choice for me. On the other hand, my brother would get spanked and just look at my father and say "That didn't hurt". The only thing that worked for him was isolation of some type (i.e. being sat in a corner or sent to his room). By the way he acted to that punishment, you would have thought it would have killed him. Now, as a parent, I believe in spanking yet have only had reason to do it once in my daughters life (My wife teases me that I cried more than my daughter did). The rest of the time just raising my voice or sending her to her room seemed to do the trick. But she also knows the threat of a spanking is always there.
I do not believe spanking (Open hand on the bottom) causes serious mental damage. At least not any more than forced isolation or talks on how you let your parents down. After all, I was the recipeint of many spankings and I turned in to a whether well rounded individual.

No. All it teaches is that violence is an acceptable solution to problems.
That's an unreasonable conclusion. Effective, perhaps, but acceptable?

I view physical dicipline as something one only resorts to if every other method has failed. Even the best parent may find themselves needing to resort to physical dicipline in a few extreme situations. However, if a parent finds themselves striking their child on a regular basis, that means that their parenting strategy is failing on a regular basis. They should recognize this, and work to address why their parenting is such a bust.

I view physical dicipline as something one only resorts to if every other method has failed. Even the best parent may find themselves needing to resort to physical dicipline in a few extreme situations. However, if a parent finds themselves striking their child on a regular basis, that means that their parenting strategy is failing on a regular basis. They should recognize this, and work to address why their parenting is such a bust.

Amen to that! My parents actually did find themselves spanking me and my siblings on a regular basis, and decided that they needed to change their approach. I'm glad they did, but I know it really created a lot of resentment, especially in my younger brother and sister, before they took a more effective stance of discipline.

Why spank kids when there are so many adults that really need it ?

Time outs for a kid who is too young to comprehend why they are IN a time out are useless.

As kids, my siblings and I got infrequent mild spankings when we deserved them, never enough to hurt anything more than our feelings. Once we were old enough to understand WHY we were wrong, the spankings were unnecessary and stopped in lieu of a stern talking to. I only recall one spanking, however, (though I know there were more) and that only because it was unjustified... I had not done what I was being blamed for, and so was offended at the punishment I didn't deserve. Later, when it was discovered that I had been right, I got an apology which made the relationship with my parents even stronger.

So it is not bad parenting, not at all. BEATINGS are bad, abuse is bad, not disciplining your child is very bad... a spanking is just one of the tools of parenting that must only be applied carefully and judiciously (and, of course, not to EVERY child as some don't ever need them).

This is all I will say on this matter ...bye bye...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucQLYSC9Lho

If the child is too young to understand what they are doing is wrong, they are too young for any type of punishment or discipline to "stick" anyway.

when they are older and can understand wrong v. right, they are able to understand rules, you don't need to smack them to get their attention (or whatever you think it does) because they will know what the rules are.

You say they are not minature adults and I agree, that's one of the reasons I am against spanking, children have a very limited view of the world and someone they love using physical violence on them is bound to be hurtful and confusing.err... wasn't it in another thread where you expounded on a child's ability to absorb knowledge and that they tend to understand more than people give them credit for? that with proper explanations and patience they can be made to understand right and wrong... just like an older person? so if they still choose to misbehave and do so in a manner that... well, to be fair, requires physical reinforcement... they would (with an explination as to why they are getting spanked) understand the why behind the punnishment.

yeah, my kids have been conditioned to follow the rules. it's not very often at all that they rebel, but when they do, it mostly is a decision they make and they have to follow through with the consequences, I don't punish them, they punish themselves (in effect)OMFG!!! BRAINWASHING!!! :p :D

err... wasn't it in another thread where you expounded on a child's ability to absorb knowledge and that they tend to understand more than people give them credit for? that with proper explanations and patience they can be made to understand right and wrong... just like an older person? so if they still choose to misbehave and do so in a manner that... well, to be fair, requires physical reinforcement... they would (with an explination as to why they are getting spanked) understand the why behind the punnishment.

sure, but once they are older....

people who would smack the hand of a 7 month old for chewing on the remote control disgust me... and I have a feeling that when people say "well, they are too young to talk to" that's what they mean.

I have been able to communicate rules and reasons for them to children as young as 15 months, before that it's all about redirection, not punishment.

sure, but once they are older....

people who would smack the hand of a 7 month old for chewing on the remote control disgust me... and I have a feeling that when people say "well, they are too young to talk to" that's what they mean.

I have been able to communicate rules and reasons for them to children as young as 15 months, before that it's all about redirection, not punishment.

Redirection is one of my favorite strategies, especially when it comes to teaching, whether it was my martial arts classes or a public school classroom, and it's something I plan to use in parenting as well if/when I have children.

sure, but once they are older....

people who would smack the hand of a 7 month old for chewing on the remote control disgust me... and I have a feeling that when people say "well, they are too young to talk to" that's what they mean.

I have been able to communicate rules and reasons for them to children as young as 15 months, before that it's all about redirection, not punishment.glad to know I wasn't mistaken then.

yes, at 7 mon... or even before age 2, I won't consider spanking. and afterwards, spanking is always a last resort for me. and will only be open palm on bottom. no belts, no brushes, not even a chopstick...

Time outs for a kid who is too young to comprehend why they are IN a time out are useless.

As kids, my siblings and I got infrequent mild spankings when we deserved them, never enough to hurt anything more than our feelings. Once we were old enough to understand WHY we were wrong, the spankings were unnecessary and stopped in lieu of a stern talking to. I only recall one spanking, however, (though I know there were more) and that only because it was unjustified... I had not done what I was being blamed for, and so was offended at the punishment I didn't deserve. Later, when it was discovered that I had been right, I got an apology which made the relationship with my parents even stronger.

So it is not bad parenting, not at all. BEATINGS are bad, abuse is bad, not disciplining your child is very bad... a spanking is just one of the tools of parenting that must only be applied carefully and judiciously (and, of course, not to EVERY child as some don't ever need them).

I've found that, when done properly, even the youngest children can understand what they did wrong. If they don't understand what they did wrong, a spanking is just as ineffective as a time out. If they don't get it, they don't. Hitting them won't make them "get it" any more than a time out.

The way I've worked it with my little cousins (admittedly, I have never been a parent, but have delt with young children on a regular basis as everything from a babysitter to family to a camp counselor to a student teacher to a lifeguard) is that you need to get their attention, make eye contact, and firmly state what they did wrong as well as why it is wrong...none of this "because I said so" bullshit. A child knows it is bullshit. Something such as "We don't swear at people. That is inappropriate, and you need to appologise and then go to time out" works fine. When they are on punishment, ignore them. If they keep getting up, all you should do is pick them up, place them back where they should be for their time out. Don't speak to them or make eye contact. They will get it. I've never had a kid not, even down to the youngest I've delt with.

I've found that, when done properly, even the youngest children can understand what they did wrong. If they don't understand what they did wrong, a spanking is just as ineffective as a time out. If they don't get it, they don't. Hitting them won't make them "get it" any more than a time out.

The way I've worked it with my little cousins (admittedly, I have never been a parent, but have delt with young children on a regular basis as everything from a babysitter to family to a camp counselor to a student teacher to a lifeguard) is that you need to get their attention, make eye contact, and firmly state what they did wrong as well as why it is wrong...none of this "because I said so" bullshit. A child knows it is bullshit. Something such as "We don't swear at people. That is inappropriate, and you need to appologise and then go to time out" works fine. When they are on punishment, ignore them. If they keep getting up, all you should do is pick them up, place them back where they should be for their time out. Don't speak to them or make eye contact. They will get it. I've never had a kid not, even down to the youngest I've delt with.
exactly.

the first thing I do when talking to a kid is get down on their level so that we are eye to eye and make eye contact....

"you hit Johnny, that's unacceptable, we don't use our hands to solve problems"

it seems to work.

glad to know I wasn't mistaken then.

yes, at 7 mon... or even before age 2, I won't consider spanking. and afterwards, spanking is always a last resort for me. and will only be open palm on bottom. no belts, no brushes, not even a chopstick...

what do you mean by last resort? there ARE no last resorts with children. there are NO circumstances that can only be fixed by smacking a child on the bottom.

if you dont know how to manage your children, if you have let the situation go too long ("johnny, if you dont stop it daddy is going to go in there and spank you" over and over again) if you dont do anything but yell and threaten until the situation is so out of hand that the only thing you can think to do is spank, fine, its better than nothing but it is never the best course of action nor is it the mark of a good parent.

How single-minded. The only non-physical options you give are "verbal threats" (ie threats of violence) which is basically pointless as unless you sink low enough to be violent to your kid, it shows your kid that you won't enforce any rules, "time outs" (which apparently often don't work), and "no punishment"... there's the naughty step, grouonding, removing pocket money (that's "allowance" for yanks), banning from going to some place they like (eg. football practice, gymnastics practice), withholding snacks... all things that work perfectly well IF there is a structure in place where the kid knows the rules and consequences, where the punishments are not carried out in anger, where the child is told what they have done wrong and why they are being punished, where the kid IS punished for breaking a rule (no "letting it slide for an easy life", as that confuses the kid - bringing up kids aint supposed to be easy) and WHERE EACH PARENT BACKS THE OTHER UP. If you haven't got this kind of structure, you can get it, but it will be likely to be very difficult to start with - but as Jo Frost has shown, if you stick at it, you can get it established.

So if you can bring up kids without violence, you have to ask yourself: WHY would you want the easier alternative of hitting your kid? Perhaps you should reconsider your reasons for wanting to a parent. Especially as spanking is perverted and fucks up kids and suggests hitting people is OK if you don't like them or something they do.

what do you mean by last resort? there ARE no last resorts with children. there are NO circumstances that can only be fixed by smacking a child on the bottom. last resort? hmmm.... I would say, when my child is running around, roughhousing with his friends/cousins and I repeatedly tell them to becareful. he attempts something dangerous, and I verbally warn him to stop. he ignores it and continues on... then he gets a time out. after time out (including explination as to the whys and what fors) he continues his course of action that results in me grabbing him for another talk and he still puts up a fuss. then he will get one spank on his bottom and another time out.

if you dont know how to manage your children, if you have let the situation go too long ("johnny, if you dont stop it daddy is going to go in there and spank you" over and over again) if you dont do anything but yell and threaten until the situation is so out of hand that the only thing you can think to do is spank, fine, its better than nothing but it is never the best course of action nor is it the mark of a good parent.I would endevor to not to say such things. however, me not being a parent, I can't say what will happen when I have a couple of Rugrats for my own. :p

last resort? hmmm.... I would say, when my child is running around, roughhousing with his friends/cousins and I repeatedly tell them to becareful. he attempts something dangerous, and I verbally warn him to stop. he ignores it and continues on... then he gets a time out. after time out (including explination as to the whys and what fors) he continues his course of action that results in me grabbing him for another talk and he still puts up a fuss. then he will get one spank on his bottom and another time out.
why did you let it get that far?

when a child is doing something unacceptable, telling or asking them to quit isn't going to work... you have to physically stop them and make them understand.

why did you let it get that far?

when a child is doing something unacceptable, telling or asking them to quit isn't going to work... you have to physically stop them and make them understand.
just giving an example of when I might get to the point of spanking. as I said, I have no kids, so I really can't say.

just giving an example of when I might get to the point of spanking. as I said, I have no kids, so I really can't say.

anytime I have ever seen a kid get a spanking either they didn't know what they were doing was wrong or the parent told them to stop about 90 times before the smack came, then after when the kid was crying and all the parent is like "I told you to stop"

:rolleyes:


did I mention that the "warnings" and threats usually came from another room, yelled over the conversation of adults and that the only time the parent got up off their ass was to hit the kid....yeah that sends a good message.

anytime I have ever seen a kid get a spanking either they didn't know what they were doing was wrong or the parent told them to stop about 90 times before the smack came, then after when the kid was crying and all the parent is like "I told you to stop"

:rolleyes: agree with the :rolleyes:
for all punnishments, my child will be told exactly why they were punnished. "I told you to stop" would not be the entire explination.


did I mention that the "warnings" and threats usually came from another room, yelled over the conversation of adults and that the only time the parent got up off their ass was to hit the kid....yeah that sends a good message.yep... however, that is something I won't do.

EDIT: sorry... it can be assumed that my example would be me in 'another room', actually, someone would be watching them... especially if it's suspected that they are rough houseing. wether in their room or in the yard. someone will be keeping a watchful eye on them.

last resort? hmmm.... I would say, when my child is running around, roughhousing with his friends/cousins and I repeatedly tell them to becareful. he attempts something dangerous, and I verbally warn him to stop. he ignores it and continues on... then he gets a time out. after time out (including explination as to the whys and what fors) he continues his course of action that results in me grabbing him for another talk and he still puts up a fuss. then he will get one spank on his bottom and another time out.

I would endevor to not to say such things. however, me not being a parent, I can't say what will happen when I have a couple of Rugrats for my own. :p

i would suggest that a careful, thoughtful person like yourself would start parenting when your children are still babies. that you will have enough control over your children that when they start to roughhouse your speaking to them will be enough, and if it isnt you will intervene well before he "continues on". a child who is used to obedience is much easier to control than a child who is left to do as he will until his parents lose their patience and resort to physical punishment.

anytime I have ever seen a kid get a spanking either they didn't know what they were doing was wrong or the parent told them to stop about 90 times before the smack came, then after when the kid was crying and all the parent is like "I told you to stop"

:rolleyes:


did I mention that the "warnings" and threats usually came from another room, yelled over the conversation of adults and that the only time the parent got up off their ass was to hit the kid....yeah that sends a good message.

that is exactly the scenario i think of when i think of a spanking parent. the ineffective yeller who lets their children misbehave until they cant take it any more. then they drag their asses off the couch and go into the other room with the belt.

if you pay attention to your children, if you understand what you can and cant expect from them, if you know their triggers (hungry, tired children in toys r us ALWAYS misbehave), if you intervene immediately instead of yelling at them to knock it off, you will have no need to spank your children.

spanking isnt the worst thing you can do but its not a good way to teach discipline. 99% of the time the parent has waited way too long allowing the child to misbehave to his heart's content before resorting to spanking.

you have to physically stop them and make them understand.

I have to totally agree.

How do you plan to physically stop them? Hold them down? Set on them? Hog tie them? How long are you going to physically restrain them?

exactly.

the first thing I do when talking to a kid is get down on their level so that we are eye to eye and make eye contact....

"you hit Johnny, that's unacceptable, we don't use our hands to solve problems"

it seems to work.

The only time I do not use that is when I'm lifeguarding. I really can't because of the nature of the job. A sharp whistle blast and good, forcefull yell does the trick. Oh man, you should hear me yell "walk". I am the master.

Positive reinforcement should have been an option. You know, for those rare times when you don't feel like hitting or yelling, or punishing at all. Reinforce the good behaviors! :fluffle:

sometimes no matter how hard they hit spankings are worse than private talks. when my parents look me in they eye i burst out laughing and then they do and when we all settle down they forget about what they were scolding me 4. :p

I have to totally agree.

How do you plan to physically stop them? Hold them down? Set on them? Hog tie them? How long are you going to physically restrain them?

for example? Thursday a child hit my kid, I went over and put his arms to his side and gently held them there while I was on my knees so I was at his level and not hovering over him.

"Nathan, look at me, let me see your eyes"
when we made eye contact, I said
"why did you hit Annika?"
"because she has my toy"
"do we use our hands to solve problems?"
"no"
"why not?"
"because it hurts people and Jesus said to love one another"
"it's not loving to hit is it?"
"no"
*he turns to my child*
"I am sorry I hit you, can I please have my toy?"
she ran off with it.... so I asked her to come back and we worked out a solution.

btw they are 3 years old.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/music/clipserve/B00094AT4O001004/0/ref=mu_sam_wma_001_004/102-9941759-0664142

I will NEVER raise my hand to my child. I couldn't live with myself if I became that much of a hypocrite.

I think a good parent rarely has to, but knows when he or she must.

The wonderful but rare occasion when I agree with LGoof.

Positive reinforcement should have been an option. You know, for those rare times when you don't feel like hitting or yelling, or punishing at all. Reinforce the good behaviors! :fluffle:

An excellent point! It's a good idea to make sure that you notice the good things your kids are doing and encourage more of it. Half of keeping kids out of trouble is keeping them in constructive activities.

*lol* The new NS General jihad... spankings...

Wait, that'll just encourage a number of people... never mind. ;)

I still don't feel the need to spank often, if it all. In going through my memories, I note that my mother threatened a lot more than she actually delivered, but whatever works best for you and your children is, of course what works best.

For my sister and I, knowing that the spoon could be pulled (Or grandfather called) was usually enough to make us behave for a bit. Of course my sister and I were more hellions that what your kids sound like. :p

That reminds me of Grandpa Mc., my dad's father. As far as I can remember, he never laid a hand on either me or my brother, but the combination of my father's stories and the conveniently located "switch tree" (as he called the tree out back), made the simple threat of a switching the absolute nuclear bomb of discipline. The older I get, the more I appreciate the inate intelligence that 9th grade educated, pure Scot-Irish Texas Redneck possessed....

I think a good parent rarely has to, but knows when he or she must.a good parent never spanks, there are always other ways. spanking is bad parenting.

a good parent never spanks, there are always other ways. spanking is bad parenting.

How many children do you have?

How many children do you have?4

a good parent never spanks, there are always other ways. spanking is bad parenting.

very right.

but a good parent also doesnt let children misbehave and run wild. people seem to think that if you dont spank your kids you dont have any control of them at all. a good parent doesnt NEED to spank.

very right.

but a good parent also doesnt let children misbehave and run wild. people seem to think that if you dont spank your kids you dont have any control of them at all. a good parent doesnt NEED to spank.agreed, I'm always around for my kids to help or advise. I found once you give them the correct info and options they usually make the correct decision on their own. Occasionally they screw up but that's part of life and helps to re-enforce to them that mom and dad aren't as stupid as they look.

panking is better in the end. Out of all my friends those who were spanked as children grew up to be the most disiplined and productive members of society. Those of us who were not are not nearly as good [yes, I was not spanked enough as a child]

Of course you don't want to take it too far. hile just spanking has never effected any of my friends, those who have eben hit with belts, brushes, wood spoons and the sort have some negative emotional effects.

I plan to spank my children.

I plan to spank my children.:eek:
Only when they misbehave... right... not a nightly, ritualistic thing...

That reminds me of Grandpa Mc., my dad's father. As far as I can remember, he never laid a hand on either me or my brother, but the combination of my father's stories and the conveniently located "switch tree" (as he called the tree out back), made the simple threat of a switching the absolute nuclear bomb of discipline. The older I get, the more I appreciate the inate intelligence that 9th grade educated, pure Scot-Irish Texas Redneck possessed....
The same, I heard stories about my grandfather growing up that always gave me the greatest respect for him and an absolute desire not to test the theory that he would not lay hands on his grandchildren.

AFAIK, he never actually did, but he was always waiting as the last threat and it always cowed us into being quiet.

The closest we cousins ever got was breaking a few glasses at a party. He lined us up outside according to age and said he was going to work his way from one end to the other till either his hand fell off or we couldn't sit down for a week, whichever came first.

He called that off after giving us 10 minutes to consider this and we were probably well behaved for a month and a half after that. :D

panking is better in the end. Out of all my friends those who were spanked as children grew up to be the most disiplined and productive members of society. Those of us who were not are not nearly as good [yes, I was not spanked enough as a child]

Of course you don't want to take it too far. hile just spanking has never effected any of my friends, those who have eben hit with belts, brushes, wood spoons and the sort have some negative emotional effects.

I plan to spank my children.

I hope you never have any

Time outs for a kid who is too young to comprehend why they are IN a time out are useless.

As kids, my siblings and I got infrequent mild spankings when we deserved them, never enough to hurt anything more than our feelings. Once we were old enough to understand WHY we were wrong, the spankings were unnecessary and stopped in lieu of a stern talking to. I only recall one spanking, however, (though I know there were more) and that only because it was unjustified... I had not done what I was being blamed for, and so was offended at the punishment I didn't deserve. Later, when it was discovered that I had been right, I got an apology which made the relationship with my parents even stronger.

So it is not bad parenting, not at all. BEATINGS are bad, abuse is bad, not disciplining your child is very bad... a spanking is just one of the tools of parenting that must only be applied carefully and judiciously (and, of course, not to EVERY child as some don't ever need them).


Watch "SuperNanny" (Channel 4, terrestrial (normal) UK television). The "naughty step" works for even young kids.

Oh and I repeat:

How single-minded. The only non-physical options you give are "verbal threats" (ie threats of violence) which is basically pointless as unless you sink low enough to be violent to your kid, it shows your kid that you won't enforce any rules, "time outs" (which apparently often don't work), and "no punishment"... there's the naughty step, grouonding, removing pocket money (that's "allowance" for yanks), banning from going to some place they like (eg. football practice, gymnastics practice), withholding snacks... all things that work perfectly well IF there is a structure in place where the kid knows the rules and consequences, where the punishments are not carried out in anger, where the child is told what they have done wrong and why they are being punished, where the kid IS punished for breaking a rule (no "letting it slide for an easy life", as that confuses the kid - bringing up kids aint supposed to be easy) and WHERE EACH PARENT BACKS THE OTHER UP. If you haven't got this kind of structure, you can get it, but it will be likely to be very difficult to start with - but as Jo Frost has shown, if you stick at it, you can get it established.

So if you can bring up kids without violence, you have to ask yourself: WHY would you want the easier alternative of hitting your kid? Perhaps you should reconsider your reasons for wanting to a parent. Especially as spanking is perverted and fucks up kids and suggests hitting people is OK if you don't like them or something they do.

:eek:
Only when they misbehave... right... not a nightly, ritualistic thing...

Right after they sacrifice a goat to the god of child rearing.

Watch "SuperNanny" (Channel 4, terrestrial (normal) UK television). The "naughty step" works for even young kids.

ive watched supernanny a few times. she does a great job with horrible situations.

if you watch the show (or the other one on some other channel) you will see "kids that need a good spanking". kids who misbehave so badly that anyone might get out the belt.

the thing is, if you pay attention at all, the kids are horrible brats because the PARENTS dont have a clue how to deal with their own children. there is nothing wrong with the kids, its the parents who have let the situation get so bad that the kids are completely out of control.

the nanny teaches the parents some fundamentals of how to take care of their own children. when the parents follow her instructions, the kids are FINE even though they have been brats for years.

no spanking is never needed even with these "children from hell".

spanking isnt the result of bad kids but of bad parenting.

The harder you beat them, the better they'll learn. Any method of beating short of something causing permanent damage is fine -- use at your own discretion.

Waterboarding is ok then?

I didn't bring this up again.

The fact is children between 1 and 6 are little animals. They don't have the verbal and mental skills and development to understand in the same way as an adult. They are NOT miniture adults. They are partially developed animals. Unfortunately, you can't wait until they have the development of an adult or they become a mustang rather than a saddle horse. Training has to be early while the brain is developing. And it has to be at the level of the mind and verbal ability at that time.

Strangely enough my 2 "pets" (3 and 5 y.o.) can easily speak 2 languages (italian and czech), grasp basic concepts of math (identity of an operator, sum, subtraction) and trash some adults in a logic debate.
I never trained them, i prefer to teach.
Hey, i do that with my cat too...

Anyways, they are, by consensus of all our friends, "two wery well behaved boys" and I used physical punishment on them only once each.
IMO it's more important that the rules of behaviour are few, clear and that punishment (go to your room, young man, and think about it) should be applyed each and every time.
Even my cat understands this form of education (ever tryed to beat a cat?)

when a child is doing something unacceptable, telling or asking them to quit isn't going to work... you have to physically stop them and make them understand.

Never had to.
If kids know that punishment, even in a mild form, is inevitable, that voice should be enough.

BTW, what's this thing about "telling (or not telling) dad"? My wife and I give both punishments and tell each other of what was punished.

Spare the rod and spoil the child.

ive watched supernanny a few times. she does a great job with horrible situations.

if you watch the show (or the other one on some other channel) you will see "kids that need a good spanking". kids who misbehave so badly that anyone might get out the belt.

the thing is, if you pay attention at all, the kids are horrible brats because the PARENTS dont have a clue how to deal with their own children. there is nothing wrong with the kids, its the parents who have let the situation get so bad that the kids are completely out of control.

the nanny teaches the parents some fundamentals of how to take care of their own children. when the parents follow her instructions, the kids are FINE even though they have been brats for years.

no spanking is never needed even with these "children from hell".

spanking isnt the result of bad kids but of bad parenting.

absolutely correct-99.99% of the time if the kid is a monster you need to look no further than the parents for the reason why-being able to make a kid doesn't automaticly make a person a good parent...Parenting is something that needs to be learned, and some parents never get it needing to resort ot violence to control their children

studies have shown that there is little difference in how kids turn out, successful or not, good or evil in relation to physical punishment ...those who were beaten(spanked) had less empathy for others than those who were not... so spanking only teaches people that violence against children and adults is acceptable...spanking should be a criminal offense

Spare the rod and spoil the child.

1. Safety of kids is more important than religion

2. That passage can be interpreted in so many ways. My interpretation would obviously be biased, so have a look at this website (I will not point out any specific passage that backs up my own view, I just ask you to read both links properly and open-mindedly and come to your own conclusion):

http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin13.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin8.htm

Never had to.
If kids know that punishment, even in a mild form, is inevitable, that voice should be enough.

BTW, what's this thing about "telling (or not telling) dad"? My wife and I give both punishments and tell each other of what was punished.

I don't use punishment except for the worst offenses.

When I say physically stop them from doing it, I don't mean "hit them" I mean get up off your ass and go over and stop them from misbehaving, I have never had to hit my children (rephrase I never chose to hit my children) but there are times when they are in an actual physical altercation with another child and I do go over and physicall pull them off eachother.

I don't yell at my kids either and I don't have "that voice" I have "that look" and it's pretty effective.

I don't yell at my kids either and I don't have "that voice" I have "that look" and it's pretty effective.

That voice works also in vision impaired conditions, (child running away from you, intense fog... ;) ) also i don't mean yelling, i mean a change in tone.

On the other hand i agree with you, certainity of punishment is much more a deterrant than harshness of punishment (wheee... i tought that was stated during mid 19th century...). And a parent achieves that when he cares about what the child is doing and reacts to it promptly.

I think for parents, it should be belt, brush etc. However between two consenting adults... mmmm who knows. I wouldn't mind some kinky BSDM myself.

If people want to stop the problems in our schools. Don't talk about prayer in schools. Talk about parents that don't domesticate their children between 1 and 5. I'll guarantee the problems in schools will drop to a controllable level.

It absolutely sickens me to see how many of you think this is appropriate behavior. Perhaps if some of you had gone through what I did you'd feel differently.

That voice works also in vision impaired conditions, (child running away from you, intense fog... ;) ) also i don't mean yelling, i mean a change in tone.

On the other hand i agree with you, certainity of punishment is much more a deterrant than harshness of punishment (wheee... i tought that was stated during mid 19th century...). And a parent achieves that when he cares about what the child is doing and reacts to it promptly.
ah, for those occasions I have a whistle, it's shiney and silver... and it works quite well.



If people want to stop the problems in our schools. Don't talk about prayer in schools. Talk about parents that don't domesticate their children between 1 and 5. I'll guarantee the problems in schools will drop to a controllable level.
"domesticate"
:eek:

children need love and guidance, not paper training....

It absolutely sickens me to see how many of you think this is appropriate behavior. Perhaps if some of you had gone through what I did you'd feel differently.
maybe they did go through what we did, only we learned from it and they just repeat the offence.

A light spank is the limit.

It absolutely sickens me to see how many of you think this is appropriate behavior. Perhaps if some of you had gone through what I did you'd feel differently.

I was spanked. Alot, I needed it. I also had time outs, groundings, and even removal of privlages.... Guess what I learned from all that. I learned that while in Time out, I can go into my little world of Imagination and play there. I learn to find other things to keep me occupied while grounded, I learned to do without when privilages were removed...

but I could never escape the lessons from that wooden spoon.

Spare the rod and spoil the child.

you do know what the rod is in reference to... don't you.

it's not a device used for striking, but a guiding tool that shepards use to guide their flocks from one feild to another.

so basically what it says is "Don't guide your children and you will spoil them."

the verse about laying the rod on the child's back? watch how shepards guide their sheep. they do so by lightly tapping the back of the sheep with the rod, not strikeing them. so laying the rod on the back means to gently guide, not strike.

I was spanked. Alot, I needed it. I also had time outs, groundings, and even removal of privlages.... Guess what I learned from all that. I learned that while in Time out, I can go into my little world of Imagination and play there. I learn to find other things to keep me occupied while grounded, I learned to do without when privilages were removed...

but I could never escape the lessons from that wooden spoon.

And I could never escape the lessons of getting beaten half unconscious. Nor could I escape PTSD, depression, and intensive therapy that will probably last the rest of my life.

And I could never escape the lessons of getting beaten half unconscious. Nor could I escape PTSD, depression, and intensive therapy that will probably last the rest of my life.
ah, but then, to most everyone here, that is not spanking, that passes spanking by about a mile and a half.

that is, a beating, and that, I believe, 90% of posters here will say they are against.

maybe they did go through what we did, only we learned from it and they just repeat the offence.

All too likely, Smunkee. In which case, I weep for their children.

ah, but then, to most everyone here, that is not spanking, that passes spanking by about a mile and a half.

that is, a beating, and that, I believe, 90% of posters here will say they will never do.



I'm sure my parents thought that, too.

I'm sure my parents thought that, too.

which is why, if you look at the poll, it does break it down. there is a definate difference between beating someone unconcious and spanking them.

however, as I maintain, i am not a parent, thus I really cannot say what I would do if I had Me to raise... :D

"domesticate"
:eek:

children need love and guidance, not paper training....




You didn't "train" your children?

Beyond that, talk to the teachers and bosses at any level. Most children today are not trained nor domesticated. The backward slide started, not, with prayer in schools. Where I grew up we never did have prayer in schools and western Nebraska is about as conservative and religious as you can get. But we also didn't have "time out". The slide in domestication came when "time out" became popular. There is a visible difference between those trained between 1 and 6 and those "timed out" even when they get to the college and/or workplace level. Timers have no respect for any authority. They have no sympathy for anyone other than themselves. They remain "green broke" mustangs. Not a fun thing to try to teach or employ.

You didn't "train" your children?

Beyond that, talk to the teachers and bosses at any level. Most children today are not trained nor domesticated. The backward slide started, not, with prayer in schools. Where I grew up we never did have prayer in schools and western Nebraska is about as conservative and religious as you can get. But we also didn't have "time out". The slide in domestication came when "time out" became popular. There is a visible difference between those trained between 1 and 6 and those "timed out" even when they get to the college and/or workplace level. Timers have no respect for any authority. They have no sympathy for anyone other than themselves. They remain "green broke" mustangs. Not a fun thing to try to teach or employ.
I think you mean "Educate" you teach them manners, how to show respect to others, common curtisy... you don't domesticate them.

I think you mean "Educate" you teach them manners, how to show respect to others, common curtisy... you don't domesticate them.

And therein lies the problem - treating kids like animals. They're not animals. If you want a pet, go buy a dog - don't have kids.

About a month ago I was walking home from my girlfriend's home & I saw this little asian kid outside his house with his parents, then his mother screamed at him to go inside the garage when he didnt she backhanded him very forcefully & pushed him onto the concrete, the father looked rather worried but i don't think he wanted to get involved. I was already around the block before I thought of doing anything about it but damn it was sickening.

You didn't "train" your children?

Beyond that, talk to the teachers and bosses at any level. Most children today are not trained nor domesticated. The backward slide started, not, with prayer in schools. Where I grew up we never did have prayer in schools and western Nebraska is about as conservative and religious as you can get. But we also didn't have "time out". The slide in domestication came when "time out" became popular. There is a visible difference between those trained between 1 and 6 and those "timed out" even when they get to the college and/or workplace level. Timers have no respect for any authority. They have no sympathy for anyone other than themselves. They remain "green broke" mustangs. Not a fun thing to try to teach or employ.
I trained my dog, I domesticated my cat, I paid someone to "break" my horse. I love my kids.

Children are not animals no matter how much you want to argue they are, they are not there for your convienience, you are not there to beat them down until they do what you think they should. They are people, you are there to love and guide them and help them to be functioning adults.

Children learn mostly by example, if my kids are to be loving, respectful, kind, caring, empathetic, individuals, then it's my job to show them all of those things.

I have respect for authority because I choose to, not because I fear them. I don't want to set a precident for my children "fear authority, do what they say without critical thought" or "it's okay to make people do what you want by using physical force" because neither is healthy, safe, useful, or right.

About a month ago I was walking home from my girlfriend's home & I saw this little asian kid outside his house with his parents, then his mother screamed at him to go inside the garage when he didnt she backhanded him very forcefully & pushed him onto the concrete, the father looked rather worried but i don't think he wanted to get involved. I was already around the block before I thought of doing anything about it but damn it was sickening.

*shudder*

when you see someone hitting or screaming at their child in public in a way that makes you nervous for the safety of the child. there is a technique that works to stop the parent dead in their tracks.

SAY SOMETHING NICE ABOUT THEIR CHILD. in a normal caring voice. "what a handsome child you have" or "isnt she sweet". whatever you can think of that will get the words out of your mouth.

its very hard to do considering what is going on but it WORKS. the parent knows that people are watching, that they are sympathizing with the child but they havent been backed into a corner that they cant get out of. the parent isnt being threatened nor have they lost face. (and really, are they going to yell at you for saying they have a good looking child?)

the slapping and screaming stops.

our first reaction is to grab the arm of the parent to stop the hitting, maybe to hit them, or to yell at them to stop. all this does is to trap the parent in a violent box. they will tell you to mind your own business and wail the hell out of the child later. (or they will call the cops and have you arrested)

if the parent is not mentally ill, the episode will end right then. for most parents its a momentary loss of control brought on by the stress of their child's public behavior. if the parent is one of those real abusers who beat their children senseless out of their own psychosis, you might get a different reaction. if its someone you know, you should keep a bit of an eye on them to see if they arent really abusing their kids. you could save a child's life.

I trained my dog, I domesticated my cat, I paid someone to "break" my horse. I love my kids.

They are people, you are there to love and guide them and help them to be functioning adults.

I have respect for authority because I choose to, not because I fear them. I don't want to set a precident for my children "fear authority, do what they say without critical thought" or "it's okay to make people do what you want by using physical force" because neither is healthy, safe, useful, or right.

A proper trainer doesn't "break" a horse. He doesn't "beat" a horse. He doesn't ride them until they give up. He starts at birth and slowly shows the horse what to do through both love and punishment. The very act of putting a bit in the mouth is a type of punishment. As the horse learns a bit is used that only taps the mouth. I can't imagine your trainer telling the horse, dog or cat that the correction won't take place immediately, go think about it for 5 minutes. Time is much different for animals and children then for human adults. Time is critical. As I have said before, children are not miniture adults. They have nothing to base decision making on, much less critical thinking. Once a horse is trained, you can drop the reins and the horse will function without the guidence of the rider. You point them in the direction of a calf and they will cut it out on their own. The same is true of children. After 6, you can slowly drop the reins and the child will function as they are trained. The problem is, if they are not trained young they will never be properly trained. I have never had to retrain a horse after 2, nor a child after 6. My children are 21, 18, and 16. I have not had to punish them in any way since they were six. They walk the line because they learned the line early. Well before they could reason or critically think.

I'm sure you "trained" your children. As they grew they went from being an animal that shit anywhere to a civilized being.

This all goes back to Genesis where humans were at the animal level until they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. An animal knows no good and evil. Just as a child knows no good or evil. When a child develops to the point of eating from that tree then you can give them the responsibility of critical thought. Before that they have nothing to base critical thought on. They are walking in Eden. They don't judge and neither are they judged.

You have only one chance to raise a child. The experiment in "time out" has failed. Read the newspaper any day. It has failed. Beyond the headlines, ask any employer if it is easy to find an employee that will do as directed without being directed regularly. Ask any teacher if it is easy to teach to a child that hasn't been properly trained. Ask anyone who works with children. Ask them if they can pick out the trained children and the "time out" children. Even ask those that deal with AD children which respond the best and which bounce off the walls.

There is a reason for tradition. When you change thousands of years of tradition you need more than a soft heart.

RESULTS--that's the bottom line.

A proper trainer doesn't "break" a horse. He doesn't "beat" a horse. He doesn't ride them until they give up. He starts at birth and slowly shows the horse what to do through both love and punishment. The very act of putting a bit in the mouth is a type of punishment. As the horse learns a bit is used that only taps the mouth. I can't imagine your trainer telling the horse, dog or cat that the correction won't take place immediately, go think about it for 5 minutes. Time is much different for animals and children then for human adults. Time is critical. As I have said before, children are not miniture adults. They have nothing to base decision making on, much less critical thinking. Once a horse is trained, you can drop the reins and the horse will function without the guidence of the rider. You point them in the direction of a calf and they will cut it out on their own. The same is true of children. After 6, you can slowly drop the reins and the child will function as they are trained. The problem is, if they are not trained young they will never be properly trained. I have never had to retrain a horse after 2, nor a child after 6. My children are 21, 18, and 16. I have not had to punish them in any way since they were six. They walk the line because they learned the line early. Well before they could reason or critically think.

I'm sure you "trained" your children. As they grew they went from being an animal that shit anywhere to a civilized being.

This all goes back to Genesis where humans were at the animal level until they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. An animal knows no good and evil. Just as a child knows no good or evil. When a child develops to the point of eating from that tree then you can give them the responsibility of critical thought. Before that they have nothing to base critical thought on. They are walking in Eden. They don't judge and neither are they judged.

You have only one chance to raise a child. The experiment in "time out" has failed. Read the newspaper any day. It has failed. Beyond the headlines, ask any employer if it is easy to find an employee that will do as directed without being directed regularly. Ask any teacher if it is easy to teach to a child that hasn't been properly trained. Ask anyone who works with children. Ask them if they can pick out the trained children and the "time out" children. Even ask those that deal with AD children which respond the best and which bounce off the walls.

There is a reason for tradition. When you change thousands of years of tradition you need more than a soft heart.

RESULTS--that's the bottom line.

I don't use timeout as a punishment, I don't hit my children either. Any consequence from their actions is immediate and clear, and I don't have to strike them.

You have only one chance to raise a child. The experiment in "time out" has failed. Read the newspaper any day. It has failed. Beyond the headlines, ask any employer if it is easy to find an employee that will do as directed without being directed regularly. Ask any teacher if it is easy to teach to a child that hasn't been properly trained. Ask anyone who works with children. Ask them if they can pick out the trained children and the "time out" children. Even ask those that deal with AD children which respond the best and which bounce off the walls.

There is a reason for tradition. When you change thousands of years of tradition you need more than a soft heart.

RESULTS--that's the bottom line.

results ARE the bottom line. very true.

time out is an extremely effective technique in training children. that most parents dont do it right is not a reason not to use it. most parents dont spank correctly either. (i think spanking is a poor parenting technique in any case)

the problem with parents isnt that they dont spank, its that they dont do ANYTHING. they sit on the couch playing video games and expect that yelling at their kid to "cut it out" is going to do the job. after half an hour or so of yelling, they get off their asses and go to their children in a rage. very bad parenting. (it doesnt matter if its video games, making dinner or studying for law school, waiting is waiting)

or they tell their child "NO" and let the child whine, beg, scream, cry, and finally go into a full blown tantrum then give the child whatever she wants. great way to train your child to be a brat!

this delayed technique is a recipe for out-of-control children. they learn that they can do pretty much whatever they want as long as they can tell when daddy is going to lose it THEN stop (or not, they are kids after all). they also learn that if they make themselves enough of a pain in the ass they will get anything they want.

ANY technique is better than that as long as you DO IT instead of waiting. (any nondamaging technique, no spanking with impliments, no fists, no "mommy doesnt love you anymore" crap, no discussions of horrible religious punishments)

results ARE the bottom line. very true.

time out is an extremely effective technique in training children. that most parents dont do it right is not a reason not to use it. most parents dont spank correctly either. (i think spanking is a poor parenting technique in any case)

the problem with parents isnt that they dont spank, its that they dont do ANYTHING. they sit on the couch playing video games and expect that yelling at their kid to "cut it out" is going to do the job. after half an hour or so of yelling, they get off their asses and go to their children in a rage. very bad parenting. (it doesnt matter if its video games, making dinner or studying for law school, waiting is waiting)

or they tell their child "NO" and let the child whine, beg, scream, cry, and finally go into a full blown tantrum then give the child whatever she wants. great way to train your child to be a brat!

this delayed technique is a recipe for out-of-control children. they learn that they can do pretty much whatever they want as long as they can tell when daddy is going to lose it THEN stop (or not, they are kids after all). they also learn that if they make themselves enough of a pain in the ass they will get anything they want.

ANY technique is better than that as long as you DO IT instead of waiting. (any nondamaging technique, no spanking with impliments, no fists, no "mommy doesnt love you anymore" crap, no discussions of horrible religious punishments)

I agree 99% with you.

When I talk of spanking, I'm talking of one open handed swat to the hind quarters, immediately, without hate, without vengence, without anger. If they are old enough, you can explain after you get their attention. But TIME is still the biggest factor. A child doesn't connect with anything but the immediate.

I agree 99% with you.

When I talk of spanking, I'm talking of one open handed swat to the hind quarters, immediately, without hate, without vengence, without anger. If they are old enough, you can explain after you get their attention. But TIME is still the biggest factor. A child doesn't connect with anything but the immediate.

...such as immediate NON-VIOLENT forms of discipline, as proven by various parents and on various television programmes. And I don't care what you say, if hitting an adult is classed as violence, then it's violence on a child.

It absolutely sickens me to see how many of you think this is appropriate behavior. Perhaps if some of you had gone through what I did you'd feel differently.

just remember, about 80% of people are not bad, they're just stupid, as proven by the amount of times Bush and Blair have been elected.

About a month ago I was walking home from my girlfriend's home & I saw this little asian kid outside his house with his parents, then his mother screamed at him to go inside the garage when he didnt she backhanded him very forcefully & pushed him onto the concrete, the father looked rather worried but i don't think he wanted to get involved. I was already around the block before I thought of doing anything about it but damn it was sickening.

I don't know about your country, but even here (where smacking is legal), that kind of force would be illegal. I would have phoned the cops, not just let a kid get beaten up by an adult and do fuck all about it. Actually, I probably would have twatted the parents.

...such as immediate NON-VIOLENT forms of discipline, as proven by various parents and on various television programmes. And I don't care what you say, if hitting an adult is classed as violence, then it's violence on a child.

it's probably even worse to do it to a kid since they have little recourse.

it's probably even worse to do it to a kid since they have little recourse.

and are more vulnerable

results ARE the bottom line. very true.

time out is an extremely effective technique in training children. that most parents dont do it right is not a reason not to use it. most parents dont spank correctly either. (i think spanking is a poor parenting technique in any case)


I agree "time outs" are a highly effective form of discipline... for most kids. But kids are different, and some kids don't respond to that. Some kids respond to having priveledges taken away. Some kids respond to their parents simply expressing disappointment. Some kids respond primarily to physical intervention (not just spanking, but picking them up, moving them away, or whatever, particularly fairly non-verbal small children.)

I also agree though, that whatever you're using, it must be immediate. No counting to three (unless it's going to take three seconds to accomplish the entire task, and it must be done before three, thereby requiring not only immediate obedience, but rapid obedience.) No tolerating it the first few times until it gets on your nerves. No threatening. Just do it. If the kid doesn't know already, state the rule with a warning not to repeat the offense. If the kid already knows the rule, no warning, even. That's a way to get your kid to feel they have a "get out of jail free" card good for one offense at everything they want to do each time they want to do it.

However, in certain circumstances, delaying the actual punishment is acceptable, so long as the punishment itself is stated at the time, and not changed. You can't send a kid to their room in the grocery store. You CAN tell them when we get home, you will spend five minutes sitting quietly in your room. And immediately upon getting home, excecute it. Particuarly with older children, this is more effective. Small children don't have the memory to
"get" that.

ANY technique is better than that as long as you DO IT instead of waiting. (any nondamaging technique, no spanking with impliments, no fists, no "mommy doesnt love you anymore" crap, no discussions of horrible religious punishments)

Agreed... but what on earth are "horrible religious punishments"? Stoning etc?

...such as immediate NON-VIOLENT forms of discipline, as proven by various parents and on various television programmes. And I don't care what you say, if hitting an adult is classed as violence, then it's violence on a child.

Quite, but if my kid starts playing with outlets/plugs, I slap her hand, because I want her to think "If I play with outlets, my hand hurts." If you send her to her room, she just thinks "If I play with outlets, I disobeyed my mommy." The former is MUCH more effective in preventing the hand from hurting for other worse sorts of reasons.

Granted, the idea isn't to make it really hurt so much as sting slightly... just enough to make her realise that is a foretaste of what could happen if she disobeys.

(Edit: And I'm sure it doesn't hurt too much becuase it hurts me equally.)

Quite, but if my kid starts playing with outlets/plugs, I slap her hand, because I want her to think "If I play with outlets, my hand hurts." If you send her to her room, she just thinks "If I play with outlets, I disobeyed my mommy." The former is MUCH more effective in preventing the hand from hurting for other worse sorts of reasons.

Granted, the idea isn't to make it really hurt so much as sting slightly... just enough to make her realise that is a foretaste of what could happen if she disobeys.

(Edit: And I'm sure it doesn't hurt too much becuase it hurts me equally.)

I think generally people advocating violence towards kids here (eg. spanking/smacking) were talking about it as a way to discipline kids in general. I agree that to prevent immediate danger to a child (or anyone for that matter) it may be necessary to hit them (if someone was so drunk they were about to fall off a cliff, I'd knock them unconscious if necessary), but if you're going to have kids, you need to THINK about their safety before they are born. Why did the plus sockets not have child-resistant sockect protectors?

<SNIP>but if you're going to have kids, you need to THINK about their safety before they are born. Why did the plus sockets not have child-resistant sockect protectors?

1. You don't have to do it until they're mobile... until they can move a bit, you don't have to worry about it.

2. My kid can get the socket protectors out more easily than I can. (They're still in, and she has a rule she may not touch them.)

3. The ones that really worry me is if she tries to unplug something that has electricity running through it, because touching the live plug is more dangerous than anything other than shoving a metal object into it.

I object even to verbal threats. Only timeouts and such. They teach children that they did something wrong, as opposed to the fact that they did something wrong, and that was "get caught"

Training... Education... Bah! It's all semantics. We are just animals btw.

Just as, in the political world there are varying wings on how government is run, you can achieve varying degrees of success using varying forms of re-enforcement, be they positive, or negative, or both. You just have to make sure you remain just a little democratic. Too Strict, and you're a fascist. Too liberal, and you have a spoiled brat on your hands.

"Spare the rod and spoil the child."

Fact is, the 'rod' is discipline of one form or another. Sometimes it can be used to guide the flock to greener pastures, and sometimes it can be used to snag a wayward foal by the scruff of the neck to prevent it from running off a cliff. If you don't use 'the rod' one way or another, you end up with half your flock in a barren waste, and the other half lies crushed at the bottom of a ravine.

I love metaphor...

While it may be agreed that spanking on it's own, may not be considered by all to be acceptable as a deterrent. It should be acknowledged as a perfectly acceptable part of any parent's re-enforcement arsenal.(Barring weapons/abuse mind you.)

Training... Education... Bah! It's all semantics. We are just animals btw.

Just as, in the political world there are varying wings on how government is run, you can achieve varying degrees of success using varying forms of re-enforcement, be they positive, or negative, or both. You just have to make sure you remain just a little democratic. Too Strict, and you're a fascist. Too liberal, and you have a spoiled brat on your hands.

"Spare the rod and spoil the child."

Fact is, the 'rod' is discipline of one form or another. Sometimes it can be used to guide the flock to greener pastures, and sometimes it can be used to snag a wayward foal by the scruff of the neck to prevent it from running off a cliff. If you don't use 'the rod' one way or another, you end up with half your flock in a barren waste, and the other half lies crushed at the bottom of a ravine.

I love metaphor...

While it may be agreed that spanking on it's own, may not be considered by all to be acceptable as a deterrent. It should be acknowledged as a perfectly acceptable part of any parent's re-enforcement arsenal.(Barring weapons/abuse mind you.)
...but only if used for safety purposes where other methods would not work (such as if a kid keeps going near a plug socket and they're too old to understand rules (which btw means hitting won't work -not that it does anyway- as they are too young to understand what they did wrong... it would only (potentially) work if done right after they do something like stick their fingers in a socket to show them that it hurts to do that))

It has never been, and never will be, no matter what the law says, O.K. to do something to a kid that you would not be allowed to do to an adult because of how badly it may affect the adult, as kids are MUCH more vulnerable. And I'm talking about smacking, not spanking (which is perverted).

I think spanking is needed if a child commits a crime like shoplifting (even if it's just a candy bar or piece of gum) but not for bad school grades. If a child has bad grades then the parent(s) needs to spend every available moment to help with studying, with continious encouragement, rather than threats.

As for toddlers, I've heard this works wonders:
At about 2 years old or so, "ALLOW" your child to help you with minor,easy house chores like: folding sheet and towels, wiping down stuff they can reach (chairs, end tables, etc...) and the like. At that age, they absolutly love helping out. When they act-up, tell them "now you behave or you can't help me today" It really works!!! Children grow up more organized and less lazy. ;)

That's a nice approach, Dragontide. Good ol' reverse psychology...

The Punishment/Reward should fit the Crime/Deed.

Training... Education... Bah! It's all semantics. We are just animals btw.


And that's why I use an electric fence for my cows. They get stung a couple times and never cross the line again.

I think spanking is needed if a child commits a crime like shoplifting (even if it's just a candy bar or piece of gum) but not for bad school grades. If a child has bad grades then the parent(s) needs to spend every available moment to help with studying, with continious encouragement, rather than threats.

As for toddlers, I've heard this works wonders:
At about 2 years old or so, "ALLOW" your child to help you with minor,easy house chores like: folding sheet and towels, wiping down stuff they can reach (chairs, end tables, etc...) and the like. At that age, they absolutly love helping out. When they act-up, tell them "now you behave or you can't help me today" It really works!!! Children grow up more organized and less lazy. ;)

So you’re saying that if someone steals a pen from your child at school instead of reporting it to the teacher and having the offending child dealt with in an effective non-physical manner, your kid should whack him across the ass.

That is one of the most stupid versions of logic I have ever heard – yet any person who supports spanking is saying exactly that.

If a child steals, you teach them that what they did was wrong and punish them. Except in a few crap schools, teachers manage it effectively. Why can’t you?

Or (and this is to parents) are teachers better at bringing up your kid than you are? They must be.

So you’re saying that if someone steals a pen from your child at school instead of reporting it to the teacher and having the offending child dealt with in an effective non-physical manner, your kid should whack him across the ass.

That is one of the most stupid versions of logic I have ever heard – yet any person who supports spanking is saying exactly that.

If a child steals, you teach them that what they did was wrong and punish them. Except in a few crap schools, teachers manage it effectively. Why can’t you?



No! I am not suggesting that children punish each other and I fail to see the comparison between children hitting each other and an adult punishing a child.

I dont think teachers are managing it effectively. If you spank a child for stealing and bad grades and passing notes in class and drawing cartoons and every little thing then you risk the danger of sending a confusing message to that child. Commiting a crime as an adult will make things much more difficult for a person than having a low grade average in school. And what I am saying is that a parent that spends all available time with a child will bring those grades up 99 44/100 % of the time. An easy plan that produces an honest and well educated person.

I'm pro spank. AS long as they are able to understand the reason they are being spanked. And for most kids.. that aren't stupid.. it doesn't take long(the age they are able to comprehend). A friend of mine lets her 2 yr old daughter run all over her, because she says "What can you do to a 2 year old?". Tell her, teach her and spank her if need be!

Training... Education... Bah! It's all semantics. We are just animals btw.

Just as, in the political world there are varying wings on how government is run, you can achieve varying degrees of success using varying forms of re-enforcement, be they positive, or negative, or both. You just have to make sure you remain just a little democratic. Too Strict, and you're a fascist. Too liberal, and you have a spoiled brat on your hands.

"Spare the rod and spoil the child."

Fact is, the 'rod' is discipline of one form or another. Sometimes it can be used to guide the flock to greener pastures, and sometimes it can be used to snag a wayward foal by the scruff of the neck to prevent it from running off a cliff. If you don't use 'the rod' one way or another, you end up with half your flock in a barren waste, and the other half lies crushed at the bottom of a ravine.

I love metaphor...

While it may be agreed that spanking on it's own, may not be considered by all to be acceptable as a deterrent. It should be acknowledged as a perfectly acceptable part of any parent's re-enforcement arsenal.(Barring weapons/abuse mind you.)

Thank you. I've been trying to compare children to untrained animals for some time. It's good someone else understands.

...such as immediate NON-VIOLENT forms of discipline, as proven by various parents and on various television programmes. And I don't care what you say, if hitting an adult is classed as violence, then it's violence on a child.

That's it. That's it exactly.

Thank you. I've been trying to compare children to untrained animals for some time. It's good someone else understands.

yeah but you cant beat your dog any more either.

yeah but you cant beat your dog any more either.

No, on a dog I use a choke chain. It doesn't hurt the dog any more than a swat to the rump hurts a child. It gets their attention immediately. With animals and children time is everything. They don't have an attention span to make "time out" work.

On a horse, I use a bit in the mouth. It bumps their top mouth.

On cattle, I use a stick, shake paddle or hot shot. Gets their attention without harming them.

On hogs, a push panel or hot shot.

I don't know of an animal that isn't trained with immediate feedback. I don't know of one animal that "time out" works. the whole point is TIME. Once a child or animal is trained when young, then other techniques can be used. But from 1-6 a child must be trained or they never will be trained. The same is true of every animal I've ever seen. Train them young and you never have to worry again.

No, on a dog I use a choke chain. It doesn't hurt the dog any more than a swat to the rump hurts a child. It gets their attention immediately. With animals and children time is everything. They don't have an attention span to make "time out" work.

On a horse, I use a bit in the mouth. It bumps their top mouth.

On cattle, I use a stick, shake paddle or hot shot. Gets their attention without harming them.

On hogs, a push panel or hot shot.

I don't know of an animal that isn't trained with immediate feedback. I don't know of one animal that "time out" works. the whole point is TIME. Once a child or animal is trained when young, then other techniques can be used. But from 1-6 a child must be trained or they never will be trained. The same is true of every animal I've ever seen. Train them young and you never have to worry again.

I still don't understand why you seem to think that the only acceptable form of immediate feedback for a child is a spanking.

I probably will never understand why you think that children are so dumb as to only understand physical violence as a way to set boundries for themselves "if I do this I get hurt, so I won't do that" :rolleyes:

So you’re saying that if someone steals a pen from your child at school instead of reporting it to the teacher and having the offending child dealt with in an effective non-physical manner, your kid should whack him across the ass.
...

That is an analogy gone astray… Your analogy would be true IF it the following were also true: That since we know that prison terms occur for bad behavior we must therefore be teaching ourselves that it is okay and acceptable take it upon ourselves to lock up our neighbors when they have done something we think is incorrect and deserving of a prison term, or a life sentence (for examples to the extreme). If we took your example to heart, that spanking a child teaches them to spank their siblings and other children in their lives, then it would also be true that we must learn to punish our neighbors simply because we know that the court systems punishes criminals with life sentences, and even more so IF we think that it’s okay that for us to use prison incarceration as a negative feedback for bad behaviors. According to your analogy we would all be punishing everyone ourselves instead of calling the police and the authorities. Obviously your analogy is flawed, we can plainly see that we did not learn to punish our neighbors ourselves instead of calling the authorities.

I still don't understand why you seem to think that the only acceptable form of immediate feedback for a child is a spanking.

I probably will never understand why you think that children are so dumb as to only understand physical violence as a way to set boundries for themselves "if I do this I get hurt, so I won't do that" :rolleyes:

Pain IS the body's system of negative message transmission to the mind. Whether God or Evolution designed it, that is irrelevant to the discussion, but pain was specifically developed to teach immediate lessons to the 'mind' of the bodys condition in the outside world. Pain IS immediate physical feedback of a negative. Spanking must therefore be the natural course of teaching our young, teaching using the natural body function of negative feedback, as our bodies were designed to make an input to our minds via the pain. Our minds are/were designed to accept that input in a instructive manner and we have (as body creatures which feel pain) have developed to learn lessons taught to us through that pain and through the input of pain. We are not computers, our bodies of physical creatures, and so are our minds. To pretend that we are simply computer components that require reprogramming of our software only, when negative feedback is required, is like saying we are no different than electronic devices, robots if you will. But we are not.

Physical rewards for admirable behavior (ice cream, treats, etc.,) go hand in hand with physical lessons for negative behaviors (spankings, no dessert etc.,).

I still don't understand why you seem to think that the only acceptable form of immediate feedback for a child is a spanking.

Nothing else is immediate and a child between 1 and 6 doesn't have the vocabulary or intelectual maturity to understand reasoning nor the capacity to understand time beyond the immediate. You can give them words but not meaning. In one of your examples, "Jesus wouldn't like it". I defy you to have a 1 year old give you an explanation of the concept of "Jesus". That is something that comes with knowledge, learning, experience, and vocabulary. Something that a 1 year old simply doesn't have. They have not eaten from the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil". They know neither. They are simply at a stage of "existence". Nothing they do is wrong nor is it right. They have to learn both. As you teach them they are eating from that tree of knowledge. After they have eaten enough from that tree, then you can use other methods. But, if you don't give them that knowledge at that stage, they will never have the knowledge. Ask anyone who deals with children if they know which children have been given that knowledge between 1 and 6 and which have not. It shows even at the college level. Just as it shows on a "green broke" horse.

I probably will never understand why you think that children are so dumb as to only understand physical violence as a way to set boundries for themselves "if I do this I get hurt, so I won't do that" :rolleyes:

If I do this I get hurt, so I won't do that---exactly. A child between 1 and 6 doesn't have the mental capacity to be hurt in other ways. As they mature logic and other stratigies can be used---but if they aren't trained between 1 and 6 they never will be. In horse language, they will always be "green broke". Somewhat controllable but not totally socialized.

A child that is trained by 6 or a horse by 2 will never give anyone problems. If not they will always be a mustang at the inner level.

Alls I can say is that I have witnessed an increase in disrespectful and disobedient children as spanking becomes less acceptable in certain situations.

Alls I can say is that I have witnessed an increase in disrespectful and disobedient children as spanking becomes less acceptable in certain situations.
AMEN!!!

Nothing else is immediate and a child between 1 and 6 doesn't have the vocabulary or intelectual maturity to understand reasoning nor the capacity to understand time beyond the immediate. You can give them words but not meaning. In one of your examples, "Jesus wouldn't like it". I defy you to have a 1 year old give you an explanation of the concept of "Jesus". That is something that comes with knowledge, learning, experience, and vocabulary. Something that a 1 year old simply doesn't have. They have not eaten from the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil". They know neither. They are simply at a stage of "existence". Nothing they do is wrong nor is it right. They have to learn both. As you teach them they are eating from that tree of knowledge. After they have eaten enough from that tree, then you can use other methods. But, if you don't give them that knowledge at that stage, they will never have the knowledge. Ask anyone who deals with children if they know which children have been given that knowledge between 1 and 6 and which have not. It shows even at the college level. Just as it shows on a "green broke" horse.


If I do this I get hurt, so I won't do that---exactly. A child between 1 and 6 doesn't have the mental capacity to be hurt in other ways. As they mature logic and other stratigies can be used---but if they aren't trained between 1 and 6 they never will be. In horse language, they will always be "green broke". Somewhat controllable but not totally socialized.

A child that is trained by 6 or a horse by 2 will never give anyone problems. If not they will always be a mustang at the inner level.


If your child by the age of 6 can't understand that there are rules and that they are to obey them, you haven't done your job as a parent.

It sickens me that you would advocate hitting a child at all, but even more now that you are trying to explain that a 1 year old can't understand. You spank a 12 month old? you hit babies? that is low.

AMEN!!!

Haha, glad someone agrees. They make us pro-spankers sound like we want to mutilate children. I don't have kids, but look forward to that time - children need guidance relative to their understanding.

If your child by the age of 6 can't understand that there are rules and that they are to obey them, you haven't done your job as a parent.

It sickens me that you would advocate hitting a child at all, but even more now that you are trying to explain that a 1 year old can't understand. You spank a 12 month old? you hit babies? that is low.

You wait till 6?

I'm sorry that someone someday will have to teach your children.

I'm sorry that someone someday will hire your children.

I'm sorry that someone someday will wed your children.

I'm sorry that there will be tears in your future.

You wait till 6?

I'm sorry that someone someday will have to teach your children.

I'm sorry that someone someday will hire your children.

I'm sorry that someone someday will wed your children.

I'm sorry that there will be tears in your future.

I don't wait until 6, my 3 year old is able to understand rules, why she must obey them, and what will happen if she does not. I am just saying with your "children 1 to 6 don't understand anything" that I feel sorry for the 6 year old that has been conditioned not to think but only to respond to abuse.

I don't wait until 6, my 3 year old is able to understand rules, why she must obey them, and what will happen if she does not. I am just saying with your "children 1 to 6 don't understand anything" that I feel sorry for the 6 year old that has been conditioned not to think but only to respond to abuse.

Well said!

And to "Good Lifes":

You wait only till the child is born before you start hurting them?

I'm sorry that someone someday will have to teach your children rather than hitting them.

I'm sorry that someone someday will arrest your children for practicing what you have taught them - hit people to teach them that they are wrong.

I'm sorry that someone someday will divorce your children when they have become adults, because they will not put up with a relationship where hitting is used to prove a point.

I'm sorry that there will be tears and emotional pain in your future, along with those infamous words, "where did I go wrong?".

If I do this I get hurt, so I won't do that---exactly. A child between 1 and 6 doesn't have the mental capacity to be hurt in other ways.

Are you kidding, or do you seriously believe that your average kindergartener can't grasp a concept as simple as "When I hit my baby brother, it made Mommy sad, and I don't want Mommy to be sad" or "When I throw my toys across the room, Daddy takes the toys away, and then I can't play with them"?

If so, you must only know extremely stupid and emotionally disturbed kindergarteners. All the ones I've ever encountered are capable of having thoughts and feeling emotions beyond physical pain.

No! I am not suggesting that children punish each other and I fail to see the comparison between children hitting each other and an adult punishing a child.

I dont think teachers are managing it effectively. If you spank a child for stealing and bad grades and passing notes in class and drawing cartoons and every little thing then you risk the danger of sending a confusing message to that child. Commiting a crime as an adult will make things much more difficult for a person than having a low grade average in school. And what I am saying is that a parent that spends all available time with a child will bring those grades up 99 44/100 % of the time. An easy plan that produces an honest and well educated person.


I hate to have to say this, but if you can't see the comparison, you'd make (or do make) an even worse parent then I thought. even the most unintelligent adults usually know that children learn by example - to hit a child as "punishment" is teaching them to hit people as "punishment" instead of using the correct procedures when someone does something wrong.

If you seriously don't think teachers are managing it effectively, I suggest you find a school with good reports about them, and ask if you can see how things are done for a week.

You say "If you spank a child for stealing and bad grades and passing notes in class and drawing cartoons and every little thing then you risk the danger of sending a confusing message to that child." ... don't you even see the nonsense in spanking after that sentence? To hit a child for stuff at home but not allow teachers to do so sends extremely confusing messages - something gets a spanking at home, doesn't get a spanking in class, etc etc.

And by the way, I had crap grades in school. Having not learned how to revise etc properly, this led to not finishing a college course. My education was nearly completely ruined, and would be had a university not allowed me the chance to prove what I could do and gave me a chance. My life was nearly wrecked because of bad grades.

You say "And what I am saying is that a parent that spends all available time with a child will bring those grades up 99 44/100 % of the time. An easy plan that produces an honest and well educated person" - if only it were that simple. I agree that spending all available time with a child is very important - IF the time is spent contructively, instead of constant yelling and spanking. Unfortunately, for most parents it would seem it's just a way of finding excuses to punish a child: "we need to talk about your grades?" "why?" *spank* "Don't talk back to me" "I wasn't, I was just ask-" *spank* and so on... result = pissed off kid who doesn't give a shit about school.

I've volunteered at a Primary School. The usual way of dealing with a child was to shout at them, occasionally send them out the class. My way was different, I would say something like "how would you feel if..." and the child connected their behaviour to bad feelings and stopped it. And as I was to "get down to the children's level", I didn't even look authorative - I was wearing casual clothes. For younger kids, you simply need to follow the examples of Jo Frost (from "Supernanny") before you get into a situation where you don't know how to "control" your kids, because "no matter what you do" (usually shouting or hitting from what I've seen), the kids, not surprisingly to me, won't respond to it (also a reason why there needs to be a structure, set punishments for offences (not different every time as it's confusing) that need to be applied each time an offence happens, and why parents need to back each other up)

I don't wait until 6, my 3 year old is able to understand rules, why she must obey them, and what will happen if she does not. I am just saying with your "children 1 to 6 don't understand anything" that I feel sorry for the 6 year old that has been conditioned not to think but only to respond to abuse.

The earlier you start, the less you have to do the next year, or the next year, or the next year, or the next year. With proper training there is very little discipline at 6,7, 8 etc. I don't remember ever punishing my children after 6. But they were trained by then. The idea is you don't put all of your weight on a pony. You put a little more each time you work with it. You put the bit in for just a few minutes. You put on the saddle for a few minutes. You don't pop the reins the first time or the horse will get a "hard mouth", ie. ignore the bit. It's a slow process. The same is true with children. You don't swat a one year old will all your might (nor a 6 year old for that matter). Each day, week, year they are given a little more weight. The idea is to get their attention, not to hurt them and make them hard and defiant. It's a matter of balance. Too much and you get hard, too little and you get wild.

A child that isn't trained by 6 has been trained to play the system. They give you the words you want to hear---"Jesus wouldn't like it". But in their inner being they are "green broke" and always will be. They think how to play the system and always will. They know the keys to freedom from civilization. They give you the words but not the heart and mind. That is why I'm so sad for your future.

I'm pro spank. AS long as they are able to understand the reason they are being spanked. And for most kids.. that aren't stupid.. it doesn't take long(the age they are able to comprehend). A friend of mine lets her 2 yr old daughter run all over her, because she says "What can you do to a 2 year old?". Tell her, teach her and spank her if need be!

What can you do? Simple: set rules and consequences, and stick to them. They don't need to be physical. Use the "naughty step" idea (you put the child on a step on the stairs, or on a "naughty chair" if you have a room where you can put one, explain what the child has done wrong, and explain that the child will stay there until he/she is ready to apologise. Every time they leave, you put them back - even if it has to be done a 100 times before they stop running away from it, they will eventually learn that it's pointless running awau because they'll just keep getting put back. They'll also learn that this is what happens when they do something bad. And, as proved on the Supernanny programmes, it works (even if it doesn't stright away). You go back to the step after a certain amount of time, and tell the child "[reminder of why they are there] and Mummy/Daddy wants an apology". There's also removing pocket money (if they get pocket money), and rewards for good behaviour (including verbal praise).

And it's very rewarding to see the kid's face light up when they see they've got "five gold stars" this week for good behaviour.

even if it has to be done a 100 times before they stop running away from it, they will eventually learn that it's pointless running awau because they'll just keep getting put back. They'll also learn that this is what happens when they do something bad.

I'll bet you anything that by the 100th time, if you ask what the original punishment was for they won't have a clue. TIME is a concept children don't have. That's why there has to be an immediate connection.

I'll bet you anything that by the 100th time, if you ask what the original punishment was for they won't have a clue. TIME is a concept children don't have. That's why there has to be an immediate connection.

That's why you remind them before asking for the apology. Then after this initial tedious "dragging them back and forth", the connection is immediate because they know running away is pointless.

And if you don't already give them pocket money, you can start giving them small "rewards" such as a few pence (or a few cents) for doing things around the house (helping with tidying up, etc) and they associate doing things that please Mumm/Daddy with getting a reward (could actually be as simple as a gold sticker, can be bough in most shops that sell stationery) - and it's not the same as a bribe, which is giving money to not be bad, rather than giving money to specifically do something good. You can even have a chart where they get a cross for each bad thing they do, encouraging them to be more good so get more stars and less crosses - works brilliantly in Nurseries (Kindergarten) and Primary Schools.

..., you can start giving them small "rewards" such as a few pence (or a few cents) for doing things around the house (helping with tidying up, etc) and they associate doing things that please Mumm/Daddy with getting a reward (could actually be as simple as a gold sticker, can be bough in most shops that sell stationery) - and it's not the same as a bribe, which is giving money to not be bad, rather than giving money to specifically do something good. You can even have a chart where they get a cross for each bad thing they do, encouraging them to be more good so get more stars and less crosses - works brilliantly in Nurseries (Kindergarten) and Primary Schools.


In other words, you simply want to bribe them into behaving the way you want them to... Like a bad politician is paid to do what you want or a prostitute is paid to behave the way you want.

In other words, you simply want to bribe them into behaving the way you want them to... Like a bad politician is paid to do what you want or a prostitute is paid to behave the way you want.

Or, to pick a better example, like the way any employed person is paid to do a job. Why on earth shouldn't one reward one's children for doing good things?

I wasn't spanked. I'm not having kids, but if I were to, I just don't see myself spanking them. I'd do like my parents did, and use the implicit threat of parental disappointment to get them to toe the line.

I think that children should be beaten at irregular intervals. It was regular intervals, until someone pointed out that it might be better to keep them on their toes. I hate all this politically correct bullshit: the threat of violence, i.e., a good smack on the bottom, kept me in line, and if that failed, my dad might threaten to spank me on the bare bottom in public. That never happened, cause the embarassment is as powerful as the act.

a good number of problems in today's youth could be solved by a good smacking.


Same here. A good swat to the behind is what the youth need, but any more if you do that the darn kids will go to DCFS and report you. :headbang:

Same here. A good swat to the behind is what the youth need, but any more if you do that the darn kids will go to DCFS and report you. :headbang:

You clearly haven't even looked at the rest of the posts. You just have an idea in your head "spanking is great" and refuse to change it no matter what anyone says.

You could say the same for me, but previous posts on here evidence that I keep an open mind (usually).

So here is a response at your level:

Spanking is for sick paedophiles. I'm not going to bother backing taht up (or trying to rather) with any kind of logic. It's just true.

In other words, you simply want to bribe them into behaving the way you want them to... Like a bad politician is paid to do what you want or a prostitute is paid to behave the way you want.

As I suspected... ignored what I actually wrote and twisted it for own purposes. Read it again.

The earlier you start, the less you have to do the next year, or the next year, or the next year, or the next year. With proper training there is very little discipline at 6,7, 8 etc. I don't remember ever punishing my children after 6. But they were trained by then. The idea is you don't put all of your weight on a pony. You put a little more each time you work with it. You put the bit in for just a few minutes. You put on the saddle for a few minutes. You don't pop the reins the first time or the horse will get a "hard mouth", ie. ignore the bit. It's a slow process. The same is true with children. You don't swat a one year old will all your might (nor a 6 year old for that matter). Each day, week, year they are given a little more weight. The idea is to get their attention, not to hurt them and make them hard and defiant. It's a matter of balance. Too much and you get hard, too little and you get wild.

A child that isn't trained by 6 has been trained to play the system. They give you the words you want to hear---"Jesus wouldn't like it". But in their inner being they are "green broke" and always will be. They think how to play the system and always will. They know the keys to freedom from civilization. They give you the words but not the heart and mind. That is why I'm so sad for your future.

I can't believe I am getting "parenting adivce" from someone who thinks children are animals. I use the word parenting loosely, you are not being a parent in the sense that I want to be one, I want to raise responsible, loving, intelligent members of society, and I think I am doing quite well.

Can you answer me a question though? If you claim you hit children to train them, and that you always explain after the smack what they got hit for so that they understand, why do you have to hit them in the first place? can't you just explain to them why they were wrong? Oh, wait, you said that it had to be immediate or they don'tunderstand.....so, if you immediately hit them and then later explain, then isn't it true by your theory on children that they don't understand why you hit them?

The problem with spanking is the message it gives. As the message is twofold. There is the desired message. "If I do that again, I'll get smacked. I don't want to be smacked. I wont do it again". But there is another message. They'll notice that you never smack another adult (If you do hit another, that child is in such a bad home, that it's got little hope).

They'll understand that if you are bigger than someone and they do something you don't like, hit them. It teaches Might is Right. That's a Big problem.

Tragically, I haven't convinced my partner of this. But as my very small case study shows, he responds to me, when I ask him things, better than her.

The problem with spanking is the message it gives. As the message is twofold. There is the desired message. "If I do that again, I'll get smacked. I don't want to be smacked. I wont do it again". But there is another message. They'll notice that you never smack another adult (If you do hit another, that child is in such a bad home, that it's got little hope).

They'll understand that if you are bigger than someone and they do something you don't like, hit them. It teaches Might is Right. That's a Big problem.

Tragically, I haven't convinced my partner of this. But as my very small case study shows, he responds to me, when I ask him things, better than her.

I think there are a ton of lessons that kids learn from getting spanked, just from my own experience with it and seeing kids in my work that get spanked.

1 might is right

2 if I don't get caught I won't get spanked, so let's be sneaky

3 it's okay to hit someone if you are mad at them

4 it's possible to do something that makes you deserve to get hit

5 if I am around someone who can't (by law) or won't (by choice) hit me, then the rules no longer matter and I can do whatever I want.

The earlier you start, the less you have to do the next year, or the next year, or the next year, or the next year. With proper training there is very little discipline at 6,7, 8 etc. I don't remember ever punishing my children after 6. But they were trained by then.

Had them pretty well broken and cowed by then, eh?

The idea is you don't put all of your weight on a pony. You put a little more each time you work with it. You put the bit in for just a few minutes. You put on the saddle for a few minutes. You don't pop the reins the first time or the horse will get a "hard mouth", ie. ignore the bit. It's a slow process. The same is true with children. You don't swat a one year old will all your might (nor a 6 year old for that matter). Each day, week, year they are given a little more weight. The idea is to get their attention, not to hurt them and make them hard and defiant. It's a matter of balance. Too much and you get hard, too little and you get wild.

Ah, I see. Gradually increase the violence. Got it.:rolleyes:

A child that isn't trained by 6 has been trained to play the system. They give you the words you want to hear---"Jesus wouldn't like it". But in their inner being they are "green broke" and always will be. They think how to play the system and always will. They know the keys to freedom from civilization. They give you the words but not the heart and mind. That is why I'm so sad for your future.

And I'm sad for your children's future. Hope they enjoy the therapy they'll need.

I am in agreement with the Worker Communist Party of Iran's position. CHILDRENS RIGHTS "8 - Prohibition of abuse of children at home, in school and the society at large. Strict prohibition of corporal punishment. Prohibition of subjecting children to psychological pressure and intimidation" http://www.m-hekmat.com/en/0600en.html#T25 Corporal Punishment is already banned in some countries. http://www.nospank.net/totalban.htm If it is wrong to use violence to punish one's spouse's misbehaviour, like if you wife bad mouths and or disrespects your so called "patriarchial authority", then it should also be wrong to inflict pain on one's children as well. I consider children to have the status of women socialy anyway.

Or, to pick a better example, like the way any employed person is paid to do a job. Why on earth shouldn't one reward one's children for doing good things?

Because when the stop paying you, you stop doing the job. Who works for free after the boss says I'm not paying you anymore because I expect you've learned how to do it now? That's why paying children to behave well is a bad lesson. You must both punish and reward childen. Using less and less of both as they get older and learn how to behave for themselves. Good behavior isn't a job to be performed for payment, it becomes an expectation or else punishment is applied (via criminal law for adults), there is no government agency that goes around rewarding us for doing what we are expected to do (pay taxes and obey the laws).

Sure you can ‘rent’ good behavior from children by rewarding them with treats and gold stars, but like I said earlier, it’s nothing more than bribing them to do what you want. They learn to perform for a profit, nothing else.


As I suspected... ignored what I actually wrote and twisted it for own purposes. Read it again.

I don't need to re-read what you wrote. You misunderstand how 'bribery' works. You think it means paying someone to not do something. But that's backwards. Bribery is to pay someone to do something.

on the first fine spring day back in 1987 when my son had learned how to walk, his birthday is in may so he was just under 1 year old, i decided to take him outside for a walk.

i must have turned my back to lock the door because the first thing he did upon being set down was to head straight for the street! we were living in a house at that time that was less than 10 feet from the front porch to the street.

so, there is my baby walking into the street. what did i do?

i picked him up, put him on the sidewalk and said "we walk on the sidewalk not the street". i never had another problem with it. he now knew how it was done and he did it.

goodlifes obviously would have swatted his behind and said a firm NO. crying would have resulted. it probably would have never happened again.

would it really have been BETTER to have spanked a less-than-one-year-old child for a natural mistake? i dont think so.

discipline doesnt mean forcing obedience through pain, it means teaching your child how to behave in the world. good parents dont make good children, they make good adults. a good adult doesnt get his way through force so why would you teach your children that?

The problem with spanking is the message it gives. As the message is twofold. There is the desired message. "If I do that again, I'll get smacked. I don't want to be smacked. I wont do it again". But there is another message. They'll notice that you never smack another adult (If you do hit another, that child is in such a bad home, that it's got little hope).

They'll understand that if you are bigger than someone and they do something you don't like, hit them. It teaches Might is Right. That's a Big problem.

Tragically, I haven't convinced my partner of this. But as my very small case study shows, he responds to me, when I ask him things, better than her.


I disagree. Spanking does NOT teach 'bigger' makes right, but instead it teaches that authority makes right. My example would be the 5' 2" 130lbs mother of three teenage football players all over 6' and 200lbs each, getting smacked for bad behavior and 'fearing' their mother's wrath, as the case may be.

I wish there were more mothers who put the 'fear of God' (as the phrase goes) into their growing young boys before they become undisciplined young adults out on their own.

Perhaps you do make a better ‘friend’ to you child, but a parent’s job isn’t only about being friends with their children.

Because when the stop paying you, you stop doing the job. Who works for free after the boss says I'm not paying you anymore because I expect you've learned how to do it now? That's why paying children to behave well is a bad lesson. You must both punish and reward childen. Using less and less of both as they get older and learn how to behave for themselves. Good behavior isn't a job to be performed for payment, it becomes an expectation or else punishment is applied (via criminal law for adults), there is no government agency that goes around rewarding us for doing what we are expected to do (pay taxes and obey the laws).

Sure you can ‘rent’ good behavior from children by rewarding them with treats and gold stars, but like I said earlier, it’s nothing more than bribing them to do what you want. They learn to perform for a profit, nothing else.




I don't need to re-read what you wrote. You misunderstand how 'bribery' works. You think it means paying someone to not do something. But that's backwards. Bribery is to pay someone to do something.

I suggest you go back to school. Paying someone for doing work is not bribery, otherwise every person in the country who is employed is being bribed every week, every 2 weeks, or every month. Paying someone for doing work (or giving them food/accommodation for that work) is rewarding them for that work. And if you still have an issue with monetary rewards, there are still the other rewards like the gold star for kids... or are you one of those people who don't even realise that kids need praise?

I disagree. Spanking does NOT teach 'bigger' makes right, but instead it teaches that authority makes right. My example would be the 5' 2" 130lbs mother of three teenage football players all over 6' and 200lbs each, getting smacked for bad behavior and 'fearing' their mother's wrath, as the case may be.

I wish there were more mothers who put the 'fear of God' (as the phrase goes) into their growing young boys before they become undisciplined young adults out on their own.

Perhaps you do make a better ‘friend’ to you child, but a parent’s job isn’t only about being friends with their children.

No, a parent's job is to bring up their children to be healthy, cared-for, loved beings, who do not see violence as the best solution to a problem.

since I doubt I'll be able to change anyone's mind on here, I suggest you pro-spanking people actually try the methods suggested for a few weeks, ensuring you stick to them, especially if you have an "unruly" family. I also suggest you visit this site: http://www.channel4.com/health/microsites/S/supernanny/ - the difference you see if you actually do this will be amazing, and if you actually try it, and there's no positive difference, and you send me a telegram which contains what you did step-by-step and answers any questions I put to you, I'll give you £20, no joke (I could send it via crappy Western Union if you want)... worth around $37 US.

Spanking is illegal for a reason. All of you who would lay a hand on a child should be punished severely.

I realize that parents don't like being "told" how to do their job by scientists, but I would still encourage people strongly in favor of using physical punishment to read at least some of the volumes of research in the Developmental Psychology literature about this issue. The results of the research are very clearly in favor of alternative means of behavior control, with a heavy emphasis on the positive effects of rationalization (yes, young children can be talked to and reasoned with very well; as others have mentioned already, they have more than enough intellectual capacity to understand and even empathize), as well as positive reinforcement (as opposed to punishment).

I don't have any sources that I can link to you as all of my information comes from books and journal articles, but I'm sure it would be possible to dig around the internet and maybe find some links to some peer reviewed research.

I don't think the proper interpretation of this research is that spanking will ruin your child, as many people who have been spanked growing up can attest to. However, it does suggest that their may be some very negative side effects (learning to use violence to settle disputes or get your way is a very real lesson learned), in addition to the fact that other methods have more desirable results and get the job done. Thus, without dictating to people how to raise their kids, pretty much any well-informed developmental psychologist would tell you that you should use physical punishment with great caution (and in my opinion as little as possible).

I think you should punish your kids, but there is such a thing as going over the line. For example if you regularly hit your kids with a cane or brush, then eventually (although you may not see it right away) they will become quiet and not caring(there's a word for this I know however I can't think of it right now). I mean i'm not saying you shouldn't punish your kids, but there is a time and place for everything.

Spanking is illegal for a reason. All of you who would lay a hand on a child should be punished severely.

Ooooh the irony :p

I think there are a ton of lessons that kids learn from getting spanked, just from my own experience with it and seeing kids in my work that get spanked.

1 might is right.
No, it rightly teaches that authority can induce repercussions on you for your bad behavior.

2 if I don't get caught I won't get spanked, so let's be sneaky.
This is a lesson of life, with or without spanking, irrelevant to the spanking issue.

3 it's okay to hit someone if you are mad at them.
Then spanking was done incorrectly. Who said parents should spank when they are angry? They should NOT spank when they are angry. Spanking needs to be regulated and moderated or not used at all.

4 it's possible to do something that makes you deserve to get hit
Yes, and it’s a lesson that should be well learned while they are still children. You can do things that WILL lead to your immediate punishment in a very real sense, and usually by the authorities over you. If you don't learn this as a child, you'll will learn it in prison as a young adult then. But one way or another, you will learn this lesson.

5 if I am around someone who can't (by law) or won't (by choice) hit me, then the rules no longer matter and I can do whatever I want.
Yes, this is a bad lesson that kids learn when they are not spanked. A regulated and measured spanking should be mandatory for bad behavior then. If you hurt another child on purpose (for example) might be a sort of behavior that mandates a corporal punishment response immediately and the removal of rewards for a long time and the repeated discussions of why it was wrong and what will happen the next time if the behavior occurs again....

Ooooh the irony :p

Corporal punishment is illegal for a reason. I was thinking more of exorbitant fines and being someone's bitch, traded to Svullo for a pack of smokes.

I really think it depends upon the child. For some children, verbal warnings and the like are all it takes to keep them in line. For others, the threat of a smack works better.

I suggest you go back to school. Paying someone for doing work is not bribery, otherwise every person in the country who is employed is being bribed every week, every 2 weeks, or every month. Paying someone for doing work (or giving them food/accommodation for that work) is rewarding them for that work. And if you still have an issue with monetary rewards, there are still the other rewards like the gold star for kids... or are you one of those people who don't even realise that kids need praise?

How about this: chores are the same as paying rent.
Oh, that's right... we can't evict them for non-payment of rent, can we? ;)

Spanking is illegal for a reason. All of you who would lay a hand on a child should be punished severely.

It's illegal where you are. It's not illegal everywhere.

How about this: chores are the same as paying rent.
Oh, that's right... we can't evict them for non-payment of rent, can we? ;)

my kids earn everything they get other than basic room and board and food, if they want to sit around and do nothing that's fine with me, but seriously? they will be doing nothing. You don't make your bed, you aren't respectful, you don't clean up after yourself, you don't do your homework? you don't get anything because you haven't earned it.

I think most parents do it backwards, give them everything and then take it away when they are bad, that's just not the way the world works, I don't get a mansion and an HDTV when I move out and have to "be good" to keep it, I start out with nothing and have to earn what I want.

1 might is right.
No, it rightly teaches that authority can induce repercussions on you for your bad behavior.

2 if I don't get caught I won't get spanked, so let's be sneaky.
This is a lesson of life, with or without spanking, irrelevant to the spanking issue.

3 it's okay to hit someone if you are mad at them.
Then spanking was done incorrectly. Who said parents should spank when they are angry? They should NOT spank when they are angry. Spanking needs to be regulated and moderated or not used at all.

4 it's possible to do something that makes you deserve to get hit
Yes, and it’s a lesson that should be well learned while they are still children. You can do things that WILL lead to your immediate punishment in a very real sense, and usually by the authorities over you. If you don't learn this as a child, you'll will learn it in prison as a young adult then. But one way or another, you will learn this lesson.

5 if I am around someone who can't (by law) or won't (by choice) hit me, then the rules no longer matter and I can do whatever I want.
Yes, this is a bad lesson that kids learn when they are not spanked. A regulated and measured spanking should be mandatory for bad behavior then. If you hurt another child on purpose (for example) might be a sort of behavior that mandates a corporal punishment response immediately and the removal of rewards for a long time and the repeated discussions of why it was wrong and what will happen the next time if the behavior occurs again....

I repeat: since I doubt I'll be able to change anyone's mind on here, I suggest you pro-spanking people actually try the methods suggested for a few weeks, ensuring you stick to them, especially if you have an "unruly" family. I also suggest you visit this site: http://www.channel4.com/health/microsites/S/supernanny/ - the difference you see if you actually do this will be amazing, and if you actually try it, and there's no positive difference, and you send me a telegram which contains what you did step-by-step and answers any questions I put to you, I'll give you £20, no joke (I could send it via crappy Western Union if you want)... worth around $37 US.

Because when the stop paying you, you stop doing the job. Who works for free after the boss says I'm not paying you anymore because I expect you've learned how to do it now? That's why paying children to behave well is a bad lesson. You must both punish and reward childen. Using less and less of both as they get older and learn how to behave for themselves. Good behavior isn't a job to be performed for payment, it becomes an expectation or else punishment is applied (via criminal law for adults), there is no government agency that goes around rewarding us for doing what we are expected to do (pay taxes and obey the laws).

Sure you can ‘rent’ good behavior from children by rewarding them with treats and gold stars, but like I said earlier, it’s nothing more than bribing them to do what you want. They learn to perform for a profit, nothing else.


One could just as easily argue that you are "blackmailing" your child into behaving by punishing them. Alternatively, one could keep silly exaggerated terms out of the discussion and just evaluate arguments and suggestions on their own merits.

I hate to have to say this, but if you can't see the comparison, you'd make (or do make) an even worse parent then I thought. even the most unintelligent adults usually know that children learn by example - to hit a child as "punishment" is teaching them to hit people as "punishment" instead of using the correct procedures when someone does something wrong.

You say "If you spank a child for stealing and bad grades and passing notes in class and drawing cartoons and every little thing then you risk the danger of sending a confusing message to that child." ... don't you even see the nonsense in spanking after that sentence? To hit a child for stuff at home but not allow teachers to do so sends extremely confusing messages -

You say "And what I am saying is that a parent that spends all available time with a child will bring those grades up 99 44/100 % of the time. An easy plan that produces an honest and well educated person" - if only it were that simple. I agree that spending all available time with a child is very important - IF the time is spent contructively, instead of constant yelling and spanking. Unfortunately, for most parents it would seem it's just a way of finding excuses to punish a child: "we need to talk about your grades?" "why?" *spank* "Don't talk back to me" "I wasn't, I was just ask-" *spank* and so on... result = pissed off kid who doesn't give a shit about school.

I've volunteered at a Primary School. The usual way of dealing with a child was to shout at them, occasionally send them out the class. My way was different, I would say something like "how would you feel if..." and the child connected their behaviour to bad feelings and stopped it. And as I was to "get down to the children's level", I didn't even look authorative - I was wearing casual clothes. For younger kids, you simply need to follow the examples of Jo Frost (from "Supernanny") before you get into a situation where you don't know how to "control" your kids, because "no matter what you do" (usually shouting or hitting from what I've seen), the kids, not surprisingly to me, won't respond to it (also a reason why there needs to be a structure, set punishments for offences (not different every time as it's confusing) that need to be applied each time an offence happens, and why parents need to back each other up)

The method I am suggesting can easily result in never spanking a child.

I dont see how you are so confused about how easy it is to confuse a child.
The risk I am suggesting is a child getting the idea that there is only one type of punishment in this world (cheat on test-spank, steal-spank, act a fool-spank....... blow something up...hmmmm spank???!!! :eek: )

The supernanny type techniques that you suggest can be very effictive I believe. But at some point a parrent needs to know when to draw the line.

As suggested in an earlier post: If a child sees the parents are hitting each other or fighting with company, THEN, they can get the bad idea that violence is a tangable solution to everything. But if they are the only ones getting smaked for stealing that candy bar or slashing tires etc.. (crimes) Then I can't see the need to spank a child more that once or twice. But as I said, possibly never.

It's illegal where you are. It's not illegal everywhere.

It just one of the reasons why where I live is so much better than where so many other people live. We do not tolerate violence against children, against the weakest in society. For shame on the rest of you, is all I have to say.

I think that children should be beaten at irregular intervals. It was regular intervals, until someone pointed out that it might be better to keep them on their toes. I hate all this politically correct bullshit: the threat of violence, i.e., a good smack on the bottom, kept me in line, and if that failed, my dad might threaten to spank me on the bare bottom in public. That never happened, cause the embarassment is as powerful as the act.

a good number of problems in today's youth could be solved by a good smacking.

That sounds like the words of one English lord... who was it? Someone in power, anyway...
"There's nothing wrong with you that a good hanging wouldn't cure."
I'm sure that's true of a lot of us.

the punisment must be a punishment.

this a pretty stupid statement, but it's absolutely correct.
think about it.

every person, and every child, is different.
some things hurt someone more than others.

so, a punishment should be forged around the child personality.
you should not punish him because he did something bad, you should do something in order to let him understand not to do bad things again.

it's complicated.

you can have a child who likes watching tv become more good if he understand you will shut down it if he does bad things, but you can also have a child who gets beaten as punishment, still behave badly and not care about it.

it depends. and it's pointless to discuss it unless you are professionally studying it. And if you are, you aren't discussing it here.

so, well.

I got smacked as a child. Until I was about 5 or 6. The reasons were mainly because I kept misbehaving after being warned and punished in other ways. I remember being smacked exactly 5 times. Each time I deserved it, and was warned 3 times. I also had my mouth washed out with soap if I swore. I am not severely traumatised by either form of punishment, because they were administered very sparingly, and in such a way that I knew exactly what I was being punished for.

Physical punishments can be very effective if used sparingly as part of an overall discipline plan, that evolves as the child grows. By the time I was 6 I had grown out of smacking. So my parents found much more effective ways of punishing me at that age.

I’m personally very much against it, each parent must have their own style but when/if I have children than I’ll use a democratic punishment systems.

I’ve always believed that sitting a child in seclusion for several minutes with an explanation as to why then getting them to apologise and explain themselves what they did wrong and why it was wrong ingrains morality. It seems to build a more powerful internal conscience which can be references by the child once they’ve grown up in my opinion.

As opposed to more physical forms which, in my opinion, illustrate that: “power controls” so that one day they can rebel, violence is okay to keep anybody in-line, and that once the threat of punishment is taken away it’s perfectly okay to do the occasional evil thing… just as long as nobody sees. Overall, that seems to generate people more likely to hit their own children and people less likely to be introspective.

Of course, there are those few children which cannot be made moral by all the alternative methods so physical punishment is necessary... I went to school with quite a few of them.

I agree with everything except the last bit. The kind of kids that you are talking about are usually the ones where the alternative measures have never been tried.

I think I now know why rural areas have less crime than urban areas. I always thought it was because if you put too many rats in too small of a cage they attack each other. But that didn't fit because when urban people move to rural areas they bring the problems with them. They think the problem is geography and so they think the solution is 10 acres and a horse. But changing geogaphy only brings problems to the new environment.

After reading all of this, I am totally convinced that the reason rural areas have less crime has nothing to do with confinement or geography, it has everything to do with the 10,000 year old skill of husbandry. This also explains why as people become more generations away from agriculture the general crime rate goes up. People start trying to use logic instead of the ancient traditions that became traditions because they work in the natural world. Somebody writes a book 50 years ago and all of what mankind learned over tens of thousands of years is thrown out in a grand experiment. When crime, divorce, employment, drug use and other statistics that show a weakening of civilization begin to flow the wrong way we wonder what is happening, yet continue with the 50 year old experiment.

I keep hearing about beatings. I don't know of many occasions when people in husbandry every beat or abuse anything. Those people involved in the few occasions I know of failed as agribusinessmen. Out here in the rural areas no one beats anything. It would be against all economics as well as tradition. We want the things we work with to grow and prosper, that doesn't happen with anything that is abused. However, there is a balance which includes attention getting. This attention getting is a part of the training of all life at the natural level. Even your house cat swats at her kittens. She doesn't hurt them, she gets their attention. For millions of years this is how young have been trained. Now over a 50 year span we throw out those millions of years of nature and thousands of years of human development of civilization and wonder what is happening to society. (Maybe abortion and Gay marriage are to blame) (It couldn't be that we as a civilization are ignoring our very nature.)

And if you don't already give them pocket money, you can start giving them small "rewards" such as a few pence (or a few cents) for doing things around the house (helping with tidying up, etc) and they associate doing things that please Mumm/Daddy with getting a reward (could actually be as simple as a gold sticker, can be bough in most shops that sell stationery) - and it's not the same as a bribe, which is giving money to not be bad, rather than giving money to specifically do something good. You can even have a chart where they get a cross for each bad thing they do, encouraging them to be more good so get more stars and less crosses - works brilliantly in Nurseries (Kindergarten) and Primary Schools.

I've had to deal with these children also. As a teacher you can't ask a student to do something just because they may learn something---"Do we get a grade for it?" No "Well then I'm not going to do it" Please come on Saturday to help with the Boy Scout Fund Raiser so we can go to camp. "How much do I get paid." Nothing, we all get to go to camp. "I'm not going to go to any fund raiser where I'm not getting paid."

The examples could go on and on. A kid will not do anything just because it's the right thing to do.

My family is communist. From each according to his abilities, to each according to their need. You do your chores because it's the right thing to do. You receive from the family bank account according to your needs.

In case you're wondering. Yes, children get enough money to understand the use and limitations. Not so much that they don't have to save up for what they want, but not so little it means nothing. But they don't get it as a "wage".

Really. Sometimes, a slap or two are OK. But having to resort to corporal punishment is acknowledging that the parents have somehow failed in educating their kid. Non-corporal means of education are better.

It just one of the reasons why where I live is so much better than where so many other people live. We do not tolerate violence against children, against the weakest in society. For shame on the rest of you, is all I have to say.

Yes.

'Time outs' and 'naughty corners' and the like are much better forms of discipline.

Gogogo emotional and psychlogical abuse.


Not to mention the physical force used keeping an unwilling child on a 'naughty spot' will be many times more than that of a spank across the backside.

Yes.

'Time outs' and 'naughty corners' and the like are much better forms of discipline.

Gogogo emotional and psychlogical abuse.


Not to mention the physical force used keeping an unwilling child on a 'naughty spot' will be many times more than that of a spank across the backside.

Are you completely nuts? Time and time again, such methods have proved effective and less mentally damaging than assaulting a child. All you do is gently lift, then put them back. Stop trying to twist it into what it's not - it's not emotional or any other abuse, it's a non-violent way of teaching children that their behaviour is wrong, and similar methods are used perfectly (or almost perfectly) in good schools (stand in corner, sent out of room, loss of priveleges, etc).

Yes.

'Time outs' and 'naughty corners' and the like are much better forms of discipline.

Gogogo emotional and psychlogical abuse.


Not to mention the physical force used keeping an unwilling child on a 'naughty spot' will be many times more than that of a spank across the backside.

Don't be silly. That isn't psychological abuse.

This is. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is1C6iiS0YQ&eurl=)

Nothing wrong with it.
Heck i think it should apply to adults too.
If a guys(or girl(No gender discrimination here:p )) is slagging you off or really getting in your grill, why not introduce them to the floor?

However i wouldn't and do not condone that action taken upon 'children'.

Are you completely nuts? Time and time again, such methods have proved effective and less mentally damaging than assaulting a child. All you do is gently lift, then put them back. Stop trying to twist it into what it's not - it's not emotional or any other abuse, it's a non-violent way of teaching children that their behaviour is wrong, and similar methods are used perfectly (or almost perfectly) in good schools (stand in corner, sent out of room, loss of priveleges, etc).

The only time I have seen 'time-outs' are in that 'Supernanny' program, where both the parents AND the nanny used more and more force in placing the child on the naughty-spot, picking them up by the arm, dragging them there, holding them in place - physically dominating the child until they submitted.

I really don't understand the anti smacking mob?

Most people of my age(almost 40) got smacked as children. I certianly do not feel damaged by it, nor do I hate my Mum or Dad, nor do i feel I have any hangups about the way i was brought up.

Kids need to learn bouderies, and learn about the toughtness of the world. Smacking a child does no long lasting pysalogical damage.

I really don't understand the anti smacking mob?

Most people of my age(almost 40) got smacked as children. I certianly do not feel damaged by it, nor do I hate my Mum or Dad, nor do i feel I have any hangups about the way i was brought up.

Kids need to learn bouderies, and learn about the toughtness of the world. Smacking a child does no long lasting pysalogical damage.

I feel it's ineffective and wrong. I also feel it's a method that gets abused a lot of the time and the results of that abuse are bad for the child.

The only time I have seen 'time-outs' are in that 'Supernanny' program, where both the parents AND the nanny used more and more force in placing the child on the naughty-spot, picking them up by the arm, dragging them there, holding them in place - physically dominating the child until they submitted.

That's funny, since I remember several episodes where Jo Frost (aka Supernanny) discourages being physically forceful with the child. Methinks you are lying.

Peepelonia, even IF smacking didn't cause long-term damage to the child, it causes long-term damage to society by suggesting that violence is the correct or best way to solve problems.

I prefer punching children for amusement to smacking them for their own benefit. Slapping is for fags anyway.

I feel it's ineffective and wrong. I also feel it's a method that gets abused a lot of the time and the results of that abuse are bad for the child.

That's funny, since I remember several episodes where Jo Frost (aka Supernanny) discourages being physically forceful with the child. Methinks you are lying.

Peepelonia, even IF smacking didn't cause long-term damage to the child, it causes long-term damage to society by suggesting that violence is the correct or best way to solve problems.

If we turn the tables and take the example of time outs and reduction of benefits for the child, to the extreme example that the anti-spanking crowd pretends that spanking is, then when discussing the time out methodology would be talking about those parents that keep their kids locked in a dog kennel or boarded up room and feed them scraps through the holes in the box/wall until they 'learn their lesson' apparently, and are essentially prisoners in their own parents home, uneducated and abandoned... I would suggest that this too would be a bad lesson to teach our society and children. Time outs and deprivation of material goods can be abused, it is ineffective and wrong....