Can You Smack Your Child?

[Greadius]

If you resort to hitting (or 'smacking') your child to teach them right & wrong you've failed as a parent. Of you've become too lazy to use methods which don't require violence.

If I smack and individual I'm still assaulting them, if I smack a child it becomes perfectly acceptable because... well, its a child?


We know, real world examples here, that children who were hit when they were young are no more disciplined than children who weren't. We also know that children thousands of children are raised every year without ever being hit, and are perfectly normal, disciplined, and responsible adults. So why are we claiming that hitting a child actually assists with this aspect of parenting?

Yes, we all realize hitting your child is much less effor than any of the other punishment and discipline methods. So aren't you just really defending corpral punishment to excuse your laziness as a parent?

 

[gr8ful wes]

Yeah, I am a lazy parent.

 

[jpowers]

Originally posted by gr8ful wes
And regarding rodgers post about smacking other children, Well, I would much prefer smacking their parents.

Here, here! (Or is it hear, hear!?). A child doesn't need to be disciplined with violence unless its parents know no other way. The parents who train a child to act like an animal in public should be the ones to be humiliated and punished.

 

[Ado]

Originally posted by Greadius

If you resort to hitting (or 'smacking') your child to teach them right & wrong you've failed as a parent. Of you've become too lazy to use methods which don't require violence.

[/B]

I admire your abilities as a parent. I would love to have our two sets of children together one day to see if any differences can be detected in respect to personality, confidence, etc.

Yes, I admit we smack our children, but only as a final resort. I was smacked as a child, did me no harm, and I would say it actually brought me around to the good side! I was probably borderline at one stage of becoming a real social misfit, but by getting a smack when it was warranted (and believe me it WAS!) made me understand that there are consequences to my actions.

Incidently I think smacking, particularly younger children, is more about the noise and the act of it, never, ever about actually causing pain. But no, not lazy - now our eldest is at an age when she can be spoken to and understand to some degree, we find we don't smack often at all - but she knows if we start counting, she has until '3' to behave.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Ado
Yes, I admit we smack our children, but only as a final resort. I was smacked as a child, did me no harm, and I would say it actually brought me around to the good side!

How can you say it did you no harm? You're willing to hit your own child; isn't that harm enough?

Originally posted by Ado
Incidently I think smacking, particularly younger children, is more about the noise and the act of it, never, ever about actually causing pain.

If its about the noise, yell at them.

If it has nothing to do with causing pain, then don't touch them at all. Clap your hands near their ears causes noise too, but that isn't a popular form of punishment.

If its not about causing them pain, why are you hitting them?

Originally posted by Ado
But no, not lazy - now our eldest is at an age when she can be spoken to and understand to some degree, we find we don't smack often at all - but she knows if we start counting, she has until '3' to behave.

And then you give up and start hitting.
Yeah, great lessons for the future. I'm sure she'll justify being smacked and continue to hit her children. The cycle of violence continues.

 

[Perfection]

I agree, children are ignorent not stupid; they absorb a lot of knowledge with their sponge like brains. When you hit them it teaches them that voilence is the answer. One thing people forget is although children are uncoordnated and ignorent they absorb knowledge very quickly.

 

[Portuguese]

1st, I vote "other".

It's OK, but it must be:
- deserved
- understood by the child (or the effect will be nule...)
- considering it's age
- not-causing injuries (specially perma-ones)
- not traumatic
- ...

So, it's almost an art to smack the right time, for the right reason, in the right proportion. Use it only if you're sure of you gonna do and never under an hot-boiled head. Do it after thinking and not under "dark" feelings.

 

[Leonel]

Oh yes definately. Kids should get spanked for being naughty.

I remember when I was a kid I was with my mom and dad and I yelled "WHAT THE F***ING S*** IS GOING ON?" when I was refering to the helicoptors flying back and forth by my old apartments balcony. My mom raced to me at a lightning speed and smacked my mouth before I could even begin to say the word GOING in that sentence. I never swear infront of my parents anymore. Even today when I'm all grown up and my parents use swear words when talking about stuff to me, I still don't swear infront of them! It's like hard wired into my personality. I even try to swear infront of my parents, yet nothing.

Yupyup. BUT spanking should be in moderation.

 

[Ado]

Originally posted by Greadius
How can you say it did you no harm? You're willing to hit your own child; isn't that harm enough?

If its about the noise, yell at them.

If it has nothing to do with causing pain, then don't touch them at all. Clap your hands near their ears causes noise too, but that isn't a popular form of punishment.

If its not about causing them pain, why are you hitting them?

And then you give up and start hitting.
Yeah, great lessons for the future. I'm sure she'll justify being smacked and continue to hit her children. The cycle of violence continues.

No - having thought about the correct way to discipline my children, I use smacking as a final option. I am not beating them senseless to cause agony, I think you have no concept of what I'm talking about. You are black and white and unable to comprehend.

So bellowing at my children is OK? There is no psychological damage possible through screaming at children? I'm pleased for you if your children responded to this from an early age.

But no, I don't need to "give up and start hitting". She knows when she is misbehaving, and being a little bit smarter than your hippy mind seems to allow, I manage to time the countdown to make sure she doesn't get smacked. I do not enjoy smacking, it breaks my heart, but I will not have my children running rampant at an older age because I was too soft to make a hard decision.

And labelling this as violence confirms that you do not understand. It's about moderation. I'm sure that most of us saw the images of that sick mother in the US beating her child in the car - that's not discipline, that's violence.

Did you discuss your discipline methods with your partner before you had children? Or did you both just decide to not smack separately?

 

[ozscott75]

I was very rarely smacked as a child. Even less often as an adult.

It wasn't being smacked, it was the fear of being smacked. I now know that my parents hated the few times smacking was necessary, but used the threat of smacking as a deterrent. The same deterrent was used by my teachers, I wasn't aware then that they weren't allowed to smack me. I was always worried that if a teacher smacked me and Dad found out, he'd smack me again .

One of my sisters has two children, they rarely get smacked, but the deterrent is still there. Often warning of a smack will have the desired results.

My other sister is a teacher, she teaches 5 year olds that are aware they can't be touched, this breeds a lack of respect. My sister would never hit a student, but the threat has disappeared.

Even worse are the parents who refuse to discipline their children. Discipline doesn't necessarily mean smacking, but the smile and "Oh he's out of control, but what can you do?" remarks get on my nerves.

Children are like pets, if they're not trained how to behave, they impact on other peoples lives.

I think the answer, with the pets and the children, when they are misbehaving is to smack the parent.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Ado
I am not beating them senseless to cause agony, I think you have no concept of what I'm talking about. You are black and white and unable to comprehend.

I didn't say there weren't different degrees of hitting your child. You happen to believe that hitting your child is okay if they've frustrated you enough. There is such a thing as violence and no-violence, however, and very little room for gray area. Likewise, there is such a thing as hitting/smacking and not hitting/smacking. Those are black & white alternatives. There is no 'kind of hitting'.

Originally posted by Ado
So bellowing at my children is OK? There is no psychological damage possible through screaming at children?

If you're worried about causing psychological damage to your children you probably shouldn't be hitting them.
And that wasn't the point at all. You said it was the noise, not the hitting, that got the job done, and I was suggesting (in a sarcastic method to undermine your point) that you could simply clap at your children to gain the same noise effects. The implication was that you were using the noise excuse to deflect from the fact that it IS the pain you're using to discipline, and not the noise.

Originally posted by Ado
I do not enjoy smacking, it breaks my heart

Then stop doing it.

Originally posted by Ado
but I will not have my children running rampant at an older age because I was too soft to make a hard decision.

It isn't about being soft. There are millions of children who were never hit by their parents and turn out fine; likewise, there are millions of children who were hit and don't. There is no direct correllation between hitting and discipline.

Hitting is your easy way out, not a guaranteed path to a disciplined child.

Originally posted by Ado
And labelling this as violence confirms that you do not understand. It's about moderation.

There are degrees of violence, but using force in any means, no matter how you want to label it doesn't excuse it.

When you smack an adult, it is assault.
When you smack you child, its abuse.
When you smack your child for punishment, its perfectly acceptable.

You think this is a consistant way of managing your violence quotient?

 

[HotDog Fish]

Alll this talk of being smacked as a child brings back memories for me, when I was a young lad I used to very inqustive and always looking for this to explore and do, now with hindsight I see that I was also spoiled, callous, arrogant and selfish as most children are. But anyways when I was 3 or so I was always getting into to trouble with screwing up, I also seemed to do something wrong and now looking back I can see why my mother was constantly exasperated. But I disinctly remember what she did, (she still does this) she never hit me, she never told me to go to my room or anything of the sort she LECTURED ME, and so did my grandmother (and grandfather, I always used to go to their house), they would go on and on and on and on for up to 30 minutes, never stopping and constantly going over what I did wrong OVER AND OVER AGAIN until I could comprehend what they where saying. And when I looked back I think it was in my best interest, I can see now that just hitting a kid as a deterrant is not enough, he still won't understand the concept but if you explain to him non stop FOR A VERY LONG time he will, and when it was over though my mom would always the next day and apoligize and hug me and told me not to do it again. So my conclusion is there are other options than hitting or not doing anything, just lecture 'em to death!

 

[Eklektikos]

Originally posted by Greadius
When you smack an adult, it is assault.
When you smack you child, its abuse.
When you smack your child for punishment, its perfectly acceptable.

Correction: beating the crap out of a child is abuse. Administering a smack to a child to let it know it has crossed the line is far from the same thing.

In most cases I believe it is far from the "easy" option in the eyes of parents, but damned hard for them to bring themselves to do. Causing discomfiture and upset to one you love without condition cannot be an easy thing. I also believe that your assertion that smacking is for punishment is flawed - smacking when used properly is a form of education that tells the child that they should not repeat their mistake or misdeed again. I repeat that which I have been implying and which Padma pointed out explictly, that a young child is not yet capable of the necessary levels of reason to comprehend the gravity of a purely verbal warning. The shock of a smack, however, will get the message through.

 

[ejday]

Originally posted by TheStinger
the IDF would blow his brains out

As Tony Soprano might say: that's not "smacking," it's "whacking."

 

[ejday]

Hm.
Conditioning is education’s weak sister…

Originally posted by DamnCommie
I'll play a little devil's advocate here because while I certainly do NOT think it should be illegal, I don't think disciplining children physically is right.
Now I have no objection when it's the fire or light socket example, but when used as a punishment it has been proven time and again to be inneffective, particularly when compared with postive reinforcement.

I agree. Conditioning is best reserved for cardiovascular health, not cognitive models. It is acceptable when no other form of communication is possible (the person is mentally unable to comprehend or time constraints prevent rational explanation, ie; junior is reaching for the fire).

Originally posted by DamnCommie
Basically, what you are teaching the child with negative reinforcement is to behave because they fear the punishment you will inflict upon them. It teaches nothing about why a given action is right or wrong, and so will have no bearing on their future behavior. It doesn't teach them to behave, it just teaches them to behave when you are around to punish them.

Absolutely true. With corporal punishment, discipline is based on Pavlovian avoidance instead of a weighted decision. This is doubly true when the smack is accompanied by a “because I said so” warning instead of an explanation of causality. The child now associates boiling water with a smack instead of third degree burns and skin grafting. In effect, arbitrary punishment reduces self-sufficiency of the child and increases the dependency on the parents – they have to dole out a lesson for each new behavior that should be discouraged.

Originally posted by DamnCommie
Using physical forms of punishment has also been shown to increase violent behavior in kids. It teaches them that if someone behaves in a way they don't like, the proper response is to hit them. They don't understand the difference between a gentle spanking and hauling off & belting another kid.

I give average kids a little more credit to being able make a differentiation. OTOH, there’s a thin line between such “regular discipline” and physical abuse. In addition, these formative lessons are also the foundation of imprinting and potentially continuing a cycle of domestic violence. Everybody knows that foreign violence is preferred by American pediatricians, 4 to 1.
( ).

Originally posted by DamnCommie
Now I'm not saying children should never be punished, because that's clearly ludicrous, but timeouts have been shown to have just as much an effect as spankings in innfluencing a childs behavior. Although neither work as well as the hope of a reward for good behavior that comes from positive reinforcement.
That said, I still don't think spanking is anywhere near harmful enough to warrant a law against it.

I’m not sure I’d go with “timeouts.” For that matter, what is a “timeout”? I don’t really know how “timeout”’s would be executed. Hm. A little strong. How they'd be… applied.

• I’d say, whenever possible, the best lessons include the “why” in relation to the child and the world around them. Get them to walk “a mile in the other person’s shoes” (and keeping the lesson directly related to the issue may require a little creativity on the parents’ part).
• At least demonstrate to them, without harm, what the consequences of their actions would be, even at risk of disturbing their little psyche… Such as: showing them a medical picture of a burned arm when telling them why to be careful around fire (or taking them to the burn ward if the lesson doesn’t seem to stick).
• I’m a firm believer of taking teen twerps to a police impound site to show them a crumpled car when they’re training for a driver’s license. If there is a risk that the child may be exposed to alcohol when they’re out on their own (and these days, that’s hard to avoid), I might take them to the morgue for a look at a body after it was ejected through the windshield of said car.

They are harsh lessons, perhaps, but less harsh than burying them. Don’t let your children repeat your mistakes. Educate them (...so they can go out and make entirely new mistakes).

But, hey, that's just one guy’s opinion.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Eklektikos
Correction: beating the crap out of a child is abuse. Administering a smack to a child to let it know it has crossed the line is far from the same thing.

I was using the "You come home from work and smack the child for standing there" example, which is why I prefaced the child-beating which is socially acceptable with the 'your child did something you don't like'.

Originally posted by Eklektikos
In most cases I believe it is far from the "easy" option in the eyes of parents, but damned hard for them to bring themselves to do. Causing discomfiture and upset to one you love without condition cannot be an easy thing.

My heart bleeds for them. Really, it does. Hitting their child has to tear them up inside.
I have a wonderful solution too. If they stop hitting their child, they can stop making that choice. Everybody wins!

Originally posted by Eklektikos
I also believe that your assertion that smacking is for punishment is flawed - smacking when used properly is a form of education that tells the child that they should not repeat their mistake or misdeed again.

So we could teach our children in schools by beatings if they don't do well on a test?
Its educational, after all.

This is one of those cases where you're applying some sort of special distinction to hitting a child that differentiates it from hitting an adult. An adult can be 'educated' in this matter as well, but society has found that it is just a bad way of dealing with people, and there are better ways of communicating. Likewise, the MILLIONS & MILLIONS of children who are NEVER hit and turn out just as well as children who recieve corpral punishment ought to tell us that maybe, just MAYBE, the whole hitting thing is really unnecessary and there are other options.
Yet some parents still opt for the smacking. My conclusion is that they do it to justify the fact that THEY were hit as children, or because its a way for them to channel their negative emotions about exasberation to their childs actions on to them.

Additionally, the preface 'when used properly' is essentially justification for the fact that most of these 'smackings' probably aren't used properly, and over the hundreads of times it'll happen in a childs life AND the fact that the parent is usually frustrated/angry with the child when the 'education' occurs means chances are they'll go too far at one point or another. They are humans, and they can't do it properly all the time.

So, doing a quick risk/benefit analysis, we see that the benefits are all together inconclusive since there is no correllation between a childs success/behavior as an adult and their recipient of corpral punishment... so we gain nothing.
Loss if not 'done properly', in an objective sense of course, every single time it is administered: you just beat your child. Congratulations!

Originally posted by Eklektikos
I repeat that which I have been implying and which Padma pointed out explictly, that a young child is not yet capable of the necessary levels of reason to comprehend the gravity of a purely verbal warning. The shock of a smack, however, will get the message through.

I think you're underestimating the intelligence of children.
But beside that point, if shock value is all we're going for (as compared to 'noise' value or 'education'), there are many, many, many ways to shock a child that don't involve hitting them.

 

[allan2]

How do you discipline your children, Greadius?

***

I agree it is okay. I think it only works up to a certain age though, after that other punishments like grounding or taking away valued privileges work more effectively. At least that's how it was with me growing up. But I don't have kids yet. I DO know that no ONE method is a cure-all for everything, and every child. As a loving parent, as you get to know your child you should get a feel for what works best and what doesn't.

By the way, I too can see a difference between a spanking that is deliberate and serves a purpose, versus whacking a kid because you're pissed off at the world. My parents did the former--they NEVER did the latter. And obviously I've figured out the difference, as I suspect do many kids, so we're not repeating any tragic cycle of violence--save us the hyper-liberal hysterics, PLEASE!

P.S. Laws against this will just create more "criminals" where none existed before....

 

[allan2]

Originally posted by Greadius
Likewise, the MILLIONS & MILLIONS of children who are NEVER hit and turn out just as well as children who recieve corpral punishment ought to tell us that maybe, just MAYBE, the whole hitting thing is really unnecessary and there are other options.

Is this one of those "95% of statistics made up on the spot"?

Besides, as I said above, different methods probably work for different kids. As a parent (you ARE, aren't you, since you seem to know better than a lot of people about this, or at least put on an air like you do), too, you should know that there is no definitive guidebook to parenting, that it is mainly a hands-on (pardon the pun!) learning process. I'm NOT a parent, and yet I know this.

Criminalizing parents with very good intentions, even ones who only spank when NOTHING ELSE HAS WORKED for whatever reason with that particular child (remember, they're not all the same), and do it harmlessly, is not only foolishly not seeing the forest for the trees, but will likely end up in more children growing up mving around in foster homes and state institutions--talk about screwing a kid up!

Additionally, the preface 'when used properly' is essentially justification for the fact that most of these 'smackings' probably aren't used properly, and over the hundreads of times it'll happen in a childs life AND the fact that the parent is usually frustrated/angry with the child when the 'education' occurs means chances are they'll go too far at one point or another. They are humans, and they can't do it properly all the time.

So we draw a line where it becomes criminal--physical injuries may be where--and go with that. Cars aren't always properly used all the time either, so what do we do? We prosecute WHEN THEY ARE NOT PROPERLY USED! It isn't rocket science....

So, doing a quick risk/benefit analysis, we see that the benefits are all together inconclusive since there is no correllation between a childs success/behavior as an adult and their recipient of corpral punishment... so we gain nothing.
Loss if not 'done properly', in an objective sense of course, every single time it is administered: you just beat your child. Congratulations!

Tell me, do you fancy "solving" ALL of life's problems and questions via math and spreadsheets?

I think you're underestimating the intelligence of children.

Again, different children are different. "Black and white" will trap you sometimes, sometimes you gotta be flexible....

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by allan2
Is this one of those "95% of statistics made up on the spot"?

Educated guess.
Do you know a lot of decent people? You're assume they've all been smacked?
Plus it wasn't a statistic, it was a guess. I'm hoping there are that many adults worldwide that were spared from their parents violent tendancies...

Originally posted by allan2
Besides, as I said above, different methods probably work for different kids.

Undoubtedly, but can't we assume that there are many kids who are being hit who could turn into sound adults without it?
I mean, how do we know what methods work? I know parents who simply won't do it, and it doesn't matter what the child does. I know adults who were raised the same way. They aren't any worse for ware.
Basically, how do we know that this method is have any effect whatsoever? I've heard it touted as the 'last possible option', but that implies to me that the parents are giving up; they've tried 'everything' else, it hasn't worked, so they're just going to give up and start swinging.

Originally posted by allan2
Criminalizing parents with very good intentions, even ones who only spank when NOTHING ELSE HAS WORKED for whatever reason with that particular child

1. I never mentioned criminalizing, it wouldn't be worth the enforcement. I'm trying to convince them its wrong.
2. You're making two false assumptions here: one, that parents only enduce the punishment when NOTHING else has worked. Considering the, literally, hundreads of options parents have I'm having difficulty believing all others were attempted. Two, you're assuming that parents use the same criteria before hitting. How do you know its not the first option? How do you know they didn't give a half-hearted effort to the more dfficult methods, determined they weren't working good enough, and just went with the hitting?
Every parent who uses it will swear upon their grave it isn't for the pain, they tried EVERYTHING else (which, amazingly, they managed to do in a short enough time span that the child still connected the 'crime' with the 'punishment'), and nothing else worked but THIS WILL. And they'll also insist at twice the ferociousness that they always did it in the most reasonable and fair manner AND their children UNDERSTOOD this (even though they were unable to get their child to understand what they weren't supposed to do, they're certain they got the child to understand why they were hit).
Anything less would be admitting they were a bad parent.

Originally posted by allan2
Tell me, do you fancy "solving" ALL of life's problems and questions via math and spreadsheets?

No, I prefer emotions and feelings, but sometimes have to fallback to less desirable methods.

Originally posted by allan2
Again, different children are different. "Black and white" will trap you sometimes, sometimes you gotta be flexible....

Yet the idea of clapping at your child was immediately dismissed.
Hitting a child isn't being flexible, its pidgeon holing you into a form of punishment. Now everytime your child does something wrong and you've expended the amount of effort your willing to in order to curb the behavior without success you just opt for hitting. The child may never understand, but at least they're scared enough of you to stop them from repeating the behavior (and causing all the discomfort you suffered when they do).

I'm not an idealist, and in all my other dozens of arguements here I've never opted for the high-road when I believe its even a remotely unattainable solution. But this isn't the case: we know kids can be raised well without corpral punishment. Therefor, the only arguement FOR it must include some kind of intrinsic value for the partcipant. In most cases, it has to do with the fact that they were hit as a child, and are mimicing their parents.

 

[allan2]

Fair enough Greadius (at least I'm glad you're not one of those busybody nutcases who want to BAN it).

Couple things though. First of all, there may be literally "hundreds" of ways to discipline a child in a given situation, but do you think parents can first of all, KNOW all those ways (again, where's the handbook?)? And secondly, sometimes you need a SURE way, because what he does might be dangerous. And so you have no time for experimentation, so you go with what you know. Different people know different things, many know spanking because it worked on them. If you know a more "enlightened" way, fine for you. But don't insult parents who use spanking, by implying they are sadistic--they most of the time are NOT. (I don't really know if that's your intention, but by using the verb "hit" to mean spanking, like you do, while TECHNICALLY correct, implies a different connoted meaning and you know it.)

I don't like the use of the verb "smack" in this thread, btw. I see a BIG difference between spanking a child (a deliberate, reasoned act), and "smacking" or "hitting" a child (generally more a reaction than an act of discipline). A LOT of people here see the difference too (I suspect the British may use "smack" like we use "spank" so its use here may be merely a linguistic difference), so analyze it all you want, deconstruct it all you want, but common sense, I think, will still win in the end.

Besides, proper spanking has not harmed me (and if you give a patronizing "you're just rationalizing your past" like some other so-and-so here, I'll take a giant sh*t on it). It is one method of discipline, neither better or worse than others.

Besides, law or not, if an adult applies that little force to another adult, if he presses charges the judge will probably laugh in his face. Or he should, there's enough SERIOUS work to do....

Again, if you hit and cause physical injury, that's a different thing entirely!

How did your parents discipline you? And again, how do you discipline your kids? I'm curious.