Spanking has never occurred in my house, nor will it. I have a daughter (4.5) and son (1.5).
Originally posted by GenghisK:
A last thing. You will surely yell but you can't deny that because it's (unfortunately) the truth. Most of parents who say "I don't spank because it's horrible" are lying. They are too lazy too educate their kids. Most of them don't even have the sense of responsibilities so how do you want them to teach their offspring.
You can't build solid building on sand... If even the parents aren't well educated, they can't transmit anything good to their heirs.
<u>RESTRIANT DOES NOT EQUAL APATHY</u>
I don't spank because I feel the message it teaches is directly opposed to what I want my children to learn. Doing it just doesn't make any sense to me. <u>GK:</u> I'm not lying and (based on what you've seen of me here) do I seem "too lazy to educate my kids" or otherwise uneducated to you? Fortunately, this is not "the truth", as you say. And I am not yelling, but just stating. I say that most people who consciously forbid spanking in their homes demonstrate they are actually thinking of new & sometimes better ways to handle situations. At the opposite end of the spectrum, those who are performing no discipline at all probably
are too lazy ... but then they'd be too lazy to even express an opinion on spanking (like "it's horrible") because they never gave it any thought. I, and others I know, have given it
lots of thought, sometimes daily, and just choose differently.
<u>To All (not just GK):</u> Building on something I mentioned in another thread, just because people do nearly the opposite of you, does not necessarily mean they know less or are thinking less. What most people never see is that
some people who do the opposite know/think less and
some know/think
MORE or just
DIFFERENTLY ... but SO much more or differently that, without your asking & learning, you just don't grasp it, so it looks like craziness from your vantage point. But that has more to do with your vantage point than what actually "is". With some humility, you may learn something valuable you never would have considered otherwise. I do not build on sand, but I feel I've found something better than traditional concrete. Just because it's not "what everybody else is doing" or "what you experienced in the past" doesn't make it bad. I feel there's too much reliance on "what happened in the past" and not enough on "how can I improve this" and "what can I create right now or in the future".
<u>THINKING ABOUT WHAT IT TEACHES</u>
Actions speak louder than words. If I keep
speaking, "Don't hit your brother," and "Don't hit your friends or other kids," and "Don't even try to hit me when I'm not doing what you want," and then my
action is to hit them when they're not doing what I want, which is more likely to sink in? This is a no-brainer.
My daughter imitates what we do to her little brother. If we talk to him all cutesy, she talks to him the same way (a great mimic BTW). She also knows what he's not allowed to do and tries to stop him for us (trying to do the right thing). If she saw us hitting him when he did something we didn't like, she would see that it's OK to hit him whenever he did something SHE didn't like. And if we hit her for the same reason (she's someone smaller than us, so we can) , she would see it's OK to hit someone smaller than her when she feels like it, because she can. Also, if I hit her and then hug her later and tell her that I love her and it's OK, what I'm showing her is that it's OK to get hit by someone who says they love you. I feel that just sets her up for accepting an abusive relationship later, if she were to run across one. Ever wonder why women keep going back to that? Perhaps this is part of the answer. Yes, maybe everyone here "turned out OK", but those who didn't aren't on this site and we don't know if their numbers are more or less. Maybe we're the lucky ones and not the norm.
<u>REDEFINING "NECESSARY"</u>
There's only one time I've ever physically struck either of my children: a slap on the hand (rather light actually) when the boy reached for the electric outlet and yelling STOP and NO and moving his hand away didn't work (yelling alone worked on the girl). As I said, to strike or not to strike can be a daily decision. In that moment, I decided that striking my son was more desirable then watching him get fried. And since I had never struck him in any way before, the light tap got his attention. He's old enough now to point to the outlet and say "hot", something he has experienced as undesirable in
other forms. I've encountered other moments where I've been tempted to strike but never went through with it, and I have 2 of the most well-behaved kids I could ask for (I get many positive comments for it when we go out in public).
<u>THE GOAL</u>
So if I don't spank, how do I control my children? Well, I don't "control" my children, I guide them. I don't want children who do what I say just because I say so. I want children who will think for themselves, and the earlier they start, the better it is for them. I want them to do what I say because they understand the reasoning. Otherwise, I'd be raising robots who'd be lost without someone telling them what they're allowed to do. The action I want them to take in life in order to get what they want: negotiation and persuasion (as opposed to force and violence). Quiet strength vs desperate resorts to primitive measures. For me to teach that, I have to do it (with them and with others around them) and resort to manipulation (physical, mental or emotional) only when there is absolutely no other choice left (rarely). In fact, it is only when they resort to force and violence that they need to receive any correction from me (at least I can't think of another reason at this moment). As long as they are negotiating civilly and following through on the "deals" we make, there is no need for other rules and there are almost no restrictions ... in other words, as close to "freedom to be" and "choosing their own path" as a young child can get to. This is what I want to provide for my children.
<u>LET THE PUNISHMENT FIT THEIR PERCEPTION</u>
So what about when they cross the boundaries? What happens when they violate their agreement to not hit anyone (each other or young ones will even swing at parents)? When positive reinforcement for controlling themselves (a challenging task, but worth it) doesn't work, then negative punishment seems the only other choice. Negative punishment in my house is defined by something they don't like. If they don't mind being sent to their room, then that's not a punishment or deterrent and we don't use it. And the degree of violation translates into the degree they don't like something. If ice cream is the most important thing in the world to them, that's what we go after for the worst offences. Replace "ice cream" with "TV" or whatever is most important to THEM (not you). It may not sound like a match, but you have to look at it from their POV. Put yourself in their world. If ice cream truly is the most important thing in the world to them, then revocation thereof is one of the worst things that can happen to them at this point in their little lives. If there's something worse that does not physically hurt them, then I go after that. If they violate my #1 priority when they agreed not to, then I remove their #1 priority. Anything else would not be an equitable punishment ... they'd think, "this isn't so bad, at least they didn't go after what's MOST important to me." And the effectiveness is obvious: if we chose wisely, they will not repeat (until they forget). For my son, who thrives on moving freely about the house, being placed in the playpen for "throwing" serves a dual purpose: keeps him from throwing anything for a while and restricts him, which he
HATES. After trying other methods and getting no results, this one seems to work for him right now because he clearly refrains from throwing for quite a while afterwards. This is as much success as one can expect with a 1.5 year old. Please note that when other non-violent methods failed, we did not give up and stop thinking and resort to striking him. We keep thinking and trying and thinking and trying until we run out of ideas, and we've never run out yet. Closing off striking as a possibility just forces one to consider other options ... it makes one have to think about it more, not less.
<u>WHAT ABOUT EXTREMES?</u>
And what if they're really off-the-wall and "uncontrollable"? What if they try to go get the ice cream by force or watch the TV anyway or won't stay in their room or in the "time-out chair"? THEN, mild physical enforcement is necessary, otherwise the entire structure breaks down. The deals are the deals and avoiding physical measures does not mean they are allowed to be broken. If I have to physically block my daughter from the refrigerator or from leaving her room, I do so (and I rarely have to). If I have to pick her up to get her in there, I do so. If I have to gently but firmly hold her down in the "time-out chair", I do so. None of these extra physical measures requires harm to the child. If I was dealing with a 13-year old son who was hitting me, I would not hit him back. I'd restrain him physically or otherwise (i.e., lock him in a room) until I could reason with him, if possible. If I couldn't muster enough strength to restrain, I'd enlist help. If I couldn't do that, and I was dealing with a violent teen, I wouldn't hesitate to call the police for assistance. But I'm projecting here. I'd know what to do in the moment. But if I was dealing with a 13-year old who was that bad, I would have apparently already messed up with him a long time ago anyway.
<u>SEPERATING PUNISHMENT FROM UNDERSTANDING & IDENTIFICATION</u>
But sometimes, esp. when they're young, my goal is not so much punishment but an understanding of what they have done. My daughter pushes my son down the stairs, apparently without even thinking about it. If she already obviously feels bad afterwards about hurting her brother, then she understands what she did and only punishment may be necessary. If she truly doesn't understand and that was a first offence, punishment doesn't make sense. And if she did it again, punishment is definitely necessary. But if she's acting like everything is OK, then she doesn't really get what she did and punishment isn't going to help. I try to probe to find out if she really gets it. If she doesn't, I may stand her at the top of the stairs and pretend to push her down ... I mean really make her feel like she's going to fall (and experience the same thing as her brother). Sometimes verbal communication just doesn't translate well enough. Once she experiences what she caused (or comes pretty darn close to experiencing it), then she understands how much that would hurt her and what her brother must have felt. If she doesn't like it, don't do it to another. Kids can understand that. Early learning of "do unto others".
Spiff <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/scan.gif" border=0>
[This message has been edited by SpacemanSpiff (edited July 10, 2001).]
