Originally posted by amannionto answer your question, i think the child associates the spank with their action, so a run out into the road followed by a spank is seen as something they should not have done...
Out of curiosity, how does spanking a child who runs out onto the road teach them not to do it?
I'm against the notion of spanking children. Having said that though, I have smacked my own kids at times. It's a method of last resort for me I guess - one when I've given up on anything else and my mind isn't working properly. I say that because it achieves ...[text shortened]... t's certainly not how I want them to remember me when I'm gone - as the dad who beat them.
can i just point out that though i do believe in spanking children, i'm not afraid to say i'm a hypocrite in this area, i have a son and have never spanked him, there's something that doesnt feel right to me about a grown man hitting a child.... though my wife ocassionally smacks him round the legs and to me that is done to teach him from right or wrong, not because she enjoys it or its done for no reason...
all i have to base my beliefs on in this area is the fact i was spanked as a child, its never done me any harm and i remember as a child knowing when this happened, i had crossed the line....
my only concern is what's next.... if smacking is abuse, isnt also shouting at the child...? doesnt this come under verbal abuse...? also, they say "the parent has lost control" once they smack, cant we also say that about shouting?
for anyone who says we need to sit the child down, talk softly, explain to the child, well... i guess they dont have kids of their own.... never come across a parent who has never - at least once - shouted
If the child is spanked immediately after they have done wrong, the wrongness can be effiectively associated with the spank, and the parent bears no grudges afterwards, spanking is fine. If I wait a few hours though, say that something is wrong "just because" and then stay angry at the kid for hours afterwards, the child will not see it as punishment but as the parent simply being cruel.
When my parents struck me, it was only ever as hard as it needed to be to cause a sharp pain which was gone in seconds (i.e. a slap on the wrist, literally), they always said exactly what I had done wrong as they slapped my wrist and did not continue to punish me after that, bearing no grudge. When I was old enough to be able to understand arguments (about 6 or 7, but it depends on the kid) they tapered off with the slapps and moved into discussing thigns I did wrong.
Trying to teach a child that they have done something wrong through words when they have not even got a fully formed vocabulary or fully developed social skills is ridiculous. Likewise, sending them to their room or putting them in the corner for long periods of time disconnects the punishment from the wrongdoing and makes the child believe you are just trying to hurt them. I'd much rather slap a child on the wrist than be responsible for punishing them mentally.
4 billion years of evolution have gone into us, teaching us that pain indicates a bad thing. To ignore that based on the ramblings of some hippy new age parents theories, which are only a generation old, so we don't yet know the effects would be irresponsible.
Originally posted by eatmybishopIn fact, I see shouting as worse than a smack, it's ironically much more aggressive. Fear is not a good way to teach a lesson. Just a firm voice that you only use when the child has done wrong should be enough in most cases.
to answer your question, i think the child associates the spank with their action, so a run out into the road followed by a spank is seen as something they should not have done...
can i just point out that though i do believe in spanking children, i'm not afraid to say i'm a hypocrite in this area, i have a son and have never spanked him, there's some ...[text shortened]... e kids of their own.... never come across a parent who has never - at least once - shouted
I think there is a big flaw in people understanding of the term abuse.
Originally posted by eatmybishopGive them a consequence to continuing this action which is something they won't like - time out, a favourite toy is removed, or whatever. It is quite possible to discipline and teach them limits and boundaries without hitting them.
...and what if the child refuses to go to their room... you have asked them, asked again.... told them.... told them again.... what does the parent do then?
Originally posted by eatmybishopyou could take them, if they get out of hand carry them, if they shout scream put your back to the door, easyer to repair a door than deal with the rebelious child later in life, tho it is best to start when they are in thier early years.
...and what if the child refuses to go to their room... you have asked them, asked again.... told them.... told them again.... what does the parent do then?
Originally posted by amannionMy brotehr, a red head by the way, was a stubborn little guy and talking wouldn't work, you try to get him with your "take his favourite toy away" and he'd laugh at you like he was Iran and you were the UN. That was when he was barely able to talk. Kids aren't dumb enough for blackmail to work. Kids think short-term, not long term, the promise of five minutes in the bold corner at some point in the future disconnects the punishment from the crime and they end up resenting the parent instead of learning from their mistake. I've seen it, becasue the thing they did wrong is punished over a prolonged period of time, with an implicit sense of a grudge being beared against them, the child resents the punishment rather than learns from it. It does them longer term harm.
Give them a consequence to continuing this action which is something they won't like - time out, a favourite toy is removed, or whatever. It is quite possible to discipline and teach them limits and boundaries without hitting them.
A quick short smack at the back of the knee at the instant they do something wrong, a stern but not raised voice, and immediate release of any grudge or continued bad feeling is the only way to go. Give them a prolonged go to your room type punishment befroe they're capable of linking the logic together (i.e. before about 6 or 7) then they will simply think you're being unfair. Which doesn't teach them anything.
Originally posted by whodeyIt is abuse when the purpose is not to teach the child. If you spank your child because you are angry and just want to hit something then that is abuse. My experience however is that children are best taught without any form of physical violence, and spanking or other physical punishment is almost always the 'lazy way out'.
Ok then, when does it become abuse?
I think it is better to teach that something is wrong for a good reason not that it is wrong because if you do it you will be punished. The day the punishment is lifted, the child (adult) thinks that it is no-longer wrong.
At university, the wildest girls were the ones who came from strict boarding schools.
Originally posted by agrysonSpot on. Req'd.
If the child is spanked immediately after they have done wrong, the wrongness can be effiectively associated with the spank, and the parent bears no grudges afterwards, spanking is fine. If I wait a few hours though, say that something is wrong "just because" and then stay angry at the kid for hours afterwards, the child will not see it as punishment but as ...[text shortened]... s, which are only a generation old, so we don't yet know the effects would be irresponsible.
I was always spanked as a child and i believe it is the way to go.
after spanking me though my father would give me a little talk to reassure me that he still loved me and all that stuff a child needs to hear.
and i agree with several of you, a child does not have the capability to connect time-out punishments with wrong doings until they get older.
but they are (or at least I was) able to connect a little pain on their butt with their actions.
Originally posted by agrysonI'm not talking about blackmail.
My brotehr, a red head by the way, was a stubborn little guy and talking wouldn't work, you try to get him with your "take his favourite toy away" and he'd laugh at you like he was Iran and you were the UN. That was when he was barely able to talk. Kids aren't dumb enough for blackmail to work. Kids think short-term, not long term, the promise of five minute ...[text shortened]... 7) then they will simply think you're being unfair. Which doesn't teach them anything.
There's a clear process going on here. They do something and there's a consequence associated with that. It's the same as a smack but without the smack.
I know my kids have always had a 'favourite' toy of one kind or another. To mess with that is horrific for them.
So, some sort of action that is clearly inappropriate gets a warning - do this again, and this event will occur. If their inappropriate action is repeated then you follow through.
I think the problem is that many parents are not firm, fair, and do not follow through. If this is the case, children don't learn anything and will of course continue to play up.
Originally posted by amannionLike I said, taking away a favourite toy or confining the child to a naughty corner or whatever, even if done immediately, lasts too long as a consequence. The child stops connecting it to the cause and simply gets the belief that the parent is unfair. Likewise, removing favourite toys is blackmail fromt he childs perspective.
I'm not talking about blackmail.
There's a clear process going on here. They do something and there's a consequence associated with that. It's the same as a smack but without the smack.
I know my kids have always had a 'favourite' toy of one kind or another. To mess with that is horrific for them.
So, some sort of action that is clearly inappropriate get ...[text shortened]... f this is the case, children don't learn anything and will of course continue to play up.
"Do what I say, or binky is put in the hole".
Instead of...
Child throws food at dog. Mum makes her mad face, spanks wrist, and says in a firm but not raised voice "Bold, don't do that again". Then switches off mad face and continues feeding.
The child can do nothing but connect one event to the other, their short term pain is linked to the short term cause. It's obvious to the child by the mothers change in attitude from nice to not nice to nice again that it is the throwing food that does it.
Whole thing is over in ten seconds. Take a kids favourite toy away, especially a young kid, after 3 minutes they've forgotten what they've done wrong in the first place and mum is just being mean.
Originally posted by agrysonSorry, that sounds too much like training a pet.
Like I said, taking away a favourite toy or confining the child to a naughty corner or whatever, even if done immediately, lasts too long as a consequence. The child stops connecting it to the cause and simply gets the belief that the parent is unfair. Likewise, removing favourite toys is blackmail fromt he childs perspective.
"Do what I say, or binky is p ...[text shortened]... they've forgotten what they've done wrong in the first place and mum is just being mean.
I'm all for training pets but I prefer to treat my kids a little differently.
Obviously I would tailor what I do to their age, but I much prefer working with the child and treating them - at least in some simple way - as if they're the equal of me.
So far it's worked pretty well for me.
The times when I have smacked my kids - minimal as they have been - have been due to my own frustration and anger, and I wouldn't say they've worked any better.
Maybe it's the teacher in me. I work with my own kids in the same - or similar - way to that I do with my students. Which is to develop a system for discipline that we all agree upon. No kid's too young to develop something similar - or at least that's been my experience.