Shouting is the new spanking

Remove all ads!

As has been mentioned, there is a profound difference between

A: smacking your kid to get his/her attention and remind them that there are consequences for defiance, disobedience, and bad behavour in general.

and

B: Abusing the child to the point of injury or serious pain.

Eggheads who try to equate the two lose my respect completely. I have seen as a high school teacher the tragic outcome of children raised in a consequence free environment, having been brought up with the belief that they can do whatever the hell they want without regard for the laws of the land, rules of the institution, or even the laws of physics.

Two girls in particular come to mind. They were totally self absorbed brats, and their parents were weak willed jellyfish who never had any structure of any sort in their homes. These kids were totally out of control, and a nightmare to every class they attended. Within two years of the time I first met them, each girl was involved in seperate single car rollovers. Both girls were driving in excess of 170km on icy roads. Both died. What a waste.

Am I saying that spankings or yelling would have been the solutions here -- of course not. I'm not a douchebag. What I am saying is that SOME structure at home might have instilled some personal responsibility and self control in these girls. To cite an example from here, Chandos is able to have some structure in his house without spankings. Kudos to him. But the fact is that every family is different, and every kid is different, and I don't like the idea of soft and fuzzy feelgood people making it difficult for decent people to implement structure and discipline in their homes. They do this by criminalizing everything that some University researcher said was "bad" in a paper, not realizing that those papers are not the end all and be all of reality.

I mean, seriously. According to these idiots (it depends on the idiot) --

(Year 1) Spanking is abuse. Speak sharply to the child.

(2 years later) Yelling or sharp speaking is now abuse. Use a time out instead.

(2 years later) Time outs are also abuse. Remove privileges instead.

(2 years later) Removal of privileges is now abuse. . . . .

When will the stupidity end?

 

Isn't that the purpose of a spanking? A spanking uses a slight amount of pain to emphasize a point. Inflicting pain is not necessarily the issue, the sting of a spanking should end in a few minutes. For very small children (i.e., ones in diapers) the spanking really shouldn't be painful at all -- it's just a loud pop on the diaper with a little soft (it doesn't take much) follow through to move the child slightly (hold on the little one, don't let them fall and get injured), otherwise you may as well just clap next to them (which does nothing except refocus their attention for a second).

As many people have pointed out, there is a huge difference between a spanking and a beating. A little tidbit I've picked up over the years -- if you're angry and strike your child, it's child abuse. Any physical element of punishment must be done when you're calm and no longer emotionally attached to the incident.

 

I have a son who turned 2 in August. While I have never hit him, sometimes as a parent, you just lose it. It's impossible not to yell from time to time, especially when the child is doing something really, really bad. Take last night as an example.

There are three current play activities that Jack really enjoys. His overall likes and dislikes changes on a weekly (or sometimes even daily) basis, but three games he has liked for the past several months have stood out: Playing catch with a small version of a football or baseball, playing with his matchbox cars, and playing catch with a frizbee.

(Even though Jack is only a little over two, he has remarkably good hand-eye coordination for a child his age. He can throw and catch a ball with a high degree of accuracy from a good 10-12 feet away. He can successfully hit a thrown toy baseball with a toy baseball bat about 50% of the time. And he can even throw and catch a frizbee with moderate accuracy from about 10-12 feet away.)

Well, last night he wanted to play catch with a frizbee. We have three frizbees - a yellow one, an orange one, and a green one. He specifically wanted to play catch with the GREEN one. The coversation went as follows, with Jack's words typed phonetically:

Dad! Geen fribee catch!

Let's get it out of your toybox. (I search in toybox.) Hmmm... Jack I don't see the green frizbee in here.

Geen fribee catch!

Oh, I know, let's use this orange frizbee, I bet this one works really well.

NO NO NO! Geen fribee catch.

Oh look, here's the yellow one we can play with

NO NO NO! Geen fribee!

OK, let me check a few other places. Maybe it got stuck behind something when you were playing with it. Maybe it went behind the couch. (It didn't.) Maybe it fell behind or under the toybox. (It didn't.) Maybe you threw it down the basement stairs. (He's done that in the past, but didn't this time.) Jack, I cannot find the green frizbee.

Geen fribee catch!

I don't have it, and I can't find it!

Geen fribee catch now!

I don't know where it is! Why don't you look for it?

NO NO NO! Geen fribee catch!

(At this point I toss the yellow and orange frizbees over to him.) Let's play catch with the orange or yellow one.

NO NO NO NO NO!

(At this point, I did not appreciate that Jack has really good aim, as he picked up one of his matchbox cars and threw it as hard as he could at my head, that I caught just before it hit me in the face. I'm telling you, Jack throws REALLY HARD for his age, and it definitely would have hurt getting hit in the head with a matchbox. The worst thing that can happen with a nerf ball or a frizbee is something gets knocked off a shelf, but no one would get hurt. If he throws a matchbox at someone who isn't expecting it - especially one of his friends who are around his age - he can really hurt someone. I was already annoyed at his insistance on the green frizbee, and the matchbox throw took me over the edge.)

At the top of my lungs: NO! YOU DO NOT THROW CARS AT PEOPLE! (Jacks cowers in fear.) YOU CAN HURT SOMEONE IF YOU THROW CARS!

I then sat down on the couch and put the baseball game on, while I heard Jack softly whimpering in the corner. I didn't even want to look at him, and I did feel bad for yelling. About a minute later I felt a tap on my leg, and looked down to see Jack holding the orange frizbee.

Sowwy Dad. Orange fribee catch pees? (I'm a sucker - what can I say - we played catch with the orange frizbee.)

On a slightly different note:

This ranks pretty high on the unintentional comedy scale.

 

For legal reason, where do you draw the line though? That is the problem. Unless spanking is illegal child abuse will be accepted and hard to prosecute. Whether you mean to or not you are defending much harsher punishments than you describe when you defend spanking. And Nataraja, from how I understood your post you feel it is not the state's job to interfere in family matters even if it concerns violence against children? Does anyone remember how it used to be and how it is for many children? It used to be perfectly acceptable for parents to severely beat their children, to spank them in the name of discipline. Unless "spanking" is illegal it will be damned hard to prosecute such cases.

 

My parents spanked my siblings and I when we were kids. There is no lasting effect left on us. We knew why we were getting spanked and were told why as well. I still completely love my parents and they us.

Well, I have a just turned 2 yr old. She is wonderful most of the time, but she does have her meltdowns as well. All kids do. About a month ago, she wouldn't listen to anything my wife and I were telling her. Tearing up everything, kicking, hitting, screaming. Then she bit my wife when trying to console her. That was a 1st and only time that has happened. All over her not getting a second snack before bedtime. My wife gently put her down, pulled off her diaper and calmly smacked her little bottom, once. As she did this, she explained why to her. Not hard, no mark was left, just a little tap. But, AMAZINGLY, she stopped the tears and all of the other non-sense too. She just looked at my wife in both absolute amazement and disbelief. I think she didn't think it was possible for mommy to do that to her. My little one has not tried that since. My wife cried afterward and has told me she will never do that again. I know I can't hit my little girls, I don't have it in me. Not because I think spanking is wrong, but because I don't EVER want ot see them look at me in the way she looked at my wife. Maybe I will change my mind as they grow up, who knows, kids can get tough to handle as they grow-up, but for now, no way. They are too precious.

Point being, spanking is a parenting tool used in teaching your kids what is right and wrong, nothing else. Those who use physical violence toward their kids that have lasting physical effcts are not spanking them, they are abusing them, a huge difference.

 

How about "if any visible damage remains after xyz minutes, it's go to jail time?" That rules out anything that isn't quite mild in nature, methinks.

Additionally, I'd argue that there are several other, much more severe ways of hurting children, none of them being physical violence in any way or form. From the top of my head: Extortion, ignorance, being grounded to the point of losing all forms of social contact, unjust punishment.. Watch a few movies of the psychological thriller/horror variety for dozens more.

Human body has an amazing ability to recover from physical wounds but psychological ones can, and often do, stay for a lifetime. That's why it feels a bit backwards to strive for total abolishment of any form of physical punishment while not addressing the whole spectrum of it.

 

If it counts as assault if against an adult, it's abuse. If it would count as a form of torture, it's abuse. The type of swat I'm referring to in a spanking would just net you being tossed out of the bar for being over friendly with the waitress (or waiter, whatever floats your boat).

 

Letting a kid watch Saw for instance?

 

I agree completely. The way they look at you even when you tell them no about something that is reasonable can break your heart. Jack is a bit spoiled but I don't really care. I cannot believe the amount of toys he has, and the fact that his mom has taken two full years (and will take a third year) off from work to be with him. Jack's new favorite question is asking you what day it is. I always answer him, but for Jack, every day is Saturday, and I wouldn't change that for anything.

 

All in all, I'd say you did a good job. Not great, but good. Better would have been taking him aside and quietly, in a calm voice, explaining why throwing frisbees is ok, but throwing cars isn't. Demonstrations may help (including him chucking a Nerf football or two at your head), and he may still not understand, but at least it's an effort. As it stands, following up the yelling with a game of frisbee anyway (even different color) probably erased most if not all of the negative effect of yelling, while still locking that "throwing cars is bad" idea in his head.

This is BS. The US has never made spanking illegal (individual states may have at times, and I think NY may still, not sure, but it's not widespread), and we have little trouble distinguising between abuse and spanking. There may have been one or two cases that blurred the line, but I don't think for a second that the US condones child abuse.

Yeah, when we grow up, we realize that "this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you" line was serious.

 

Well, you don't know Jack. While sound in theory, I doubt a calm explanation or demonstration would have done much good. I have tried as much in similar circumstances in the past. It doesn't really work in practice. He is 2, afterall.

 

I know, but it would at least get him used to the idea that a lecture comes next, for the future you know. Still, I'd give your performance an 8/10, maybe 9/10.

 

What makes you such an expert that you can give Aldeth grades on parenting? Man, you are judgemental.

 

Well, the deciding factor here is that you felt bad, so Nog did rate your performance spot on. 8 or 9 of 10. But to get a 10 in that scenario is about impossible. So, Great Job Aldeth! Trying to explain things to most 2 yr olds is an exercise in futility. But I try anyway, usually with my wife's laughter in the background.

 

One thing that just crossed my mind, many of you claim you need the shock of a spanking as small children can't be reasoned with but you also say that the child should understand why he got the spanking. How does that work? If the child is unable that he did something wrong even when explained how will it be able to understand the reason for why it's butt got red?

 

Using my example from page 1, a child can't comprehend that it could die or be seriously hurt by being hit by a car. However, they can comprehend the if I run into the street, I'm going to get spanked and I don't like being spanked. It is very similar to when someone first burns themselves touching something hot. You can't describe to someone what the consequences of a burn are, but once they do it, they understand it forever.

 

Feeling good would get Aldeth a 10? That's an objective way to assess someone's performance.

 

It's the combination of both the spanking and the understanding that help with the reasoning. Did you ever watch "Super-Nanny"? She puts the kid in timeout. But she also explains why. Every time. Otherwise the punishment, whether it's a spanking or timeout doesn't get thru. Talking should always be tried 1st. More often than not it doesn't work. So you try it a few more times. But eventually the damage done by not getting through to the child starts to get out of hand. A little spanking sometimes is what makes it click for the child to understand. Not always, that is why parents should have many tools at their disposal to help their children learn. A light spanking is one of those tools. Talking is another. Timeout is another. The thing with spanking is when you cross the line and start hitting hard out of anger and frustration. A parent should be able to recognize this and not do it. Good parents know where the line is.

 

Well, I was gonna share some sex stories in another thread, but now I'm scared that someone is gonna rate me!

But seriously, Aldeth said something really, really profound, despite the double entendre. Here it is:

That is the single biggest problem I have with experts or self appointed "child advocates" who run around judging parents in supermarkets and malls. These frigging losers do not know the child. They do not know the family, and they do not know the situation. I'd go so far as to say that they don't know <poop>. Every child , every parent, every family, and every situation is different, as I have said many times before. If the way a parent goes about disciplining a child isn't the way a stranger observing it in the mall would do it, good for the observer, but they can keep their uninformed opinion to themselves.

I knew a girl who was like this. She didn't have any kids of her own, of course, (because she was butt ugly at 25, but that's another story) but she HAD spent 2 years in a certificate program at a second rate college in the middle of nowhere, so OF COURSE that gave her the right to go around criticizing strangers in malls. And she wondered why I didn't want to hang out with her any more (I was trying to be a good Samaritan in the looks department.) The hubris involved astounded me, not to mention the embarassment.

She conned some poor 70 IQ bastard into marrying her and has kids now, and her kids are undisciplined little white trash monsters. Am I being judgemental? Yes. I don't deny that for a second. Do I get in her face and try to tell her what she is doing is utterly effing stupid? NO! I am capable of keeping my opinions on her family life to myself because I am willing to admit that I don't know the whole story. Wish these namby pamby nanny state losers had the same level of decency, but they never can admit to the possibility they might be wrong about something they know nothing about . . .

 

My father being one of the best child psychologists in the region. Seriously, I ask him about this stuff before I post it.

First off, I don't say that it's needed, just useful. Secondly, right and wrong are abstracts that a child's brain doesn't really understand yet. Heck, at that age the child hasn't even progressed out of their egocentric development phase, which means it's literally impossible for them to imagine things from another person's perspective ("how do you think that made them feel?). Abstract though is still years away. On the other hand, "If I do this it hurts" is a very concrete thought process, which children are very good at. Of course, "If I do this I loose my TV/dinner/have to go to bed early" can also work, it depends on the child and what they value.

This is something to remember. Everything I'm posting, even the stuff from my father, is generalizations and trends. They work for the "average child", and that covers the vast majority for the developmental stuff (such as egocentric phase), but not 100%. If you wanted concrete advice on how you should handle this particular situation from my father (as an example of a true expert in the field), he'd probably want to sit down with your child for a few hours at least before saying anything.