Every time I write about corporal punishment, I get more angry emails and comments than any other topic. Seriously. And keep in mind the number of times I've referred to special needs kids as "broken", or Easter as "Zombie Jesus Day". When I express my highly charged and controversial opinion that folks who incorporate physical violence against their kids into their parenting toolbox might want to rethink that particular approach, I get reactions. Some people like to suggest that I write about it specifically so that I'll get the reactions that I do, feeding off the conflict like some kind of emotional vampire.
Actually, that's not why I do it. I write about it because (and again, this might come across as radical liberal crazy talk) I believe quite strongly that hitting your kids is a somewhat fucked up thing to do.
Anyway, you've heard me talk about it before, so this time, I'll simply link to a story on NPR ("Spanking Leads To More Aggressive Kids", April 12, 2010). The report discusses a new study published by the journal Pediatrics, which showed that kids who were spanked more than twice a month as three-year-olds were considerably more likely to become aggressive five-year-olds than kids who weren't spanked.
So there you go. You may now fire up the "there's nothing wrong with a little swatty-poo on the hiney if it keeps my dear wee ones from running in front of a locomotive" and "I was spanked as a child and I turned out to be a model citizen who only occasionally shoots up a post office" comments, starting... NOW.
53 comments:
You're not alone! I've never seen you participate in such things, but there is a blog "Carnival of Gentle Discipline" coming up here: http://www.babydustdiaries.com/?p=537 You know, just in case you were interested.
I was spanked. I wouldn't call myself a model citizen. I wish I had better control of my own temper.
In moderation, I believe it's alright. And by "in moderation", I mean only for the really, really big stuff that really, really needs to be hammered home. The only time I remember getting spanked (just with the hand on a clothed bottom) as a child was on about 2 occasions when I took my seat belt off in a moving vehicle. Ahoy, an effective deterrent to my doing something that could get me killed. My husband on the other hand got the crap beat out of him by his marine corps father on quite a few occasions for issues of varying magnitudes. He's convinced that it was alright and was necessary since he was a more "difficult" child. Ehhh. We'll just have to see how our parenting styles mesh somewhere down the road, I guess.
I agree with you 100% Hitting children in any way, for any reason is wrong. Period. With so many other disapline options out there, you'd think parents would be a little more creative than physicly hurting their children. In this modern day and age, I dont understand why spanking is still an option. I could go on and on, but I won't.
Now go hug your children:-)
I was spanked as a child, and I haven't shot any one, yet. However, I feared and resented my parents. I was never close to them and still am not. Spanking delivers a point to a child without much effort, but the unintended message can be very damaging.
I'm not sure I'd be able to not spank my own child. I don't know if it has anything to do with the discipline I got as a child, but I do have little patience for children. That's part of why I had myself surgically sterilized at the age of 30, before ever becoming pregnant.
No angry comments from me - I'll just quote what my daughter said when she was 4 going on 5, and my husband tried a brief foray into corporal punishment.
I asked her, "Do you think your behavior would be better if you had spankings?"
"Not much."
"Why?"
"Well, I need privacy on the bottom, for one thing. Why does Papa always spank me on the bottom? It's un-modest! It's *un-modest*!"
I wrote it down verbatim right then and there, so I'd always remember.
spanked? yup
spank my kids? Yup- for open defiance that would get them hurt or killed- other than that- the natural consequences were just fine....you'll cut yourself doing that cut himself?--yup.
Oooh I want to put my two cents in!
If your spanking your kid on a regular basis then maybe you should rethink your approach to parenting and discipline.
On the other hand, I was spanked maybe twice growing up, and of all the things that have contributed to my being quite a screwed up adult those two spankings are probably not even on the list.
Hurt of killed? Seriously?
Here's what I said over on Facebook, where there's actually a pretty intelligent conversation going on about this topic:
"Well, I think this is sort of a red herring, since these scenarios seem very "what if" to me, but okay. If we're discussing whether spanking represents a failure in parenting, I think that it's worth considering that if you regularly find yourself having to physically hurt your child in order to protect them from the hot stove or the busy traffic or the fork in the outlet, then really, we're now talking about variations in parenting failures. I'm far from the perfect parent, but so far I've managed to avoid having my child set herself on fire without hitting her, and to my knowledge so have the majority of parents I know personally."
If anyone wants a life altering listen, This American Life did a story about the "Harlem Children's Zone", which is this massive program to elevate children out of poverty. One of the things they addressed was corporal punishment. The results blew my mind. It is a 1/2 hour listen that changed my life, especially in regards to this issue.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/364/Going-Big
I was only spanked by my mother once, and after she did it, we both burst into tears, and she hugged me and apologized. I think she scared the shit out of both of us. It's funny that now, even 50 years later, we both remember it, but we can't remember why she spanked me.
Kate D., that program also made a big impact on me; thanks for mentioning it.
I was a spoiled only child, and my dad tried spanking me once (that I remember.) I proceeded to run to my mom, asking her to kiss it and make it better. Ha.
I know my relationship with my parents would never have been great, but I also know that spanking surely didn't improve anything.
See, this is funny. I'm Mary's (up at the top of the comments) sister, and we were raised the exact same way-- I was spanked once, I believe, for the exact same reason she was.
And yet we have completely different opinions on this topic. I don't believe it's EVER okay to hit a child, even if it is for something dangerous. I'm not a big fan of the "do as I say and not as I do" sort of role model, which is essentially what your are being if you are spanking your child but telling them not to hit others. I also think it's nearly impossible to separate emotion out of using physical punishment on a child.
That's not to say that my parents weren't excellent parents-- they were, and I think we all turned out pretty well. But that's one aspect of my upbringing that I won't be repeating with my children.
So while I'm not with you on every opinion you have, Rob (I'm one of those horribly politically correct "People First" parents), I'm with you on this one.
~Jess
"hitting your kids is a somewhat fucked up thing to do". Very much somewhat.
My father used to make me write essays when I did something wrong. They were exhaustive and I hated them, so one day I said, "Dad, can't I just take a spanking?"
My dad, who fancies himself a humorist, came up from the basement carrying a 2x4.
I freaked right the hell out and didn't come out of my room for hours.
Needless to say, I wrote that essay and never got spanked.
I don't spank my child either, but I do make him write lines or write papers for me if he is being a snot or otherwise "bad". I think it's very effective and it also improves his writing skills.
I was beaten as a child. I remember my father lining up the five of us to beat each of us with the buckle end of his leather belt, each in turn, while the rest of us shook and cried.
It is never, NEVER right to hit something smaller than you. That's not discipline. That's abuse of power. And if you have to raise your hand, you have already lost.
My wife and I have attempted spankings with our son on a few occasions and have decided that there are better ways to deter his behavior. We both realize that the spankings were generally because we were so frustrated and couldn't think of anything better to do. Since then we've used different strategies mostly to greater effect.
I don't think taking corporal punishment out of your toolbox is a 100% great idea, but it's a very specialized tool that should rarely come out of the box.
I can still remember the sound my mom's big wooden spoon made when it came down on my ass. Do that to my kids? No way. It didn't hurt that much, or at least that's not what I remember about it. It was so damn humiliating, like I was no better than the dog. (FTR, you don't need to hit your dogs, either.)
No, there are other ways. A million other ways.
Instead of opening the box of reasons why it's so wrong, how about suggestions on what to do instead.
A lot of us who grew up with spankings (not beatings) don't know what else is in the arsenal.
I liked the idea of writing...good to improve skills, but will the child grow up hating to write??
Lots of controvery with this issue - but what are the solutions?
Here's my very short answer. An alternative to hitting your kids? Fucking ANYTHING.
For a longer answer (assuming you're actually looking for one), here's a bit of the conversation taking place on my Facebook page:
----------
AJ - Maybe this is too much like the "stopping the baby from running in front of the locomotive" argument, but I'll ask it regardless...if your toddler was preparing to do something especially dangerous (fork in the electrical outlet, reaching at something on the hot stove, etc.), would you say it is wrong to hit your child's hand as an immediate negative consequence for a dangerous behavior? Assuming your child wouldn't quite understand your explanation for why his/her action is unacceptable... How would you handle a situation like that?
I agree that spanking in general is not an effective way to discipline a child, but I haven't really heard many suggestions on how else to handle one of those "danger" situations, especially before the child has an understanding of language.
Robert Rummel-Hudson - Well, I think this is sort of a red herring, since these scenarios seem very "what if" to me, but okay. If we're discussing whether spanking represents a failure in parenting, I think that it's worth considering that if you regularly find yourself having to physically hurt your child in order to protect them from the hot stove or the busy traffic or the fork in the outlet, then really, we're now talking about variations in parenting failures. I'm far from the perfect parent, but so far I've managed to avoid having my child set herself on fire without hitting her, and to my knowledge so have the majority of parents I know personally.
And yeah, I know how snotty that answer sounds, but I'm not exactly sure how else to put it.
LH - Why not grab the hand and pull it away and say "no," rather than hitting? Unless you're going to hit hard enough to cause pain, which my guess is that you are not, what you're really doing is getting your message across by startling the child, and you can just as easily startle the child by grasping the hand, pulling it back, and saying "no" in your most authoritative voice. Most parents I know are not prepared to hit their children hard enough to cause actual physical pain, in which case hitting is no more of a consequence than any other expression of your severe displeasure.
And in the case of the fork in the electrical outlet, if the kid is too young for language, it's very unlikely that if you hit the kid, the kid is going to know that the problem is sticking the fork in the outlet, as opposed to that they took the fork, or that they aren't supposed to be in the living room, or whatever else. If you can't explain what you're hitting them for, what's the use of hitting? And if you can explain what you're hitting them for, why not use another consequence? I think with those danger situations, a sharp reprimand basically has the same effect that a slap on the hand has -- you startle them a little and express seriousness with your manner.
(continued)
----------
Robert Rummel-Hudson - Heh, LH's answer was better. That's why she makes the big bucks.
HS - I think (well I like to think) that most parents who "hit" their children aren't hitting to cause pain. I can say I have given a tiny swat on a diaper wearing 2 1/2 year old who does know better and just doesn't care. Never hard enough to cause injury but just to say- hey knock it off, when the asking doesn't get any response. Thse instances seem to be when we're in the grocery cart and the child is trying to climb out of the moving cart and is screaming bloody murder and there is nowhere for a good time out. As a full time working mother of a 3 year old special needs child, and a 2 1/2 year old- leaving the store isn't an option or the entire family would starve! My point is there are exceptations to the rules.
Robert Rummel-Hudson - But I'd reference LH's response and respectfully ask you why you choose hitting, then? It seems to me that even without pain, the response that hitting reinforces is one of fear, and ultimately the idea that violence (even on a small scale) is an acceptable tool for achieving results. For me, it's very easy to see how that translates directly into kids growing up more aggressive and with the tendency to bully.
HS - i guess my response to that is nothing else gets his attention and i don't think that fear is necessarily a bad thing.
LH - Yeah, I just ... I am not confident how you say to a kid, "If you don't do what I want and won't listen, I hit you. But not that hard, and that's only if I really have to -- that's my last resort when talking doesn't work. You, on the other hand, don't get to resort to hitting other kids at school when talking doesn't work." There's something about escalating through reason, and when reason doesn't work, to physical aggression, that I just ... I don't know how you keep that genie in the bottle. Sometimes adults don't listen, either, but you can't hit them to make your point. It's odd to me that you can hit kids just because asking nicely isn't working.
HS - so my question to you, how do you reason with a two year old who is screaming bloody murder and there isn't the option of the ever popular time out?
AJ - Your answer was hardly snotty, Rob. I've found better answers here than I have elsewhere. I work in childcare, so these kind of debates come up often (so no one freaks out, I'll clarify that the teachers and paraprofessionals NEVER lay a hurtful hand on any of the children in our care). Thanks for taking the time to answer my question, as well as opening the door for a healthy debate.
LH - I don't know -- what would you do if you smacked the kid and all you got was more crying? Whatever you'd do then, I'd do that.
(and continued some more)
----------
Robert Rummel-Hudson - I'd also feel a lot better about the idea of spanking (well, maybe I would) if I thought that a parent's frustration had no role in coming to that place. As both a parent and a former child, however, I suspect I know better, at least in many cases. Perhaps even most cases. Again, maybe that sounds like a shitty way to put it, but there it is.
I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea that a child cries, you hit him, and he stops crying because he's afraid of being hit again. I really do think that the big picture here is crucial.
AB - I was spanked exactly twice, both prior to age 3 and both for "locomotive" scenarios (playing with the knobs on the stove and going on walkabout down the street without permission).
In each situation, my mom has said that she would have handled it differently but for her own emotional vulnerability in the moment. Spanking was not a calculated strategy to train my behavior using aversive stimuli, but a total freakout out of fear.
And this holds true in my experience as an educator—Every time I've seen spankings, it has been accompanied by parental anger and loss of control of their own behavior.
If you somehow think you can administer pain as an aversive in a rational and consistent manner... I'll stop there so you can re-read that sentence fragment and ask yourself if that's the type of human being you want to be.
SR - There's something messed about the "logic" that hitting a child who is already upset and crying is going to stop said crying. That's just plain idiotic. That's like saying to stop the bleeding open the wound up deeper. Hitting a child is wrong. That's all.
SR - Does anyone remember Little House On The Prairie when Pa would calmly and rationally resolve an issue with "Half Pint" then lovingly tell her to go wait for him out in the barn where he would punctuate the resolution of the issue with a whoopin'? Did anyone else find that as deeply disturbing as I did? Even under calm and rational circumstances, as mentioned previously by Adam, corporal punishment feels horribly wrong, backward and barbaric... almost torture-like!
AB - I had it explained to me by a behaviorist once (note that I am not a behaviorist in terms of language learning, but their viewpoint is super-useful for many other things).
"Punishment is negatively reinforcing for the punisher."
Punishment makes the aversive stimuli (child's misbehavior) go away, therefore the punisher is using operant conditioning to train him/herself to resort to punishment more frequently. This is actually a STRONGER conditioning stimuli than the punishment is aversive to the punished. So what learning is actually happening? 1. The punisher is learning to be more violent, 2. The punished is learning to conceal things from, and distrust the punisher.
I WAS actually looking for an answer, thank you.
Well, good deal, then.
or for the love of pete... it's just silly to say hitting is wrong and then hit your child. end of story. do i have to say it again! NO HITTING. same rules for everyone.
I was never spanked nor spanked my own children. However, now that my "kids" are 27 and 25, I've learned to be a lot less certain about thinking my methods were the only right way. I've seen too many examples of kids turning out great who I thought were raised the wrong way or kids being raised "the right way" who turned out all screwed up. I still don't believe in spanking, but I just know now that I don't have the market on being "right".
I was spanked as a kid and I think I tend more toward physical aggression than my friends who weren't spanked. I don't know. Could be personality. My parents weren't evil or abusive -- they just thought it was the right thing to do.
On another note, I've been reading this author's work for years and was happy to see another column from her, about inclusion for her sixth-grade daughter.
http://www.statesman.com/life/sixth-grader-was-invisible-to-classmates-but-no-303484.html
I'm with you on this 100%. For every anecdote of "I got spanked and turned out fine" there is someone who can say the opposite (I am one of them). Research consistently shows that spanking leads to greater aggression and behavioral problems in children (except, interestingly, for children of color), and it's just a downright shitty way to parent.
Of course, that's not to say that I don't UNDERSTAND why some parents would want to hit their children...
Rob, I was going to sit this one out, but I wanted to respond to the idea that ANY punishment is better than corporal punishment. Not so. A recent study http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/227622/new_study_on_verbal_abuse_good_timing.html indicates that emotional and verbal abuse (yelling, insulting, degrading) tends to cause as much or more harm than physical abuse. An analogy I remember reading was that among adult victim's of domestic abuse, women whose husbands struck them (without prior emotional or verbal abuse) left their abusers. Women whose husbands broke their spirit stayed and were more likely to die at the hands of their abuser.
Please don't offhandedly encourage parents to think that if they don't hit their kids, they aren't abusing them.
As to the original post, I did follow the links and read the article (but not the original study since it wasn't available to the public). I noted that they defined frequent spankings as more than twice a month and did differentiate between spankings and abuse.
I do think that an occasional spanking in the interests of preventing dangerous behaviour is acceptable. By your standards I'm an abuser. By the standards of the study, I don't even come close. In 17 years of parenting I don't think I've ever spanked frequently by their standard.
And just to add to the discussion, I wanted to tell something that happened to me last week. My 5 year old left the building we were in while I was helping her younger brother use the toilet. She then walked about 50 feet away and hid from me and didn't come when I called. After searching the building, then going outside and searching and calling for several minutes I started dialing 911. Just before I hit send I saw her. I didn't spank her. (I was upset and you don't spank someone in anger, and I always try other methods to change the behaviour first.) When we went home I made her go to her room and not come out for the rest of the day except to use the bathroom and get dinner. The next day after school I did the same thing. Her older sister (13) asked me if we couldn't just please spank her instead because it was too mean to keep her in her room for so long. So I guess that at least in her definition being grounded was more abusive than being spanked. I think she's probably in a better position to judge since she's been spanked by me (and thus knows how hard I spank and how painful it would be).
I have weird mixed feelings about this whole subject. My husband was spanked occasionally as a kid. His parents were otherwise loving and I don't think it did him any major damage. I was never spanked, and also grew up to be a productive member of society. BUT my mother's technique for modifying our behavior without spanking involved making us feel like crap through relentless guilt-tripping. I'm ... not ... 100% sure that it's more damaging to administer a quick spanking to a five-year-old than it is to make him/her feel like a terrible human being.
Which is not to say that I'm all, "Yay! Spanking!" I have never spanked my kids. I'm trying to avoid the "You did something wrong so you suck," approach too. We'll see how it goes.
Karen, I have to be blunt here. Your arguments are so specious as to make response difficult. But let me try.
A recent study indicates that emotional and verbal abuse (yelling, insulting, degrading) tends to cause as much or more harm than physical abuse. (emphasis mine)
A few things. First of all, the report doesn't actually say that verbal abuse can be more harmful than physical abuse. It says this: "Scolding, swearing, yelling, blaming, insulting, threatening, ridiculing, demeaning, and criticizing can be as harmful as physical abuse, sexual abuse outside the home, or witnessing physical abuse at home." (emphasis also mine)
Nit-picking? Perhaps, but I don't think so, because the report doesn't try to somehow rank the badness of different types of abuse. And why would they? It's a stupid exercise. Worse? As bad? As damaging? MORE damaging? How do you quantify these statements? The fact that I have had extremely poor eyesight in my left eye since I was eleven because my father intentionally threw a football in my eye is a pretty good example of how meaningless a statement like that is. In that particular instance, yeah, given a choice, I might have opted for some harsh language instead. The child who is being sexually abused by his priest might just opt for a punch in the face instead. Trying to say "Oh, this is worse!" is just ridiculous, and the sort of thing, honestly, that I suspect only makes sense to people for whom serious abuse is an abstraction. Abuse survivors know better. Everyone's pain is their own. Abuse is abuse.
I'd also suggest that for a lot of parents, if you've reached the point where you think hitting your kids is a pretty reasonable way to achieve your parenting goals, you've probably already dabbled in a bit of recreational verbal abuse as well.
Please don't offhandedly encourage parents to think that if they don't hit their kids, they aren't abusing them.
I would LOVE to read the quote where I suggest that as long as you're not hitting your kids, you're good. When I sarcastically suggested that you might try anything besides hitting your child, it was, first of all, sarcasm. If you read that as "Perhaps you should psychologically torture them or molest them instead!", then I think that perhaps you are intentionally looking for something to be upset about. But okay, I guess I opened myself up for the accusation by daring to use sarcasm. (Shocking, too, since I so rarely employ it.) (See what I did just there?)
Let me try this instead. Consider this a clear policy statement from me:
Parents of the world. Please do not hit your kids. Please don't verbally assault them. And please do not fuck them. If you need to be told these things, then perhaps you need to rethink having kids in the first place.
(to be continued...)
(continued response to Karen...)
I do think that an occasional spanking in the interests of preventing dangerous behaviour is acceptable. By your standards I'm an abuser. By the standards of the study, I don't even come close. In 17 years of parenting I don't think I've ever spanked frequently by their standard.
A few things:
1) Contrasting their standard with mine is fine, so long as you recall that I am speaking for me, not the journal Pediatrics, so my own standard is the one I will continue to apply. I also don't think, given the larger view of corporal punishment by the pediatric medical community, that my standards and theirs are all that different in general.
2) "I only do it sometimes" isn't a very compelling argument, in my opinion. I mean, hitting a child occasionally is somehow okay? It's better that hitting them daily, sure. But can you call your kid a fuck-up okay as long as you restrict that statement to once a week? How often are you allowed to sexually abuse a child before it becomes a problem? I don't know, I find the defense of the "occasional" spanking to be suspect. If that's your defense, I think you ought to ask yourself what that really says.
3) I've said it before, but if your justification for hitting your child is that they have been allowed to get into a place of danger, then you're already operating from a position of having failed in your duty as a parent. Which is fine, we all make mistakes, every parent in the world turns their back or gets busy or whatever. That's the reality of parenting. We fuck it up sometimes, every last one of us. But I'm not sure that using that as your reason for hitting your child is a very strong argument. I wonder if, after you've hit your child for almost injuring themselves in some way, do you reflect on who it is who is really at fault, and whose behavior might need to be modified? As parents, we should be asking ourselves that all the time. But do we?
4) You should stop trying to read my mind, because you're not very good at it. I don't think you're an abuser. But I do think you're wrong.
Beth, I totally see what you're saying, and I agree. But I'm still holding onto my Pollyanna view that it's possible to raise a child without hitting them OR wrecking their self-esteem. I'm not sure I've seen a great many examples of that kind of parenting, nor do I claim to engage in it with 100% success myself. But I still have to believe it's possible.
Rob, probably the reason my argument was specious was that I wasn't trying to make an argument or convince you of my position. I know that you wouldn't listen.
The article that I posted the link to does not say that verbal abuse can cause more harm than physical, but the study that it referenced did say that. Apparently the link back to the original study isn't valid any more but when I first read the article it was and I did follow it and read the report. The "more" was not what I said but what the authors of the study said. So feel free to argue with them about that point. I've argued with the results of many studies so I'll understand if you do too.
I agree 100% with you. I teach special needs students (low functioning) and I can't tell you the number of parents who pull off a belt or worse take off a shoe to threaten the child with.
I have three children who are now adults. I regret that I ever spanked them. It wasn't necessary. Hitting your child simply gives the idea to children that it is alright to hit others. Use time out or the evil eye but do not strike your child. She Will
A woman was complaining to me about how poorly behaved her kid was. "She spit at Grandma, so I smacked her mouth. Then later she slapped me in the face! I had to beat her butt good that time."
She TOTALLY did not see the connection.
PS- Zombie Jesus Day is awesome!
My dad used to spank me pretty frequently when I was a kid. I turned out to be a peace-loving, non-violent liberal, but not until after a LOOONG angry, young man phase. When I was a kid, how it really affected me was that I was terrified of my father, who's really a pretty decent guy. I don't have kids, but if I did, I don't think I would want them to scurry to their rooms out of fear when I came home .
I only spank adults.
Rob, love your sarcastic sense of humor! I chuckled reading this entry. I read that Newsweek article several days ago, and it seems to be making the rounds on Twitter and blogs.
I will add my own two cents: My parents, being somewhat ahead of the 'No Spanking' school of thought in the early 80s, promised to never hit their children - they even included it in their wedding vows. As a consequence, my brother and I (born in 1981 and 1986, respectively) were never spanked, and we turned out pretty well. We're both gainfully employed, college graduates, with healthy home lives, and we're still close to both our parents.
I don't have children of my own yet, but when I do, I vow to never spank them.
When I was a kid- my dad used the belt and my mom used anything she could reach-I legitimately thought my parents could kill me and the police wouldn't arrest them- probably until I was 17 or so-
I had my first kid at 20- and once when he was small- in a walker thing with wheels- he started screaming and I couldn't fix it- I picked him up-held him at arms length- and walked acrossed the street to a neighbor- I asked her to please-please take him for 10 minutes- she did. I took the hotest, fastest shower, calmed down in less than 10 minutes and was able to deal with the crying-
Even if you grow up with unstable parents who hit- you can be different- it takes hanging out with people who do things differently -and years of therapy.
If I regret anything in my life, it's that I spanked my kids.
ps. Sorry for being so wordy, Rob. I like sorting out the muddiest waters of anything.
I know this isn't exactly what Karen was getting at but she raised an important point for me: With any interaction with any human being, intent matters. A lot.
Which of these instances is more painful for a child, long-term:
1. With an open palm you softly hit the child's face and say, "Why can't you stop spilling things you little shit? Get out of my sight."
2. You are walking near your kid, carrying something heavy. You slip and fall and drop the heavy thing right on the child's hand, breaking his finger. You apologize and cry and hug him all the way to the hospital.
3. You hit the child's palm as hard as you can with your open palm and say, "Awesome job! You made the basket on your first try!"
Physically, I'd say #2 is most painful, followed by #3 and then #1. But two and three are clearly not even in the realm of abuse or bad parenting.
So I think maybe what matters is the MESSAGE. The intended message. Abusive messages include: You suck. You make me completely lose control. You are bad. You should be ashamed of yourself.
So. What is spanking? Is it the same as beating? Well like verbal or emotional abuse, a physical beating is intended to humiliate or intimidate. That's what makes it traumatic. The message and clear intent behind it: "You should be ashamed. You have no power."
If a spanking is delivered in a way that offers less physical damage than a "beating" but is still designed to embarrass or bully/intimidate the kid into doing what you will, that seems like it would have the potential to cause emotional damage on that spectrum.
But you can tap a child's shoulder to get their attention, you can pat them on the back, you can reach over and gently grab their arm before they knock your drink over. You can physically pull the kid off of your back who is trying to climb you and isn't getting down when you say so. There are lots of ways to discipline a child that involve touch, and they aren't all bad. It's the intent and message that matters. The exact same physical actions can be accompanied by a look or a word that changes the meaning from silly to serious to devastating. And to make it even trickier, every kid is different and you have to be tuned into that. When people refer to a very sensitive child, maybe that's simply a kid who is better at reading intent.
Summary:
Parents should not make punishment -- or life in general -- scary or humiliating for their children. If you can somehow spank your kid in a way that isn't at all frightening or humiliating, well Rob still won't be your friend but that was honestly not very likely anyhow. If you give timeouts or verbal corrections that involve dark locked closets or personal insults then you're being an asshole and should stop.
Well put, boogaloo. (I defy you to think of another instance when someone has ever said the previous sentence.)
I've noticed that there is a fondness for spanking one's progeny among bloggers who represent themselves as stay at home/home schooling/Christian moms who have Jesus in their lives as their personal Lord and Savior. Not only do I sense a certain smugness there and a holier than thou attitude that Jesus would have hated but there's a tendency for said bloggers to defend their kid-whomping by quoting the old Biblical chestnut about sparing the rod and spoiling the child.
If they actually studied the Bible they'd know that the "rod" in question wasn't a stick with which to beat misbehaving kids but a tool used by shepherds to gently direct sheep back into the herd (or wherever). The rod was used for guidance rather than kid-beating. In other words, it's a metaphorical rod.
I'm sure that disappoints the Bible-believing-kid- whomping blogging mommies out there.
The fact is, it's easier to hit a kid than to take the time and the energy to make him see reason, especially if the parent in question was hit as a child. Children can be aggravating, to say the least, but it's never okay to hit them. Not ever.
I've had parents insist that they were giving their kids "love taps" when they did something wrong and that didn't really count as hitting. They didn't much like it when I asked how they'd like it if their boss or their spouse gave THEM a "love tap" when they made a mistake.
Being hit by the people who purport to love them only makes children frightened, angry and resentful. I doubt the people who insist that their parents hit them and they turned out fine really remember what if felt like to be struck as a child. It's unspeakable traumatizing.
Hitting is never okay.
Did blogger eat a bunch of comments?
Um, Anonymous, I'm a Christian mom and I don't spank my kids. Please don't paint all us Bible-toting moms with the same brush.
Not that this post was about religion anyway. At all.
~Jess
Rob - Please, please, keep on talking about this issue. I absolutely support you. My child is 11, and I've never used any kind of physical discipline. He's happy, well-behaved and gentle.
I'm opposed to physical violence against children so I'm not going to get riled up about that. I'm curious though, why you choose to refer to special needs children as "broken" and/or Easter as "Zombie Jesus Day." Why choose to be juvenile and offend people simply for the sake of being offensive? Have you found that to be an effective tool to persuade people over to your point of view?
Let's pretend you're really asking and not just trying to be sarcastic and cute (FAIL) or simply passive-aggressive (MISSION ACCOMPLISHED).
I've written about it more times than I care to go back and get the links for, but here's a little something I wrote on the term "broken". Be offended or don't; as the father of a child with a disability, I've earned my right to use the terminology that I feel fits.
As for Zombie Jesus, I think the Almighty will survive my impudence, and the truly faithful are secure enough to ignore me.
Anyway, thanks for reading. The good news is that no one's forcing you to stay.
Wow - touchy!
Actually, I was genuinely asking - neither in spirit of being sarcastic and cute nor passive-aggressive. I've never read your blog before, but followed a link here from another site.
I'm not your enemy. I'm a special needs parent myself. I'm not religious either, so I'm not personally affected by your religious insults.
I'm not keen on the use of the word "broken" myself, I think it's a poor descriptor of my child. I read your link and I see your point. I think we've got different children with different issues so I'm not going to take it as an insult to my child, but I think it's an inflammatory word and I'm not surprised that it angers some people. It's not the approach I would choose, but I'm not you.
I realize no-one is forcing me to stay. I'm here because I genuinely am interested in what you have to say. Does that mean I can't ask an honest question about your approach? I personally have not found a confrontational approach to be productive, but maybe I'm just trying to accomplish different goals.
In any event, peace and good luck to you and your daughter.
BCC: Wondering, do you have a blog? Always interested in connecting to other special needs parents.
I am the parent of a 14 year old and a 12 year old and can honestly say I've never felt the need to hit either of my children.
For the people who ask what do you do in those scary "what if" senarios about danger such as running out on the road or other life threatening "what ifs" we can come up with I can say there are a lot of things I can and did do.
If running on the road is the issue for instance first off as a parent I blamed myself for letting my child be in the situation of being able to put himself in mortal danger. Obvioulsy if the child was going to run on the road they were not ready to have the fredom of being near the road.
My reaction with my child was to yell "STOP!!" I did not have to do it often, but the yelling of "STOP!!" would make both my children freeze. It was our saftey word I only pulled out when I needed it, from a young age we practiced it so it was automatic.
Then I would grab my child look him/her right in the eye and show the child how terrified I was saying over and over in a way they understood "Danger! Danger! The road is dangerous!"
No spanking could have had more effect on my child than the pure, honest, outpouring of my own parental terror of the situation.
Then I would change the situation, so that it was no longer dangerous, such as going in, or going behind the fence, or making my child hold my hand or be in my arms.
I did not want to teach my child that it was not ok to hit others when you were angry, scared or frustrated, but it was ok for me to do it. Too confusing for me as a parent.
Hi Rob,
I love your blogs on this subject. I was spanked and did not turn out OK. That's not the only reason I've never married or had children, but as I've grown older I've grown increasingly sensivitve to seeing adults hit children. I feel so outraged and powerless. So I greatly appreciate your "take no prisoners" approach to corporal punishment--it's just wrong. Amen.
Post a Comment