To spank or not to spank...

trappedinmyradio

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

That's it. It's not accomplishing much to have a child simply mind because they fear a spanking. They need to know what they did was wrong and why it should't be done. They need to not repeat their actions because they know it to be wrong not because they will receive pain if they do it again. A child can understand reasoning if the time is taken to explain it properly. Spanking only teaches them to work harder at not geting caught which breeds sneakiness and a lack of trust.

trappedinmyradio wrote:

AGAIN, no, you do not just grab a child and spank them. that's wrong. OBVIOUSLY. they have to know why they are being spanked. there are children that do not respond to time-out, grounding, and/or negative punishment. children that respond in a positive way to those things, should not be spanked.

no, spanking does not teach them to maneuver in such a way as to not get caught. if they a child does that then the punishment is not effective. they understand the different between right and wrong, they just choose to ignore it and, instead, opt for that which gives them pleasure at that time, i.e. disobeying rules.

the model in peoples' heads about spanking is the parent that grabs the child, says, "NO," and spanks the child...and, then, later, goes to the child and says, "you know the only reason i do that is to teach you." by that time, the time for a lesson to be learned has past. there is no understanding gained.

time-out alone does not help. taking away privileges alone does not help. sending a child away from the dinner table before dessert alone does not help. spanking alone does not help. whatever punishment system you decide on for your child should be consistent, explained, understood, and, most importantly, the child should know why the punishment is taking place and what they can do in the future to avoid such a consequence.

Ahnimus

trappedinmyradio wrote:

well, you are entitled to that lack of distinction. the difference, i feel, is that a child can distinguish between being spanked for inappropriate behavior and being hit indiscriminately because the disciplinarian had a bad day. if you don't believe that children can make that distinction then you are grossly underestimating children.

why do you continue to blather on about "babies"? children that do not respond to time-out, or negative punishment are children that do not suffer any ill-effects of such consequences. effective consequences lead to wanted behavior.

what do you do when a child does something wrong, and you talk to him/her and he/she understands why it was wrong and what he/she should have done instead (you know this because the child told you these things in the course of the discussion about the behavior). so, as punishment, you put your child in time-out. later that week, the child repeats the behavior...what dod you do then? the child knows what is expected but fails to act accordingly. do you take away a favorite toy? limit their exposure to their friends? what if the behavior continues even after a progressive system of disciplinary action?

I'm too tired for this. Sorry.

I have no problem with kids, they always respect me and respect my advice when I give it. I don't try to control children, I let them do what they do and I just give my advice, they respect it.

My cousin's daughter used to come over and wash my walls because she respected me so much. She said she wanted to do it, she said it was fun. I never asked her to do it. But when she was at home, it was all chores and she didn't want to do any of it.

trappedinmyradio

angelica wrote:

The amazing thing about children is that they exist in a state of hypnotic suggestion . . .

i do not believe children are in such a state. i believe children are sponges that soak up that which they feel is valuable and retain that which becomes true from their experiences throughout the developmental process. how do children determine what is worthy of retention in the formation of the self? through reinforcement and punishment. so, effective uses of both are essential.

maybe, we're saying the same thing and this is a semantical argument...but, to me, a state of hypnotic suggestion means that a child behaves based on "commands" without really knowing why they are behaving or how exactly they are behaving.

trappedinmyradio

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm too tired for this. Sorry.

I have no problem with kids, they always respect me and respect my advice when I give it. I don't try to control children, I let them do what they do and I just give my advice, they respect it.

My cousin's daughter used to come over and wash my walls because she respected me so much. She said she wanted to do it, she said it was fun. I never asked her to do it. But when she was at home, it was all chores and she didn't want to do any of it.

i know you said that you're tired...so, i guess, the board can field this one. why do you think she "liked" washing your walls, but disliked doing the chores at home?

Ahnimus

trappedinmyradio wrote:

i know you said that you're tired...so, i guess, the board can field this one. why do you think she "liked" washing your walls, but disliked doing the chores at home?

Because I appreciated it and at home it was her duty. I didn't pay her, I just thanked her and never expected anything from her. She's kind of a unique child too. I wouldn't expect any child to do that. I expect them to run around acting like children. Hurting themselves and each other. All those things kids learn from.

We also had a lot of fun whenever I babysat. Her brothers were a lot more to handle but they turned around.

Ms. Haiku

Spanking is a clear message that a parent doesn't know about child development. It is a quick action that at least physically hurts, and stuns a kid. It is a reflection of poor parenting skills.

angelica

trappedinmyradio wrote:

i do not believe children are in such a state.

It's a psychological fact. (source John Bradshaw's book "Bradshaw on: The Family")

how do children determine what is worthy of retention in the formation of the self? through reinforcement and punishment.

In other words, through consequences for their actions. What you call "punishment" I call "consequences. And there is a world of difference. Children learn by life experiences all the time, that reinforce the words, yes. There are innumerable life experiences that we learn from throughout our lives that have nothing to do with violent acts from our "loved ones". I choose to teach my children in terms that do not make them "wrong" "bad" or that give them the idea that love and harm go hand in hand. I choose to teach them that no one ever has the right to hurt them physically.

Besides, the key reason we all have so many psychological problems is because we are taught to stifle this "self" you talk about. We're taught to submit and do as we're told, rather than to grow into who we are designed to be. Therefore most adults are walking around acting like emotional children (check any thread on this board for glaring evidence of this), because they did not learn to emotionally grow up. This problem is considered to be an issue for 95% of the population. The Self, with a capital "S"--the healthy, authentic self becomes a reality for a small minority of humans at this time. It's a psychological tragedy, knowing what we know.

so, effective uses of both are essential.

If you believe that "punishment" must include spanking..... then I repeat what I said earlier, and I fully stand behind it: the people who say this are those who have settled at the level of spanking and cannot comprehend the myriad disciplinary measures that go far beyond spanking. When we accept the use of physical harm as a means of solving our problems, we stunt our own ability to learn more effective and more humane measures. It's only when we say "violence is not the answer" that we will find the methods that are beyond spanking.

maybe, we're saying the same thing and this is a semantical argument

It seems we're saying very similar things, here, however it looks like you use "punishment" where I use "consequences". That may seem semantical, but the connotations between the two words hold a world of difference.

...but, to me, a state of hypnotic suggestion means that a child behaves based on "commands" without really knowing why they are behaving or how exactly they are behaving.

They internalise what we tell them without knowing it is happening, and without understanding why. The brain quadruples in size from birth as all they are taught is absorbed. It takes immense work for any of us to change patterns that are ingrained in us. That's why we like to justify our patterns, and make the other guy wrong. It's muuucch easier. After absorbing the hypnotic suggestions, throughout the rest of our lives, people will retrigger these suggestions and we'll find ourselves, oh say on a message board acting like we are 5 years old, or 10, at any given time. Look around you--the triggers and the childish behaviour is all over the place.

trappedinmyradio

consequence is a generic term.

it's not a psychological fact...it's john bradshaw's opinion.

irrationality results when you fail to recognize rational thought...believing that there is one way to perform something is irrational. you'll never understand that, apparently. enjoy.

angelica wrote:

It's a psychological fact. (source John Bradshaw's book "Bradshaw on: The Family")

In other words, through consequences for their actions. What you call "punishment" I call "consequences. And there is a world of difference. Children learn by life experiences all the time, that reinforce the words, yes. There are innumerable life experiences that we learn from throughout our lives that have nothing to do with violent acts from our "loved ones". I choose to teach my children in terms that do not make them "wrong" "bad" or that give them the idea that love and harm go hand in hand. I choose to teach them that no one ever has the right to hurt them physically.

Besides, the key reason we all have so many psychological problems is because we are taught to stifle this "self" you talk about. We're taught to submit and do as we're told, rather than to grow into who we are designed to be. Therefore most adults are walking around acting like emotional children (check any thread on this board for glaring evidence of this), because they did not learn to emotionally grow up. This problem is considered to be an issue for 95% of the population. The Self, with a capital "S"--the healthy, authentic self becomes a reality for a small minority of humans at this time. It's a psychological tragedy, knowing what we know.

If you believe that "punishment" must include spanking..... then I repeat what I said earlier, and I fully stand behind it: the people who say this are those who have settled at the level of spanking and cannot comprehend the myriad disciplinary measures that go far beyond spanking. When we accept the use of physical harm as a means of solving our problems, we stunt our own ability to learn more effective and more humane measures. It's only when we say "violence is not the answer" that we will find the methods that are beyond spanking.

It seems we're saying very similar things, here, however it looks like you use "punishment" where I use "consequences". That may seem semantical, but the connotations between the two words hold a world of difference.

They internalise what we tell them without knowing it is happening, and without understanding why. The brain quadruples in size from birth as all they are taught is absorbed. It takes immense work for any of us to change patterns that are ingrained in us. That's why we like to justify our patterns, and make the other guy wrong. It's muuucch easier. After absorbing the hypnotic suggestions, throughout the rest of our lives, people will retrigger these suggestions and we'll find ourselves, oh say on a message board acting like we are 5 years old, or 10, at any given time. Look around you--the triggers and the childish behaviour is all over the place.

trappedinmyradio

Ms. Haiku wrote:

Spanking is a clear message that a parent doesn't know about child development. It is a quick action that at least physically hurts, and stuns a kid. It is a reflection of poor parenting skills.

that is a generalizations...thanks for playing though.

trappedinmyradio

Ahnimus wrote:

Because I appreciated it and at home it was her duty. I didn't pay her, I just thanked her and never expected anything from her. She's kind of a unique child too. I wouldn't expect any child to do that. I expect them to run around acting like children. Hurting themselves and each other. All those things kids learn from.

We also had a lot of fun whenever I babysat. Her brothers were a lot more to handle but they turned around.

so, what does this have to do with spanking a child?

Ahnimus

trappedinmyradio wrote:

so, what does this have to do with spanking a child?

Oh right. Well she was never punished physically. Her brothers were though.

See, her mom was a single mother and she was the oldest so she was drastically favored. The boys were totally uncontrollable. I mean you can tell their mind is roaming, they aren't attuned to the household or their mother, they are roamers. Whereas the girl Stephanie was attuned to her mother.

It's clear that the boys rejected their mother as an authority. Stephanie however did respect her mother.

angelica

trappedinmyradio wrote:

consequence is a generic term.

it's not a psychological fact...it's john bradshaw's opinion.

If you check back, I used John Bradshaw to back up four words that had nothing to do with the word "consequence"

irrationality results when you fail to recognize rational thought...believing that there is one way to perform something is irrational. you'll never understand that, apparently. enjoy.

And yet you did not directly respond to post # 75 from me. On the two key points that I'm standing behind in this latter part of the thread, you did not try to dispute them. You can justify hitting all you want and you can choose the option of doing it, and yet it will not change the meaning of the word "reasoning". It will not change the fact that reasoning is an act of thinking and speaking, and not hitting. And you can justify hitting and choose it if you like, but you cannot deny the intent is to instill fear and or harm as a deterrent. I accept there are many options. There are many valid options, in my mind. I cannot justify the unjustifiable, however. And neither can anyone else.

brain of c

this thread is a great big stinking pile of shit.

Androgynous Mind

decides2dream wrote:

really well stated. some children just follow easily, others need a more firm talking to, and sometimes hand. it really is that delicate, and individual balance a parent must strive for with their child.

Thank you.

It was how I was brought up. When you are young you may not realize that that little spanking will be to your benifit one day. I understand the logic behind it completely now that I am old enough to understand.

Ahnimus

Androgynous Mind wrote:

Thank you.

It was how I was brought up. When you are young you may not realize that that little spanking will be to your benifit one day. I understand the logic behind it completely now that I am old enough to understand.

It's pain, if you step on a nail it hurts, you try not to step on nails. As a child, if you get caught stealing and your parents inflict pain on you, you learn not to get caught.

Let's say I stole something as a child, then my parents spanked me and I didn't get it, so I kept stealing and my parents kept spanking me whenever I was caught. I'm still stealing. But, if one of my friends stole from me something that I enjoyed possessing, I would know first hand what it's like to have something stolen from me, no one would need to inflict pain on me at that point, doing so would prove fruitless, I've already learned the other side of the issue and know why theft is wrong.

The punishment should always suit the crime, I'd favor you stealing from your kids when they steal from you or something like that, over inflicting pain on them.

Pain is too basic of a stimulus to suit the complex nature of human development. It'll teach you not to stick your hand in a grinder or run out in-front of moving vehicles. But it won't teach you street smarts or responsibility.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

It's pain, if you step on a nail it hurts, you try not to step on nails. As a child, if you get caught stealing and your parents inflict pain on you, you learn not to get caught.

Let's say I stole something as a child, then my parents spanked me and I didn't get it, so I kept stealing and my parents kept spanking me whenever I was caught. I'm still stealing. But, if one of my friends stole from me something that I enjoyed possessing, I would know first hand what it's like to have something stolen from me, no one would need to inflict pain on me at that point, doing so would prove fruitless, I've already learned the other side of the issue and know why theft is wrong.

The punishment should always suit the crime, I'd favor you stealing from your kids when they steal from you or something like that, over inflicting pain on them.

Pain is too basic of a stimulus to suit the complex nature of human development. It'll teach you not to stick your hand in a grinder or run out in-front of moving vehicles. But it won't teach you street smarts or responsibility.

Also, when someone is doing something such as stealing, spankings don't solve the underlying problem of "why is the child stealing?" I was a compulsive shoplifter as a teen, along with my other compulsive behaviours. My parents shamed me for being "bad" and really, it fueled my problems which multiplied dramatically as I got older. My self-esteen went further down and down, and my problem solving skills also went down proportionate to how bad I felt about myself.

kinetic

All I know is, I dated a guy whose mom spanked him when he was a child and he was really into being spanked for fun.

Just something to think about...instead of teaching them to avoid running into the street, you end up fetishizing a kid to get their bum smacked instead of something normal, like fetishes for high heels.

Kidding.

Abookamongstthemany

Ahnimus wrote:

It's pain, if you step on a nail it hurts, you try not to step on nails. As a child, if you get caught stealing and your parents inflict pain on you, you learn not to get caught.

Let's say I stole something as a child, then my parents spanked me and I didn't get it, so I kept stealing and my parents kept spanking me whenever I was caught. I'm still stealing. But, if one of my friends stole from me something that I enjoyed possessing, I would know first hand what it's like to have something stolen from me, no one would need to inflict pain on me at that point, doing so would prove fruitless, I've already learned the other side of the issue and know why theft is wrong.

The punishment should always suit the crime, I'd favor you stealing from your kids when they steal from you or something like that, over inflicting pain on them.

Pain is too basic of a stimulus to suit the complex nature of human development. It'll teach you not to stick your hand in a grinder or run out in-front of moving vehicles. But it won't teach you street smarts or responsibility.

Right. Spanking is creating a disconnect right from the very beginning. Children are responding to the wish to not receive pain again when instead they should be responding to the reasoning of why their action was wrong. It's no wonder we live a world filled with people who don't realize how their actions and words effect everyone else around them. They mostly seem to care about how things are for themselves. Spanking teaches a kid to look out for himself. Reasoning teaches a kid to care about the things he does and who it effects.

angelica

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Right. Spanking is creating a disconnect right from the very beginning. Children are responding to the wish to not receive pain again when instead they should be responding to the reasoning of why their action was wrong. It's no wonder we live a world filled with people who don't realize how their actions and words effect everyone else around them. They mostly seem to care about how things are for themselves. Spanking teaches a kid to look out for himself. Reasoning teaches a kid to care about the things he does and who it effects.

Totally.

And Dr. Phil says that when children get spanked, studies show that they feel they are even. The price is paid. They're good to go--they absorb the punishment and not the lesson.

You are so correct: no wonder there is that complete disconnect with people from life. That's why someone like Dr. Phil can point out all sorts of things about people and they are so dumbfounded how he knows so much. Those things are right there for everyone to see--except people completely deny their own behaviour all the time.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Totally.

And Dr. Phil says that when children get spanked, studies show that they feel they are even. The price is paid. They're good to go--they absorb the punishment and not the lesson.

You are so correct: no wonder there is that complete disconnect with people from life. That's why someone like Dr. Phil can point out all sorts of things about people and they are so dumbfounded how he knows so much. Those things are right there for everyone to see--except people completely deny their own behaviour all the time.

I don't like Dr. Phil.