Spanking vs. violence. - Page 2

[Callimom]

Originally Posted by jezebelle 

I think you expertly summed up how I feel, much better than even I could.

My parents spanked me when I was little.  They were both extremely savagely abused by their parents, and they were lucky to have any semblance of sense at all when they got out of those homes.  Eventually they learned to use other methods, but I don't hold it against them that they started out with a physical discipline, as it was all they were ever taught.  (I am also ridiculously close with them now, and they have been "THE safe-haven for" me for my whole life.)  I didn't see my home as a violent home, but my parents were acting violently when they were hitting me.

I have a different perspective from that upbringing.  I have the Internet and work in a library, I have endless resources to determine what is not only subjectively best for my child, but also what is objectively the least detrimental to children overall. 

I am so usually very much "to each his own" about parenting (at least out loud).  If you breastfeed or formula feed, I am unconcerned.  Cloth diaper, disposable, cosleep, crib-sleep, babywearing, strollers, TV or no TV...I'm pretty apathetic, respectful.  I have opinions, but not passions.  Spanking is my soap-box issue, which is probably why I tend to get dragged into these discussions...and why they often turn into arguments.  It is one of the subjects I have the most difficulty with when it comes to tact and knowing when to leave well enough alone.

I. just. don't. get. it.

I guess it depends on what you are trying to achieve.  The use of the term "violent" is the context of spanking is provocative and it will put people on the defensive in much the same ways as telling parents who send their kids to school rather than homeschool are "institutionalizing" their children, or parents who don't feed their children a completely organic unprocessed diet are "poisoning" their children.  You can make a case for the technical correctness of that particular kind of word usage but it is pretty much guaranteed to shut down real communication with anyone who doesn't completely agree with you. 

Why not approach it in the same way as  you approach your understanding of your parents wrt this issue - as they learned more they did better. You can use what you know to plant a seed for a better way, or you can beat people over the head with it and turn them away from your ideas.

[new2this]

I think the reason people react to the non violent aspect of it is because when people think violence they think a lot worse using objects all out abuse type thing. There is a very think line between spanking and abuse. I was spanked as a child but I can only recall maybe a small handful of times and even that is stretching it. I just wasn't spanked compared to my brother. People who were never spanked can have lower IQs, be very aggressive and so on. So most of those studies I do not hold to be all that accurate. You can skew the results however you want them to be. I wrote a paper for one of my classes last summer on spanking but its on my old computer so I can't pull up my references that I used for the paper but I found out a lot of stuff on both sides. It was really interesting to me. Because I was pregnant at the time with DD and I was wondering where we would fall on the debate some of it I questioned on both sides. 

For me I do say do what works for your family as well as the child. Because well IMO if a person has to keep spanking for the same thing over and over well spanking isn't working try something else. Same goes if a person just uses time outs or whatever else. If you have to keep repeating it well its not working so try something else. 

[Mittsy]

Originally Posted by beccamama31

"Spanking isn't child abuse. Spanking and child abuse are not even on the same continuum. 

True, abuse often includes hitting. But it's not spanking ; it's an attack. It's no attempt to deter trouble or teach. It's a lashing out with a vengeance.

Abuse is cruelty. Spanking is legitimate dicipline.It is moderation tempered by good judgement. To equate spanking with child abuse is to heap guilt of the worst kind on loving parents.

All this is not my attempt to promote spanking  as a means of discipline in your home. To spank or not must be your decision. If you choose not to spank, plenty of other alternatives are available.

My argument is against those who flat out indict spanking as child rearing sin and parents who spank as guilty and incompetent. Spanking, I believe, deserves to be judged as all discipline is judged:How well is this working, for you, your child, and within the values and behaviors you are trying to instill".

I 100% disagree with the above. The definition of child abuse, from wikipedia is:

Child abuse is the physical, sexual, emotional mistreatment, or neglect of children.

IMO hitting/smacking/spanking... of ANY kind constitutes physical mistreatment of a child, therefore making it child abuse. I admit hitting a child once on the buttocks does not equal a full fledged beating, it is still cruel especially for the child, and it is still abuse. If it's illegal for a adult to hit another adult, it should definitely be illegal for a adult to hit a child. This is one issue I can't say "You do it your way, and I'll do it mine and we'll both be fine", because we're talking about the physical wellbeing of a child.

[umsami]

I love this story.  Thank you for sharing it. 
 

Originally Posted by Agatha_Ann 

Makes me think of this...

a story told by Astrid Lindgren
[Author of Pippi Longstocking]

"Above all, I believe that there should never be any violence." In 1978, Astrid Lindgren received the German Book Trade Peace Prize for her literary contributions. In acceptance, she told the following story.

"When I was about 20 years old, I met an old pastor's wife who told me that when she was young and had her first child, she didn't believe in striking children, although spanking kids with a switch pulled from a tree was standard punishment at the time. But one day when her son was four or five, he did something that she felt warranted a spanking--the first of his life. And she told him that he would have to go outside and find a switch for her to hit him with. The boy was gone a long time. And when he came back in, he was crying. He said to her, "Mama, I couldn't find a switch, but here's a rock that you can throw at me."

All of a sudden the mother understood how the situation felt from the child's point of view: that if my mother wants to hurt me, then it makes no difference what she does it with; she might as well do it with a stone. And the mother took the boy onto her lap and they both cried. Then she laid the rock on a shelf in the kitchen to remind herself forever: never violence. And that is something I think everyone should keep in mind. Because violence begins in the nursery--one can raise children into violence."

I think that too often we fail to feel situations "from the child's point of view," and that failure leads us to teach our children other than what we think we're teaching them.


 

[CatsCradle]

Well, not so long ago, a legitimate way to resolve a dispute was to dual to the death.  Not so long ago, it was perfectly acceptable for a man to strike his wife.  I imagine that there are a whole lot of things that were acceptable and legitimate in the not to distant past, so why has the idea that spanking is a legitimate form of discipline survived?

Not because parents are bad or violent or whatever.  Spanking is still around because people still hold to the idea that somehow it is effective and for the greater good.  Well, that's what they used to say about stuff that is no longer legal.  "It's for your own good."  "This is how civilized men settle disputes." (as in the case of duals). 

Until we move from the general acknowledgment that spanking is a legitimate form of punishment, there's always going to be someone, somewhere, justifying the need for it or its effectiveness.

For adults, any form of unwanted touching (note the word "touching") is considered assault under U.S. law.  I still can't wrap my head around the concept that if I slap or push an adult, my bottom can be hauled off to court (for a criminal offense or tort) but I have an unlimited right as a parent to spank/strike my child.  That's messed up.  I don't care who says it is legitimate, warranted or effective.  It is assault in my book, if it is unwanted touching.  Old habits die hard but I hope that one day this subject will not be part of any discussion except in an historical context.

[Gucci&Granola]

Originally Posted by coffeegirl 

I can't say that "you're wrong!" because I don't know for sure. I can tell you that, in my own opinion, linking any and all forms of corporal punishment as being "violent" is remarkably close-minded. Someone slugging someone else in anger is violent. There are also people who, when they hear "spanking", think of all kinds of sadistic forms of abuse and being beaten with belts and whatnot. That would be violent. Making a child go pick a switch so you can beat 'em with it is, IMO, pretty sadistic. A quick slap on the hand or the behind to get a small child's attention for a serious infraction or to prevent a dangerous situation (done, btw, out of love) is simply, IMO, not violence. There is a difference there. If violence = ANY kind of "hitting" then how come books and movies are often called violent, language is FREQUENTLY called violent, etc.

While I do agree that the intention behind one's actions is important, striking another human being is still an act of violence.  To address why the word "violent" is used to describe media: when a book, movie, or other media is described as violent it is generally because it contains descriptions or depictions of violence (i.e. hitting etc...).  On a practical note, slapping a child's hand or bottom to get their attention seems like an incredibly inefficient method to me.  If your intention is truly to get their attention before they touch a hot stove or run into traffic why not whistle loudly, pick them up, or take their hand in yours?  If you just need to distract them long enough from their intended danger or destruction to keep them safe, walking over to them and hitting them is an incredibly illogical way to accomplish that.  Hitting a child to prevent them from hurting themselves is simply ridiculous.  All of the physical forms of discipline I have ever witnessed or experienced were due to a lack of ideas and patience on the part of the parent.  Hitting a child to quickly stop them from doing something is reactionary any way you slice it.

[Agatha_Ann]

Originally Posted by Gucci&Granola 

While I do agree that the intention behind one's actions is important, striking another human being is still an act of violence.  To address why the word "violent" is used to describe media: when a book, movie, or other media is described as violent it is generally because it contains descriptions or depictions of violence (i.e. hitting etc...).  On a practical note, slapping a child's hand or bottom to get their attention seems like an incredibly inefficient method to me.  If your intention is truly to get their attention before they touch a hot stove or run into traffic why not whistle loudly, pick them up, or take their hand in yours?  If you just need to distract them long enough from their intended danger or destruction to keep them safe, walking over to them and hitting them is an incredibly illogical way to accomplish that.  Hitting a child to prevent them from hurting themselves is simply ridiculous.  All of the physical forms of discipline I have ever witnessed or experienced were due to a lack of ideas and patience on the part of the parent.  Hitting a child to quickly stop them from doing something is reactionary any way you slice it.

I've always thought this too. It seems like if you are close enough to hit the child aren't you close enough to stop them from doing whatever they are doing?

[Agatha_Ann]

I know moderation has relaxed, but isn't it still against the forum guidelines to advocate hitting/spanking in any way?

[jezebelle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gucci&Granola 

Hitting a child to prevent them from hurting themselves is simply ridiculous. 

I never understood this line of thinking, either.  To me it is as if the parent is saying, "I would never want you to get hurt!  So let me hurt you instead!"
 

[2xy]

Originally Posted by Agatha_Ann 

I know moderation has relaxed, but isn't it still against the forum guidelines to advocate hitting/spanking in any way?

I don't think anyone here has recommended spanking. A few people have merely said they don't think it's abusive.
 

[hakeber]

If your objective is to get people to stop spanking and start treating their kids with respect, then you need to give over feeling vindicated or right and put the big picture first. People who spank care for, love, and want to do right by their kids. If you carry on with a holier than thou attitude, you will get nowhere. If you take a deep breath and forget about why you don't spank and focus instead on why you DO practice gentler forms of discipline, you might actually get converts instead of brickwalls. Spanking is violent anyway you cut it, but more importantly, it is UNNECESSARY.

THAT is your key to persuasion on this issue, not the evils of a practice that too many people think is valid.

Edited by hakeber - 6/7/11 at 5:31am

[umsami]

Originally Posted by hakeber 

If your objective is to get people to stop spanking and start treating their kids with respect, then you need to give over feeling vindicated or right and put the big picture first. People who spank care for, love,and  they want to do right by their kids. If you carry on with an holier than thou attitude, you will get nowhere. If you take a deep breath and forget about why you don't spank and focus instead on why you DO practice gentler forms of discipline, you might actually get converts instead of brickwalls. Spanking is violents, but more importantly, it is UNNECESSARY.

THAT is your key to persuasion on this issue, not the evils of a practice that too many people think is valid.

[crunchy_mommy]

Originally Posted by jezebelle 

I need to ask a serious question, because it seems I keep putting my foot in my mouth when discussing alternatives to spanking.  Sometimes people ask why I am against spanking, etc., and I tend to say something along the lines of, "I am non-violent" or "against violence of all kinds," etc.  This upsets people who are pro-spanking.  It seems to be my use of the word "violence" when describing spanking.

And I just plain don't get it.

Whatever side you fall on in this debate, how can you not see hitting as violence?  Even if you find it acceptable, isn't spanking, by definition, violence?  Striking another human, with whatever amount of force or for whatever reason, seems un-arguably violent to me.

Am I wrong?  I am trying to approach this from a non-judgmental place, because I don't want to shut down conversations with people about this, but what gives?  I am so careful not to use the word "abuse," but perhaps people associate the two and assume I am accusing them of being abusive?  I know that has happened on at least one occasion.

I feel like I am just being dumb about this...

I absolutely agree with you that spanking is violence. But I don't know that actually labeling someone's actions as 'violent' will have any effect beyond making them feel angry/defensive.

No one has ever asked me why I'm against spanking... it's not really something that comes up I guess. But I guess it depends who is asking you & why they are asking. Are they just asking in passing, making conversation? Are they trying to defend their own 'discipline methods'? Are they genuinely interested in the merits of not spanking? My response would differ quite a bit depending on the answer there.

But yeah, for someone to use spanking as discipline, they would pretty much HAVE to reframe it in their minds as something other than violence to be able to continue doing it.

The thing is, spanking tends to happen when the parent is angry, frustrated, losing patience -- just like other forms of violence. It's hard for me to imagine a situation where spanking would be justifiable. If it's to prevent injury, if you are close enough to spank, you are close enough to swoop the child up and 'rescue' them from the danger. If it's to teach a lesson, there are many other ways to do that without even touching the child. I do not understand the phrase "spanking out of love" because love shouldn't hurt... and I would imagine that when someone spanks, it is when they are feeling the least loving toward their child.

I don't know, I feel like we could phrase things 100000 different ways, and offer up a million studies and explanations, but some people will still feel like spanking is a valid -- even the best! -- option. It doesn't make any sense to me. I understand being THAT frustrated/angry/etc. I get that. I don't get how hitting solves anything. It's hard for me to even really write about this here because I feel so emotional about it and can't write coherently about it. I was spanked as a kid. I was hit as an adult. I don't feel that any human, regardless of age, should be hit.

[GoBecGo]

Once i came into a toddler group with a then 2yo crying DD1 and a woman who was also GD (they are sooooo rare in this group) asked me what was wrong.  I said that DD had tried to run into the road and i had yanked her back by her shoulder/jacket/hair (i grabbed at her and yanked on everything that was caught in my grab, she had long hair, loose that day - as i grabbed her i pulled her back into my arms and we BOTH sobbed and hugged while i apologised for hurting her and tried to explain why i had done it - FWIW i had let go of her hand for a second because she'd dropped her lovie and was simultaneously trying to pick it up and standing on it and was getting very frustrated, i let go to kneel and help her and she darted away and i grabbed her again in that second).  The woman looked at me with utter disgust and DD with teary eyed empathy and said "i would cry if i were assaulted too," to her and "i am a non-violent parent" to me and stalked away.

Now, i am ready NOW to hear that it was a violent way of pulling her out of the path of the car which screeched to a halt 2 yards further down the street (and thus would have hit her if i hadn't done the grab), but at the time i was ready to throw up that my precious baby had nearly been flattened, that in saving her i had hurt and scared her, and that our fragility had just been demonstrated so thoroughly to us.  I did not need to hear that the only takeaway is that i am a violent mother or that i assaulted my child.  It did not endear me to that mother, who seemed more concerned that my DD had her personal space impinged upon roughly by her mother than that she could have DIED under the car.  In fact it just felt like a lot of salt in the wound and i have avoided her ever since.

The reason that "unwanted touching" is sometimes appropriate with kids is that sometimes kids really DO need intervention to save them from greater harm.  Not for one SECOND do i believe smacking can do that, but i don't smack/spank and would not honestly identify myself as a violent parent.  But clearly when the life of my child is endangered i will call upon any resource, up to and including violence.  And i believe i would call upon violence again in that same situation because i love my DD, i don't want her to be hurt/killed and i think it will be effective.  The parents who spank for discipline, rightly or wrongly (and i agree, IMO it is wrongly) do so for the same reasons.  They do it to protect the child from the greater harm they perceive will come of the child not being taught NOT to do the specific naughty thing again.  They believe the spank/smack/hit (whatever you want to call it) will ultimately prevent a greater consequence next time.

I am not endorsing their actions, but i can understand the thought process.

[2xy]

Originally Posted by GoBecGo 

Once i came into a toddler group with a then 2yo crying DD1 and a woman who was also GD (they are sooooo rare in this group) asked me what was wrong.  I said that DD had tried to run into the road and i had yanked her back by her shoulder/jacket/hair (i grabbed at her and yanked on everything that was caught in my grab, she had long hair, loose that day - as i grabbed her i pulled her back into my arms and we BOTH sobbed and hugged while i apologised for hurting her and tried to explain why i had done it - FWIW i had let go of her hand for a second because she'd dropped her lovie and was simultaneously trying to pick it up and standing on it and was getting very frustrated, i let go to kneel and help her and she darted away and i grabbed her again in that second).  The woman looked at me with utter disgust and DD with teary eyed empathy and said "i would cry if i were assaulted too," to her and "i am a non-violent parent" to me and stalked away.

That woman was an extremist. Sorry, but being rescued from death is not likely to be gentle. Even CPR is physically violent. It can cause bruising, cracked ribs, and vomiting.

[CatsCradle]

Originally Posted by 2xy 

That woman was an extremist. Sorry, but being rescued from death is not likely to be gentle. Even CPR is physically violent. It can cause bruising, cracked ribs, and vomiting.

I agree.  Discipline and rescue are not the same thing. Apples and oranges.  I don't find that woman's attitude any different than the people who promote corporal punishment as effective. 
 

[GoBecGo]

Originally Posted by CatsCradle 

I agree.  Discipline and rescue are not the same thing. Apples and oranges.  I don't find that woman's attitude any different than the people who promote corporal punishment as effective. 
 

But you feel this way because this is the way you feel.  SHE feels that what i did was excessively violent.  The majority might not agree with her, but say the car had not been so close?  Say the road had been clear but i couldn't see that and just panicked?  There have been plenty of threads here on MDC about people yanking their kids about and how deplorable/understandable that might be.  My point is that things are acceptable because the majority thinks so, not necessarily because of facts.  I don't think what i did was non-violent, but i don't class it as the same kind of violence as smacking because a child lied (for example).  But what if you really believe lying is as dangerous long term as being hit by a car?  What if you REALLY believe that?  So when you smack you do it out of that belief.
 

[hildare]

Originally Posted by hakeber 

If your objective is to get people to stop spanking and start treating their kids with respect, then you need to give over feeling vindicated or right and put the big picture first. People who spank care for, love, and want to do right by their kids. If you carry on with a holier than thou attitude, you will get nowhere. If you take a deep breath and forget about why you don't spank and focus instead on why you DO practice gentler forms of discipline, you might actually get converts instead of brickwalls. Spanking is violent anyway you cut it, but more importantly, it is UNNECESSARY.

THAT is your key to persuasion on this issue, not the evils of a practice that too many people think is valid.

i totally disagree.  we are enabling people to continue hitting their children by this.  i am not trying to 'convert' anyone.  i figure people have enough sense to access the same information i can.  they just choose to beat/hit their defenseless children.  i don't even continue talking to people like that.  yes, if you hit your kids, i DO judge you.  i feel sorry for your children and if you dare hit them in front of me, you will get a huge earfull.  there's NO EXCUSE.  none.

[2xy]

Originally Posted by GoBecGo 

But you feel this way because this is the way you feel.  SHE feels that what i did was excessively violent.  The majority might not agree with her, but say the car had not been so close?  Say the road had been clear but i couldn't see that and just panicked?  There have been plenty of threads here on MDC about people yanking their kids about and how deplorable/understandable that might be.  My point is that things are acceptable because the majority thinks so, not necessarily because of facts.  I don't think what i did was non-violent, but i don't class it as the same kind of violence as smacking because a child lied (for example).  But what if you really believe lying is as dangerous long term as being hit by a car?  What if you REALLY believe that?  So when you smack you do it out of that belief.
 

I think that if someone's views are that warped, getting a spanking is the least of her kid's worries.

[GoBecGo]

Originally Posted by 2xy 

I think that if someone's views are that warped, getting a spanking is the least of her kid's worries.

But in that case MY views are warped to the mother who thinks i assaulted DD, right?  And she is thinking the same about my kid - it would be better to have the car hit her than be stuck with a violent assaulting mama.  Who knows why she had that view - we all have different experiences.  Say a mama leaves an abusive partner who lied all the time and twisted her into an emotional wreck (i know someone this happened to), she might well feel she would do anything including spanking to prevent her son becoming the lying abuser he ex was - rightly or wrongly, peoples motivations are muddy.  Views are dictated by experiences, and lots of people have extreme experiences which explain their extreme views.  We don't always agree but we can usually see why they feel as they do.

What if the road HAD been clear?  How does my violence stack up then?  If it had been a quiet road, or in a car park, or only a cycle path...  The dangers are shaded, i did not consciously see that car before i yanked, the road might well have turned out to be clear.  There are lots of parents on here who feel it is critical that their child is vegetarian/polite/homeschooled.  They go to fairly extraordinary lengths to help that to happen.  They might not smack but they probably do things other people might not to stand by their beliefs.  In that context can't you see why someone might smack?  If they feel it is VERY important, of CRITICAL importance to instill a certain value or behaviour, and smacking is not beyond the pale for them why would they NOT smack?