It's OK to spank when....

[mamaofthree]

Your child runs into the street, or trys to touch fire, or the stove, or yad yada.
How do you deal with this? I know people who would never spank, except in one of these cases. I really don't think any of these needs a spanking. My ds#2 was one to run towards the street, and it scared the crud out of me, but he doesn't now. Mostly I think he learned it was not a good idea because I became so hystrical.
Anyway, I was just thinking about this, due to a conversation I had with someone resently. Who said they would hit thier child if they ran into the street, but otherwise never did. :

H

[lisac77]

I don't get it either. My son has also stopped running into the street - not because I hit him, but because I would scream and grab him and flip out. I guess my issue is that what does a spanking really do in this scenario? Does it teach your child not to run into the street, or does it teach him that when you are upset you will hit him?

[abac]

My father told me I should hit ds when he runs toward the road. I thought I had made my position on spanking crystal clear, but apparently not. I told him, "You don't want to have this discussion with me. I'm not hitting ds. I'm not going to talk about it."

I've heard others on MDC make the logical suggestion that if a child runs into the street, it is not the child who is at fault, but the parent. So it seems pretty silly to suggest hitting a child for something the parent has done wrong.

I've also heard people suggest (again on MDC,) that if spanking taught children to stay out of the street, you could hit them once and leave them unsupervised near a road because they've learned their "lesson" and won't run into the street, because, you know, you spanked them .

Generally I don't discuss it with people often because I see red when it comes to hitting children.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by abac

I've heard others on MDC make the logical suggestion that if a child runs into the street, it is not the child who is at fault, but the parent.

Why is that logical? I don't think the child is "at fault", as I think that's an asinine thing to say about a small child. But, I don't necessarily think the parent is, either.

Anyway...I have some sympathy with the viewpoint in the OP. I don't do it, partly because that kind of situation reduces me to complete hysteria. But, from talking to various people who do this, I know what the thinking behind it often is. They believe that pain is built into us to teach us that something is harmful - if we didn't feel pain when we touched a hot stove, for example, we'd leave our hand there, and suffer a greater injury. So, the thought is that if you spank (most people I know who do it actually slap the relevant hand...eg, the one reaching for the fire) when a child is doing something dangerous, the pain causes them to avoid doing it again. It's not intended as a punishment, ime. I'm not saying it's a good idea, but that does seem to be the basis for it.

[georgia]

My mom is a big believer in spanking when there's danger involved. It makes no sense to me--I've asked her why she thought it was appropriate to be sending the message that in times of great stress or danger, we resort to violence?

[Ruthla]

I can understand becoming emotional when a child does something dangerous and, in the heat of the moment, hitting the child. What I can't understand is deciding ahead of time that hitting children is ever a good idea, and talking about it in front of children.

[Brigianna]

It's OK to spank when...

... it's between two consenting adults. Otherwise it's assault.

I don't think it's ever okay to assault someone regardless of age. The argument about when it's ever acceptable seems ridiculous to me--it presumes that adults have a natural right to hit defenseless children and that the only dispute is over how they should exercise that right. But if you view children as people with natural rights of their own, it makes no sense.

Is it understandable and forgivable if someone lashes out in anger in a crisis situation? Yes. But is it ever *acceptable* to hit a defenseless child? Absolutely not.

[mollyeilis]

OK hmm.

Child runs into street, gets the punishment of having insane, hair-flying, screaming banshee parent coming after them. Also has punishment of feeling cars go past and scaring the hoosis out of them.

Child touches hot stove, gets burned.

Child reaches out to touch fire, really, if child has normal nervous system, child isn't getting very far towards that fire, b/c people really can sense heat and they don't like it.


In each scenario, there's a pretty natural negative thing happening, so NO I don't think those cases should involve someone going the extra mile. I mean, safety is a personal issue, one that we should each learn for our OWN sake. Not so that we please others. So the natural and immediate punishment that would happen from each of these situations really SHOULD suffice.

[The4OfUs]

My best answer to the stove situation is that kids don't think stoves love them, so if they get hurt by a stove it hurts, and then it's over...like any other accident they might have, stubbing their toe, etc. (albeit much more painful, and obviously I think it's the parent's responsibility to keep them away from a hot stove). Being hurt by someone you love, and who tells you they love you, however, has to be incredibly confusing for a child.

For me, I think it boils down to this:

I don't ever want my children to associate the love I have for them with me intentionally causing them pain for something they did. No matter what. I just don't want them to think that it's OK to hit someone you love "if __<insert bogus reason here>". The only consequence it teaches them is that if you do something mom or dad doesn't like, or scares them, you'll get hit. That someone who loves you will also intentionally hurt you - AND, therefore, it must be OK for you to do it too, if your little brother takes a toy, or a friend does something you don't like. NOT something I want to model to my children. Period.

I especially, with a daughter, would NEVER want her to ever be in a situation where she thought being hit by someone she loves was OK because of something "she did". Ever. It mus tbe really damaging to a child's self esteem to be taught that they "deserve" to be hit by their parent because of something they did. I can't even imagine.

As someone else mentioned, if spanking "worked", then it would only need to be done once and the child would have 'learned their lesson' - but it doesn't - I don't think I've ever heard of a parent spanking once and the child never having the same issue again. Since children who are spanked, as well as children who are not will eventually developmentally attain self control, why on earth would I intentionally repeatedly hit them if it didn't make a difference in their impulse control? OK, maybe if I hit them enough, they would become scared of me and not do anything while I was around, but the thought of that makes me shudder on so many levels. If anything, spanking probably hinders a child's development of self regulation, because they're not learning the reason behind things, they're just learning that if they do X, they'll get hit....what happens when nobody is around to hit them? Versus a child who is gently guided with explanations and consistent redirection, they are internalizing reasons behind things instead of just fear reactions.

Spanking is just such a short term result, and a really lousy one at that. It causes nothing but resentment in the parent because they're "still not listening" if they have to do it again and again , and resentment in the child because they don't understand how someone who claims to love them can hurt them. Just an all around lousy way to "love" and "teach" your child.

So many ways to get the same result, without intentionally hurting your child...AND preserving their spirit, inquisitiveness, AND self esteem.

[taz925]

Originally Posted by donosmommy04

If anything, spanking probably hinders a child's development of self regulation, because they're not learning the reason behind things, they're just learning that if they do X, they'll get hit....what happens when nobody is around to hit them?

I think that needs to be said again. We need to guide them not punish them.

Doreen

[oliversmum2000]

Originally Posted by lisac77

Does it teach your child not to run into the street, or does it teach him that when you are upset you will hit him?

actually i think its worse than that it teaches your child to dear you and hide from you when they make a mistake, and to keep secrets from you because the consequences are so scary.

the damage to parent - child attachment i feel could be more life threatening when they become teenagers

[sapphire_chan]

This attitude comes from the old tradition of "beating the bounds" (I won't explain, look it up yourself if you've got a strong stomach.)

If someone has time to spank, they have time to redirect.

[Ruthla]

It's OK to spank when...

Originally Posted by Brigianna

... it's between two consenting adults. Otherwise it's assault.

:

[maya44]

The answer I have always given these people is "Why would you want to hit your child when 1) even you don't think it is guranteeed to work (since as pp said you aren't goint to spank once and then leave your child near the road, and 2) swooping them up and having a VERY SERIOUS convesation (if you are calm) or a hysterical parent (if you are not) will work every bit as well to dissuade them from going near the street as a spanking!

[mamaofthree]

Brigianna:

Thank you everyone, I felt like I was the only one who thought that that didn't make since. And you know, I never thought of this, but your right, if spanking worked you would only have to do it once. Yet you never see that.

H

[DevaMajka]

Yeah, its silly logic. Kids run into the street mostly because either 1) they have no impulse control at that moment or 2) they have no understanding of how dangerous it is.
Hitting them won't give them impulse control! And I guess it could "work" for the second reason, but there are definitely other, non-cruel ways to get them to understand that its dangerous. I'm sure a freaked out mama does the job pretty well! lol

[CaraboosMama]

Lots of great responses already...
but what I have never understood about the arguments for this type of spanking is that if you have enought time to run up and smack them and get them out of harm's way - don't you also have enough time to grab them & hold them close to you? If an adult you loved was in danger - would you punch them in the face to let them know they are in a dangerous position? The argument just isn't logical at all!!

[CaraboosMama]

Originally Posted by sapphire_chan

If someone has time to spank, they have time to redirect.

exactly!

[mollyeilis]

Originally Posted by CaraboosMama

Lots of great responses already...
but what I have never understood about the arguments for this type of spanking is that if you have enought time to run up and smack them and get them out of harm's way - don't you also have enough time to grab them & hold them close to you? If an adult you loved was in danger - would you punch them in the face to let them know they are in a dangerous position? The argument just isn't logical at all!!

I don't know anything about all the books and articles about how to spank, all I know is what I've seen in my life. And it's not like what you've described, rather it's getting the kid out of danger, then sitting down and smacking them b/c they ran out into the street and they need to know it's bad. 'cuz, you know, the fear they just experienced doesn't actually tell them that.:

[sapphire_chan]

I always forget spankers are into punishment not correction. They aren't trying for a "natural consequence."

(By the way, if you're visiting this forum to find alternatives to spanking, you are not a 'spanker' even if you have been in the past.)