"Christian Mother Tries Defending Her Guide to Hitting Kids: 'It Has to Hurt' ”

[Valjean]

Corporal punishment teaches that violence and inflicting pain are legitimate ways to effect compliance.
It teaches that it's proper for the strong to dominate the weak.
It teaches that right is that which avoids pain, and wrong is that which causes or risks pain.

It does not teach either moral principles or moral behavior.
It emphasizes obedience to authority, not compliance with moral principles.
It teaches risk avoidance. not proper behavior.

It will extinguish unwanted behaviors -- as long as real, direct and painful consequences are perceived.
It may teach deviousness -- that a behavior is OK as long as consequences can be avoided.
It will not assist in promoting good behavior in novel situations.
It will, on the other hand, produce obedient citizens, compliant workers and good soldiers.

Psychologists and sociologists, with expertise in this field, who have studied long term consequences, generally believe the practice harmful.
Anthropologists, who've studied child-raising strategies in many different cultures, find that corporal punishment is not necessary to promote good behavior or achieve long term, pro-social results.

Perhaps, for parents who are, themselves, at low levels of moral development, it's the best they can do.
Many religious, after all, have been raised to follow commandments -- not to ask why; not to consider consequences. Teaching; even considering why a thing is right or wrong, is beyond them. The Good -- is following orders.
Deontology vs consequentialism.

 

[Watchmen]

I do agree that the disciplined child needs to “feel” it. That does not mean corporal punishment. Rather, it’s that to change inappropriate behavior it is necessary that the child “feel” the wrongness of what they’ve done. Otherwise, it will be like that scene in A Christmas Story where the kids relish in dodging a bullet by not coming forward regarding egging their friend in to stick his tongue in the flag pole. They didn’t “feel” it; hence, no lesson learned.

 

[MonkeyFire]

I see disciplining your child so you can be calm as the most sadistic thing, and detrimental to your child.

 

[blü 2]

.


"Christian blogger Lori Alexander has a long history of saying the worst possible thing in every situation, but this week, a few screenshots began circulating of comments she made several months ago in which she describes smacking her children.

She seems to delight in telling other mothers how and how long to hit their kids.

In one case, she talks about hitting her kid for four straight hours. (In that screenshot, I’m assuming she means “spank” instead of “spark.”)

In another, she says “it has to hurt” or else they won’t learn their lesson.

In yet another, she claims to use a “foot-long strap.”

There’s a word for this and it’s not “discipline.”

It’s “abuse.”

It’s the sort of “train up a child” thinking that’s popular in fundamentalist Christian circles. The idea is that your children must fear you in order to grow up healthy, therefore hitting them (no matter how delicately that’s described) is the best parenting tool available. But realize these are people who grew up to believe hitting their kids is okay. They’re deranged. They’re living proof of how that method fails.

Alexander has now come out with a video attempting to defend herself. The lies begin right in the title: “NO, We Did NOT Abuse Our Children.”

​

In part of the video, she claims she “misspoke” about hitting her kid for four straight hours… before later saying it may have been a four-hour cycle of spanking, then the kid still not obeying, then spanking again, etc.

Which doesn’t help her case.

She eventually summarizes her views:

… if you asked any of our children if they were abused, they would say not in any way, because we loved our children. We’re not abusive. We’re not mean. We’re not mean or unkind parents in any way. We believe in God. We believe that His ways work, and spanking has been around for generations and generations. It’s legal in every single state. And for a reason: It works!
I just wanted to clear that up. We’re not abusive parents. We loved our children deeply. We wanted the best for them. We wanted them to grow up to be disciplined adults.
​

All of that is the same justification you’ll hear from men who abuse their wives. They’re not abusive. They just wanted to fix a problem. They love their partner…

Of course we never hear from the children themselves in this video. Only the abuser. But even if the children say they’re fine, it wouldn’t justify the method. Hitting your kids is abuse. In this case, Alexander uses Christianity to defend her cruelty. And if your religion can provide a cover for violence, then your religion is part of the problem."
source​

And don't forget, "a 'rod' works much better than a hand." So, how about a show of hands out there: Hurting your child is the best way to discipline them. ..or..

The unfortunate woman is nuts.

Her even more unfortunate victims are entitled to the protection of the law.

Where is it?

 

[SaintUriah]

Teach them to 7 hit them to 10 from 7

 

[Heyo]

For all anyone knows spankings, beatings, and whatnot may be going on in European homes just as frequently as they are in the USA.
.

The number of unreported cases may be high, I don't know. And it's not that spanking a child wasn't legal until very recently. So there are still people living who have been legally spanked and argue that it "didn't make them a bad person". But I think that having the law in the book will (has?) eventually change the overall perspective towards children.

 

[Sunstone]

Show me the science that demonstrates the benefits of spanking outweigh the disadvantages.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I never spanked my children, feeling I could devise more memorable behavior correctors

That really is the better way, as it does teach the lesson and instill it more than having the shock of being hit on top of the shock of having angered and upset mom and dad (assuming mom and dad have rules at home that must be followed). I'm not against spanking, but after many nieces and nephews I learned their really usually are better options that tend to work, especially when high degrees are stubbornness are involved and trying a spanking is the easy way out.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is illegal and always was.

Religion in particular is allowed BS exemptions that for anyone else would be abuse on grounds of neglect and abuse, such as not taking a sick child to the doctor, permanent body modifications, and controlling their education to the point they are ill prepared for the world as adults. Basically, in America, when it comes to child rearing religion gets a "get out of jail free" card that no one else gets just because it's religion.

 

[pearl]

I never spanked my children, feeling I could devise more memorable behavior correctors, yet I don't think an occaissonal swat on the butt damaged any kid.

I agree, but the situation in the op was way beyond the occasional swat.

 

[ChristineM]

It is illegal and always was. There's a huge difference between a red fanny and broken bones and bruises.

Not really, what is described is still abuse

 

[shmogie]

Corporal punishment teaches that violence and inflicting pain are legitimate ways to effect compliance.
It teaches that it's proper for the strong to dominate the weak.
It teaches that right is that which avoids pain, and wrong is that which causes or risks pain.

It does not teach either moral principles or moral behavior.
It emphasizes obedience to authority, not compliance with moral principles.
It teaches risk avoidance. not proper behavior.

It will extinguish unwanted behaviors -- as long as real, direct and painful consequences are perceived.
It may teach deviousness -- that a behavior is OK as long as consequences can be avoided.
It will not assist in promoting good behavior in novel situations.
It will, on the other hand, produce obedient citizens, compliant workers and good soldiers.

Psychologists and sociologists, with expertise in this field, who have studied long term consequences, generally believe the practice harmful.
Anthropologists, who've studied child-raising strategies in many different cultures, find that corporal punishment is not necessary to promote good behavior or achieve long term, pro-social results.

Perhaps, for parents who are, themselves, at low levels of moral development, it's the best they can do.
Many religious, after all, have been raised to follow commandments -- not to ask why; not to consider consequences. Teaching; even considering why a thing is right or wrong, is beyond them. The Good -- is following orders.
Deontology vs consequentialism.

How many children do you have?

I see your entire post as a crock, nonsense. I resent your saying my parents had "low levels of moral development" because I would get a swat on the butt for acting out.

You sound like a European to me, are you ?

American children historically were spanked for bad behavior.

That harmed us so badly, that we did not start two world wars as the Europeans did.

We were so badly damaged that we became the most powerful economic, and scientific force in the world.

I had a successful career too, even though I once in a while got spanked.

I didn't spank my children, who both are successful, yet if I had, it would not have changed anything in the least.

Of course, spanking can be abused, THAT is the issue.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm mixed on the subject.

If you don't spank a kid he's not going to understand how life works. If the parents dosent spank them early on, then later on they will get spanked by the police and I would say their version of spanking is arguably far worse than any parents.

On the other side of the coin, there is a fine line between reasonable corporal punishment and outright abuse.

Maybe I'm missing something, but ever since parents stop disciplining their children through corporal means, kids seem to have gotten a lot worse and far more degraded and psychotic because they never learned the value of corporal discipline. It's what we still do as a society overall. The tool belt of a police officer is not meant for a timeout. It's designed to inflict harm and brute force on people.

If parents dont instill this fact into their kids, then the authorities will when those kids soon-to-be adults realize the hard way that life does not revolve around them.

I honestly can't say I support or condem corporal punishment.

Huh?
Nobody in your adult life is going to spank you. And if they do, you can charge them with assault.
So why is it okay to hit children?
Hitting children teaches them that we solve our problems physically, rather than verbally.
If you can't teach your children life's lessons without beating them up, then I'd say you're doing it wrong. There are much more effective methods to use that don't involve beating them up, where they actually will learn something other than that we resolve our problems by hitting people.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Huh?
Nobody in your adult life is going to spank you. And if they do, you can charge them with assault.
So why is it okay to hit children?
Hitting children teaches them that we solve our problems physically, rather than verbally.
If you can't teach your children life's lessons without beating them up, then I'd say you're doing it wrong. There are much more effective methods to use that don't involve beating them up, where they actually will learn something other than that we resolve our problems by hitting people.

Disobey and resist a police officer and tell me what happens to you.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

American children historically were spanked for bad behavior.That harmed us so badly, that we did not start two world wars as the Europeans did.

No, you were two busy lynching African Americans, trying to eliminate the last vestiges of Native Americans, and invading Latin American countries or installing dictators in them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Disobey and resist a police officer and tell me what happens to you.

They won't spank you. They're not allowed to beat you to a pulp.
That's all you have to say?

Tell me, what happens if an adult beats up another adult? Is that how adults are expected to sort out their problems?

 

[Twilight Hue]

They won't spank you. They're not allowed to beat you to a pulp.
That's all you have to say?

Tell me, what happens if an adult beats up another adult? Is that how adults are expected to sort out their problems?

Well there's the solution then.

Don't spank your kids.

Tazer them.

 

[shmogie]

No, you were two busy lynching African Americans, trying to eliminate the last vestiges of Native Americans, and invading Latin American countries or installing dictators in them.

Perhaps, but total up the deaths. Add those in Ireland from the British invasions as well.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well there's the solution then.

Don't spank your kids.

Tazer them.

Your assumption that kids who aren't beaten up by their parents are the ones who are going to be tased by cops is silly. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the kids who are beaten by their parents are the ones who are more likely to get into fights with cops.

Thanks for not addressing my questions. Good work.

 

[shmogie]

Huh?
Nobody in your adult life is going to spank you. And if they do, you can charge them with assault.
So why is it okay to hit children?
Hitting children teaches them that we solve our problems physically, rather than verbally.
If you can't teach your children life's lessons without beating them up, then I'd say you're doing it wrong. There are much more effective methods to use that don't involve beating them up, where they actually will learn something other than that we resolve our problems by hitting people.

A swat on the butt is not beating them up.

You can't make an adult stay in the house like you can a kid, it is unlawful imprisonment.

So, if you ban a kid to their room, is that unlawful imprisonment?