Is it okay to hit your children?

[Aqualung]

I don't know if this has already been a thread or not, but is it okay to hit your children?

I say yes. Hitting is little different than sending a kid to time out. The intent is to make them know that they did something, and the end result (guilt) is the same. I don't think it does more damage to a kid if that guilt is come by hitting or by time out.

This is only true in a loving home. A mom or dad who actually didn't care about their kids, would not be able to excersise proper judgement when it came to hitting. They could seriously hurt the child if they didn't care. But if they did care, they would be able to judge what sort of hitting the child could stand, and be able to tie the hit into a lesson about what the child did wrong. Of couse, these scenarios are also true in the case of timeout. A parent could seriously misuse timeouts, if they really didn't care about raising their kids. So, really, I don't think it makes a difference whether you hit your kids or not, just whether or not you do it lovingly.

 

[Jaymes]

No. No a thousand times over. Hitting teaches nothing except that violence is acceptable--after all, mommy and daddy do it.

EDIT: I think the 'as long as you do it lovingly' thing doesn't count for much. My father could have easily said that he 'lovingly' hit me on the head until I collapsed when things got physical.

 

[Aqualung]

No. No a thousand times over. Hitting teaches nothing except that violence is acceptable--after all, mommy and daddy do it.

EDIT: I think the 'as long as you do it lovingly' thing doesn't count for much. My father could have easily said that he 'lovingly' hit me on the head until I collapsed when things got physical.

He could have easily said that, but was it true?

 

[Jaymes]

From his view it might well have been. I didn't find anything too loving about laying on the floor and being unable to get up, though, and I'm sure kids don't find anything too loving about being forced over a knee and smacked with their pants yanked down.

 

[michel]

I have resorted to a slight slap when things have got out of hand, when our two were younger (and so was I)!. No I don't believe in hitting Children.

This may sound absurd, but the way one deals with a difficult child is very much like the way one deals with pets dogs.

Bad behaviour is attention seeking; when the Child is seeking attention - you don't give it to him. Bad behaviour should be ignored, while good behaviour should be rewarded. And that doesn't mean with sweets - that's another trap to fall into. The other trap is the one of 'If you keep doing that, I'll send you to bed' - thaty gives a very wrong subconscious message that bed is for bad children.

 

[Fire Empire]

Pain is a great teacher, but we think a good parent should be able to control a child without resorting to violence. We remember reading some psychological studies showing that even mild hitting (spankings and such) could result in serious psychological problems.

So, really, I don't think it makes a difference whether you hit your kids or not, just whether or not you do it lovingly.

Wrong, there is a significant difference between hitting anyone and not hitting them. By this reasoning, is it okay for husbands to occasionally hit their wives as long as they "do it lovingly"?

 

[lilithu]

I say yes. Hitting is little different than sending a kid to time out. The intent is to make them know that they did something, and the end result (guilt) is the same. I don't think it does more damage to a kid if that guilt is come by hitting or by time out.

If indeed the end result is the same (in terms of letting them know they did something wrong), why would hitting ever be peferable to other forms of discipline? The only reason it would be preferable is if it accomplished something that other punishments could not. You have not elaborated what that might be.

While otoh, Jensa has pointed out why hitting would be more detrimental than other forms of discipline, teaching kids that violence is an acceptable (or even preferable) response to conflict.

I do not believe that hitting your child is wise under any circumstance. That said, I also do not believe that it's the worst thing that you can do to your child. Inconsistent punishment, so that the kids is never quite sure what's wrong and what's right, and disproportionate punishment, so that the kid feels overwhelming guilt for even small infractions, are far more damaging.

 

[Draka]

As I have said in another thread I believe that the only appropriate instance would be smacking their hand away from dangerous things like a hot stove burner or a knife or something else sharp to save them from being hurt worse than the smack. Other than that I cannot think of any other time where hitting is warranted. Protection is one thing...hitting doesn't have to be part of discipline in any way. I have seen a child take a spanking and just laugh or be defiant as if it did not hurt at all and only made them angrier. While taking a child and putting them in time out facing a corner without anything to see or do, or grounding an older child does seem to have a far better discipline result. As long as discipline comes with an explanation for the consequences then that works best.

 

[michel]

As I have said in another thread I believe that the only appropriate instance would be smacking their hand away from dangerous things like a hot stove burner or a knife or something else sharp to save them from being hurt worse than the smack. Other than that I cannot think of any other time where hitting is warranted. Protection is one thing...hitting doesn't have to be part of discipline in any way. I have seen a child take a spanking and just laugh or be defiant as if it did not hurt at all and only made them angrier. While taking a child and putting them in time out facing a corner without anything to see or do, or grounding an older child does seem to have a far better discipline result. As long as discipline comes with an explanation for the consequences then that works best.

Oh yes, that's a routine reaction - defiance. Ever watched 'Nanny 911' ? that's an eye opener in itself.

 

[jewscout]

different discipline strategies work for different kids...i know spanking worked for me...i learned my lesson!

 

[Draka]

Oh yes, that's a routine reaction - defiance. Ever watched 'Nanny 911' ? that's an eye opener in itself.

"Nanny 911" can just be scary at times with the way those children run their parents. Obvioulsy hitting doesn't work for those people.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I searched the campus online journals and found this enlightening article on spanking: http://journals.ohiolink.edu/local-cgi/send-pdf/050815161946372824.pdf

 

[Aqualung]

From his view it might well have been. I didn't find anything too loving about laying on the floor and being unable to get up, though, and I'm sure kids don't find anything too loving about being forced over a knee and smacked with their pants yanked down.

I know that I certainly didn't think it was very loving for my parents to send me to my room every time I did something bad. That was horrible. But they did it lovingly, and I learned my lesson. I've know lots of people who weren't beat who hate their parents, and I know lots of people who were who love thier parents. I think the thing is the love, not the means of punishment.

This may sound absurd, but the way one deals with a difficult child is very much like the way one deals with pets dogs.

I hit my dogs. If they're missbehaving, I'll give them a slap across the muzzle, and if they're really misbehaving, I'll give them a kick. They still love me.

And that doesn't mean with sweets - that's another trap to fall into. The other trap is the one of 'If you keep doing that, I'll send you to bed' - thaty gives a very wrong subconscious message that bed is for bad children.

Yeah, I definitely don't think that's a very good way to reward children.

If indeed the end result is the same (in terms of letting them know they did something wrong), why would hitting ever be peferable to other forms of discipline? The only reason it would be preferable is if it accomplished something that other punishments could not. You have not elaborated what that might be.

Not true. they could be exactly equal, but people will still have to make a choice. And one will get chosen. Just because one gets chosen over the other does not make one better. It just means that the individual preferred that method.

It's not what you do, it's how you do it.

I don't necessarily think hitting is preferrable but is certainly not undesirable.

I have seen a child take a spanking and just laugh or be defiant as if it did not hurt at all and only made them angrier

I've seen a child do that with a time out, too. Some kids don't respond well to hitting. I probably wouldn't have been the best kid to hit. On the other hand, my brother just didn't care if he got time out. Those are the kids to hit.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

When I was a kid I certainly preferred a wacking. It got it over with, so I could get on with my life. I had 6 of the best fom a large Irish headmaster two days running, I was caught two days running chatting up a local girl through the school railings. It never put me off girls or any thing else. It would be illegal over here now.
At the end of term he wrote to my mother, and she burst out laughing, and asked if it was worth it. The whole episode was a complete waste of time.
I vote no smacking, It dosen't work.

Terry
___________________________
Blessed are those who suffer in the cause of right, the kingdom of heaven is theirs.

 

[Aqualung]

I was never hit as a child. I'm also one of the more violent people that I know. I have a very good friend whose dad hit him very regularly, and he's one of the most pacifistic people I know.

 

[Aqualung]

When I was a kid I certainly preferred a wacking. It got it over with, so I could get on with my life. I had 6 of the best fom a large Irish headmaster two days running, I was caught two days running chatting up a local girl through the school railings. It never put me off girls or any thing else. It would be illegal over here now.
At the end of term he wrote to my mother, and she burst out laughing, and asked if it was worth it. The whole episode was a complete waste of time.
I vote no smacking, It dosen't work.

Terry
___________________________
Blessed are those who suffer in the cause of right, the kingdom of heaven is theirs.

Do you think that if you had had "time out" that you would have been any less interested in the girls? I don't think you would have. I think you would have wanted to talk to them no matter what form the punishment came in.

 

[michel]

When I was a kid I certainly preferred a wacking. It got it over with, so I could get on with my life. I had 6 of the best fom a large Irish headmaster two days running, I was caught two days running chatting up a local girl through the school railings. It never put me off girls or any thing else. It would be illegal over here now.
At the end of term he wrote to my mother, and she burst out laughing, and asked if it was worth it. The whole episode was a complete waste of time.
I vote no smacking, It dosen't work.

Terry
___________________________
Blessed are those who suffer in the cause of right, the kingdom of heaven is theirs.

Well, at least you got in trouble for something worth while......... I was caned by the 'mad' maths teacher whose ambition, it was said was to cane every single boy in the school. The injustice of the 'being caned' hurt more than the caning itself - the physical scars only lasted two weeks; I still shake when I go into exams, and get panic attacks, as a result of that guy.

 

[lilithu]

I was never hit as a child. I'm also one of the more violent people that I know. I have a very good friend whose dad hit him very regularly, and he's one of the most pacifistic people I know.

There are always exceptions to every rule, extenunating circumstances. George Burns smoked cigars daily for decades and still lived to a ripe old age. That doesn't mean that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

Perhaps the reason why you think hitting is ok is because you've never been hit. Perhaps the reason why your friend is a pacifist is because he knows first hand what violence can do. Having been hit myself as a child (and we're talking wild whacks at the head with a leather slipper, not controlled over the knee hand-slapping on the rump) I know that when I get really angry my first response is still to lash out. I have to restrain myself and give myself a "timeout" for the urge to pass. It usually only takes a moment these days to get over it but the initial impulse is still there.

That would be the other advantage of a time-out over a spanking btw, to teach kids the coping skills to deal with frustration. To wait when one is angry instead of acting on one's first impulse.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Nuts, sorry folks.

It's a peer-reviewed article which basically argues that empirical research into the effects of spanking needs to be broadened, as there is currently still a good deal of debate over the issue of spanking amongst the public and professionals alike.

The article cites a study which showed that "among psychologists in clinical practice, 70% would never suggest that parents spank a child, 26% would rarely suggest that parents spank their child, and 4% would sometimes suggest that parents spank (Schenk, Lyman and Bodin 2000)" where the authors define "spanking" as "hitting a child with an open hand on the buttocks or other extremities with the intent to discipline without leaving a bruise or causing physical harm."

The article goes on to outline three basic positions on the issue of spanking: 1) Spanking in all forms is always harmful to children 2) Mild spanking under certain conditions can enhance the positive effects of nonspanking forms of discipline 3) Spanking is beneficial and not spanking is detrimental. According to the authors, the last position is common in public opinion and in lay advice to parents, but is absent from research and academic writing on the issue.

Here is the info on the article: Corina Benjet and Alan E. Kazdin. "Spanking Children: the Controversies, Findings, and New Directions." Clinical Psychological Review 23 (2003) 197-224.

 

[michel]

There are always exceptions to every rule, extenunating circumstances. George Burns smoked cigars daily for decades and still lived to a ripe old age. That doesn't mean that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

Perhaps the reason why you think hitting is ok is because you've never been hit. Perhaps the reason why your friend is a pacifist is because he knows first hand what violence can do. Having been hit myself as a child (and we're talking wild whacks at the head with a leather slipper, not controlled over the knee hand-slapping on the rump) I know that when I get really angry my first response is still to lash out. I have to restrain myself and give myself a "timeout" for the urge to pass. It usually only takes a moment these days to get over it but the initial impulse is still there.

I agree, I can relate to that. It is strange though that a different character will react in a different way from another - as in your case of smokers (either because their parents smoked) or because their parents never smoked.