When are parents justified in hitting children?

[Betteralone]

You can hit him if its comming at you with a knife, is about to shoot someone with a gun, is about to jump over a ledge to his or her death. Basically, emergencies where lives are at stake. Falling upon violence just means that your children don't respect you enough to listen to your words.

Totally agree Dove. lol : )

Touching on a little bit of what everyone has said:

The brain's center for reasoning and problem solving is among the last to mature. Reasoning starts to develop between the ages of 3 and 7, but is not complete until young adulthood. Some adults can not reason! Haha

I see an obvious increase in behavior problems today as compared with 20 or more years ago. I believe it has a lot to do with the new way of not disciplining children with spankings or yelling. Spankings, a swat on the hand, or raising your voice, when done appropriately, never did any harm, but is usually beneficial.

As far as the relationship between parent and child, it is the emotional aspect that is most important. If you do not have a good "relationship" with your child, discipline will not work. They will have no respect for you regardless of what you do.

Also, children are not taught manners or respect nowadays, and are not held truly accountable for their actions. The no tolerance rule is also ridiculous.

Discipline without relationship = rebellion.

 

[Satya]

Discipline without relationship = rebellion.

In juvenile justice we have a similar saying...

"Rules without nurture equals rebellion."

 

[TinyBubbles]

^ there's a psychological theory of development that states the most well adjusted of us are those who are brought up by very strict but also VERY loving parents. so perhaps a total commitment & a balanced approach to discipline is what is required.

 

[under skies]

I can never really make up my mind.

I just think that sometimes when parents spank their children it's partly because the parents are angry and want to take it out on the kid. I've heard that old line, "This is going to hurt me more than it will hurt you," but ... I still think it is a little about the parents' frustration.

That being said, I was spanked a lot as a child. A) It apparently wasn't entirely effective for someone of my disposition if I needed to be punished that frequently. B) I haven't suffered any sort of emotional damage because my parents hit me.

I also think that children are different and respond differently to different kinds of punishments. For some kids, the stern look on your face and the fact that you are apparently angry with them is enough to make them stop doing whatever the bad behavior is. However, some kids need something more. I don't know what that should be, though.

 

[RecklessDreamer]

I prefer to put them in the cage.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Slapping (open palmed across the butt, back of legs) should be employed whenever a child insists - after reasonable warning - to continue behaving: disrespectfully, disobediently, or insolently.

Why: because acting anti-socially or against legitimate authority can become habitual; and habits formed when young are almost impossible to break as adults. If you don't discipline children they will have great difficulty fitting into society happily as adults.

 

[Satya]

Slapping (open palmed across the butt, back of legs) should be employed whenever a child insists - after reasonable warning - to continue behaving: disrespectfully, disobediently, or insolently.

Why: because acting anti-socially or against legitimate authority can become habitual; and habits formed when young are almost impossible to break as adults. If you don't discipline children they will have great difficulty fitting into society happily as adults.

The other end of that equation is that they learn its okay to use violence whenever they feel they have been disrespected. Furthermore, what constitutes "anti-social" behavior? And why is spanking necessary for disciplining a child?

 

[christmas]

this is a good point. i think if you're going to hit your kid you should make damn clear that they know why they're being hit, and what exactly they need to do to prevent it next time, so they don't confuse the punishment with the punishER. (is that just a horrible way of justifying a cruel act? this is a tough issue).

At our house (growing up) I undertood exactly why I got hit. I just didn't agree with getting hit, so I threw things.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

The other end of that equation is that they learn its okay to use violence whenever they feel they have been disrespected. Furthermore, what constitutes "anti-social" behavior? And why is spanking necessary for disciplining a child?

Spanking doesn't have to be violent.

If it is done with restraint and without anger it is discipline. The fact that it employs physical pain does not qualify discipline as violence, otherwise stitches applied to children's open wounds against their will would constitute violence.

 

[Gaze]

Totally agree Dove. lol : )

Touching on a little bit of what everyone has said:

The brain's center for reasoning and problem solving is among the last to mature. Reasoning starts to develop between the ages of 3 and 7, but is not complete until young adulthood. Some adults can not reason! Haha

I see an obvious increase in behavior problems today as compared with 20 or more years ago. I believe it has a lot to do with the new way of not disciplining children with spankings or yelling. Spankings, a swat on the hand, or raising your voice, when done appropriately, never did any harm, but is usually beneficial.

As far as the relationship between parent and child, it is the emotional aspect that is most important. If you do not have a good "relationship" with your child, discipline will not work. They will have no respect for you regardless of what you do.

Also, children are not taught manners or respect nowadays, and are not held truly accountable for their actions. The no tolerance rule is also ridiculous.

Discipline without relationship = rebellion.

^ there's a psychological theory of development that states the most well adjusted of us are those who are brought up by very strict but also VERY loving parents. so perhaps a total commitment & a balanced approach to discipline is what is required.

Agree

 

[Satya]

Spanking doesn't have to be violent.

If it is done with restraint and without anger it is discipline. The fact that it employs physical pain does not qualify discipline as violence, otherwise stitches applied to children's open wounds against their will would constitute violence.

I simply do not agree with the "spare the rod, spoil the child" mentality. I've witnessed enough parents who have been able to employ far more constructive methods than spanking in order to discipline their children. Striking a child, except for in emergency situations, seems like an act of ignorance. Such punishment is only an effective deterrent for the youngest children and for a short span of their lives. It doesn't make psychological or behavioral sense to utilize it beyond that, and it relies upon the parent not to use it in the heat of the moment. The reality is that parents are more than likely going to succumb to their own emotions. As such, it can serve not only to hurt a child, but to hurt a parent by conditioning them to strike out at their child when frustrated.

No offense to your particular philosophy, but I think you are ignoring the conditioning upon the parent that occurs when they utilize such methods. When spanking no longer works, the parent is more likely to utilize harsher forms of physical punishment to get the same result. This too often leads to physical abuse.

 

[DoveAlexa]

the parent is more likely to utilize harsher forms of physical punishment to get the same result. This too often leads to physical abuse.

Or lots and lots of yelling. Like a good hour of it.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I simply do not agree with the "spare the rod, spoil the child" mentality. I've witnessed enough parents who have been able to employ far more constructive methods than spanking in order to discipline their children. Striking a child, except for in emergency situations, seems like an act of ignorance. Such punishment is only an effective deterrent for the youngest children and for a short span of their lives. It doesn't make psychological or behavioral sense to utilize it beyond that, and it relies upon the parent not to use it in the heat of the moment. The reality is that parents are more than likely going to succumb to their own emotions. As such, it can serve not only to hurt a child, but to hurt a parent by conditioning them to strike out at their child when frustrated.

No offense to your particular philosophy, but I think you are ignoring the conditioning upon the parent that occurs when they utilize such methods. When spanking no longer works, the parent is more likely to utilize harsher forms of physical punishment to get the same result. This too often leads to physical abuse.

[I've BOLDED the key concepts I am replying to]

Age of Spanking
In young children spanking is necessary because communication is not adequate and helps them learn about dangers.

In children up until the teenager years spanking curbs anti-social rejection of communication and rejection of the parent's authority - it helps them to learn to balance their ego/pride with the reality of social life.

Beyond about 14yrs I think spanking should only ever be used when a teen insists on acting like an irrational child - ie when communication is rejected in favour of tantrums. This is very rare in children who have been disciplined and it is more the embarrassment of being spanked than the spanking itself which opens the teen's eyes to the reality of their behaviour.

I was spanked once after I was 14 - and I am still in awe of how childish I was behaving at the time.


Abuse
I have never seen -among my family, friends, or classmates - a case where spanking parents became abusive parents. It may happen, but not often.

Abusive parents abuse. And negligent non-disciplining parents may eventually lash-out from frustration but parents who discipline are usually very disciplined in their emotions as well.

Emotionally disciplined parents discipline their children.
Emotinally repressed parents don't discipline and occasionally lash-out.

 

[IndigoSensor]

Honestly, I think in 99% of cases, physical force will not be needed. I can see parents being justified in hitting children in some cases. I personally do not like it at all though, but it is not my place to say what the parent can and can not do (outside of clear abuse).

I would like to have a child of my own one day, and I will never hit them under any circumstances. If my child were to be anything like me, that would be extremely psychologically damaging, and I do not want my child to fear me, or to feel like they need to restrain themselves in ways they should not.

 

[DoveAlexa]

Another question, if a child in clearly a super sensitive type like INFJ or INFP, would that come into play? Hitting a child like that when we respond to anger really well and are thrown into mental turmoils so easily seems really over doing it. I mentioned flinching and being always on guard around my father no matter how nice hes been in my adult life, and I know it was a direct result of inconsistent and overly harsh punishments.

 

[arbygil]

I will say this: Hitting or striking a child shouldn't be the issue. Disciplining is.

A parent should *never* discipline a child when he/she (the parent) is angry or upset. Even if they're not hitting or striking the child, the wrong message is conveyed if the parent is angry and taking that anger out on their child (hitting can be the quickest expression of this, but not always).

I was normally a very compliant child, but I would occasionally act up and act out. But I remember clearly when I was disciplined: My father or mother would calmly explain to me exactly what I did wrong. I would receive a very long lecture (20 minutes or so) and then I'd usually get a few swats. I always knew that I'd done something wrong and the explanation would make sense. To fortify this, I would usually get two or three spankings on the bottom.

I would rarely receive spankings, though, and I knew exactly when I'd get them. My father would swat - my mother wouldn't. But I respected them both and both methods were effective for me.

What wasn't effective was passive aggressive reinforcements from my father (him comparing me to other kids and finding me lacking in not so many words) or my mother when she'd had enough and decided to yell my name across the house. Those times made me cringe and WISH for the spankings.

In all, it depends on the child and it depends on their temperament. As long as the child knows exactly why they did something wrong and are disciplined appropriately (disciplined so that they know not to do it again), a parent has done his or her job.

 

[DoveAlexa]

It had got to the point where I didn't know when or what I would get punished for next, and began to assume everything could potentially get me into trouble, such was the inconsistency of my discipline. I became downright paranoid.

There was a outright lack of discipline in my house, such that my elder sister (INTJ) would rarely get disciplined for doing something, but my mom would just explode at her on occasion and then send my dad in to yell some more. She was immune to that, completely. I however tried my best not to get into trouble but sometimes I got yelled at for my personality which when combined with never knowing when or what would set my parents off... ugh...

So yeah, the only disciplining when angry and then never as a means to change behaviour thing, really doesn't work for any personality type.

 

[Satya]

[I've BOLDED the key concepts I am replying to]

Age of Spanking
In young children spanking is necessary because communication is not adequate and helps them learn about dangers.

In children up until the teenager years spanking curbs anti-social rejection of communication and rejection of the parent's authority - it helps them to learn to balance their ego/pride with the reality of social life.

Beyond about 14yrs I think spanking should only ever be used when a teen insists on acting like an irrational child - ie when communication is rejected in favour of tantrums. This is very rare in children who have been disciplined and it is more the embarrassment of being spanked than the spanking itself which opens the teen's eyes to the reality of their behaviour.

I was spanked once after I was 14 - and I am still in awe of how childish I was behaving at the time.


Abuse
I have never seen -among my family, friends, or classmates - a case where spanking parents became abusive parents. It may happen, but not often.

Abusive parents abuse. And negligent non-disciplining parents may eventually lash-out from frustration but parents who discipline are usually very disciplined in their emotions as well.

Emotionally disciplined parents discipline their children.
Emotinally repressed parents don't discipline and occasionally lash-out.

There is a sad irony in that you think spanking is synonymous with discipline. Some of the most disciplined children I have ever seen have never been spanked.

In my line of work, I've witnessed some horrible abuse. And it usually begins with a parent who doesn't realize they are conditioning themselves to violent behavior by the means they use to discipline their child. You speak from your experience, and I will speak from mine. I don't think someone who would spank a childish 14 year-old is acting anymore like an adult than they are.

And just so you know, I came from a physically abusive home when I was young. I got thrown into a wall across a room once and even swatted with a belt buckle. I know firsthand how parents can start with spanking and as a child grows up and the punishment is no longer effective, they move on to more violent acts in an attempt to get the same result. Spanking is simply not effective past a certain age for most children. Just ask any credible child psychologist.

And trust me, if your "family, friends, or classmates", as you put it, have physically abused their children, they aren't going to advertise it to you. Nobody outside of my immediate family knew what I went through, and its been the same with most of the children I have worked with. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

There is a sad irony in that you think spanking is synonymous with discipline. Some of the most disciplined children I have ever seen have never been spanked.

In my line of work, I've witnessed some horrible abuse. And it usually begins with a parent who doesn't realize they are conditioning themselves to violent behavior by the means they use to discipline their child. You speak from your experience, and I will speak from mine. I don't think someone who would spank a childish 14 year-old is acting anymore like an adult than they are.

And just so you know, I came from a physically abusive home when I was young. I got thrown into a wall across a room once and even swatted with a belt buckle. I know firsthand how parents can start with spanking and as a child grows up and the punishment is no longer effective, they move on to more violent acts in an attempt to get the same result. Spanking is simply not effective past a certain age for most children. Just ask any credible child psychologist.

And trust me, if your "family, friends, or classmates", as you put it, have physically abused their children, they aren't going to advertise it to you. Nobody outside of my immediate family knew what I went through, and its been the same with most of the children I have worked with. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I was talking about friends and classmates, who were children, when I was a child. I knew a couple of classmates who were abused - they were definately not being disciplined - their parents were just venting anger on them.

There is a huge difference between discipline and abuse. Among my friends you could see there was no fear in them regarding their parents - there was love and definitely respect, but no fear. (I pick things like fear up very easily).

Satya, the fact that you have never experienced being disciplined, but only have experienced being abused (from what you say) does not mean that there is no such thing non abusive spanking.

 

[Satya]

Satya, the fact that you have never experienced being disciplined, but only have experienced being abused (from what you say) does not mean that there is no such thing non abusive spanking.

I never said that spanking couldn't be used in a non abusive way. Only that it isn't very effective after a certain age, that there are better ways of disciplining a child, that parents may act out in frustration, and that parents may condition themselves into using harsher physical punishments. If you disagree with any of those points, then feel free to explain why.