OT religion and smacking

"Tine Andersen" wrote

A child that is hit is taught that it is an OK way of solving
disagreements.
Would you accept the same behaviour from you DH (that he hit you -
only with
his bare hand on your clothed backside, but taking into account how
bigger
his hand is and how much stronger than you he is)?

We accept that there are things a parent may do to a child
that they may do to another adult. I cannot dictate what my spouse
eats, wears, plays with, watches on tv. I cant force him to take
medicine
get shots, be bathed, have haircuts. I cant restrain him in a high
chair, car seat
crib etc.
I don't teach that hitting is a way to solve a disagreement. Hitting
is a negative
reinforcement or "aversive" that sometimes we may need to use when an
unwanted
behavior can be extinguished no other way. Sometimes, especially with
preschoolers,
their desire to have or do a certain thing, is much stronger than
reason or time outs
and it takes something very unpleasant and immediate to make them
aware that the
consequences of their behavior outweigh the benefits.

Shannon G wrote:
"Clisby" wrote in message
...


Sue wrote:

Clisby wrote in message


There are states where public school officials can legally spank your
child without your permission.


Wow Clisby, I am amazed. I didn't think any states in the US could spank

so

I looked it up. Sure enough, 23 states are allowed to spank kids in

public

schools. ( It said it was mostly in the south in the "bible belt"
states. Geez, that's a shame.
--
Sue (mom to three girls)
I'm Just a Raggedy Ann in a Barbie Doll World...



Yeah, I remember looking up some of this stuff in relation to a thread
on one of the misc.kids newsgroups not too long ago. If we have the
same list, these states allow spanking:

Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
New Mexico
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Wyoming



How old is this list? Here in AZ, a teacher was just either put on
administrative leave or terminated for physically reprimanding a child for
speaking Spanish rather than the legislatively mandated English during
class. IIRC, she slapped them on the arm.

Shannon



For more information, you can check out:


http://www.stophitting.com/laws/legalInformation.php

It quotes the specific Arizona law allowing corporal punishment.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the action you described would be
grounds for disciplining a teacher, even if the local school district
allows corporal punishment. The fact that a state allows corporal
punishment in public schools does not mean the state is issuing a
blanket authorization for teachers to hit kids.

The website above quotes the laws in each state that allows corporal
punishment in schools. In some cases, like Arizona and Georgia, it's
specifically authorized by state law. In others, like Colorado and
Alabama, the state law simply authorizes local school boards to
establish displinary policies, and there's no prohibition on corporal
punishment.

Clisby


Clisby

Larry

For real discipline, I have found that time-outs or other revocation of
privileges works quite well, and can get the point across quite effectively,
thank you.

For some children perhaps. But I had one who would NOT cooperate with any
sort of discipline, but a spanking would at least calm him down for awhile. If
I just tried to hold him still on my lap, he'd scream until he went to sleep.
He did not tolerate any kind of control or restrictions. This experience
caused me to be very careful about telling other parents what they should do
for their children! All of them are different. (I had three others without
this problem.)

teapot wrote:

On the train yesterday I was talking to a woman who was keen to tell
me that children need to be disciplined from an early age. I did all
the neutral 'oh really, well that's not how I want to do it but thanks
anyway' stuff but then she told me that she had read about it in a
book her pastor had lent her. It said that you should smack but not
with the hand as that is for love, but with a paddle. [...]

For my child(ren), my philosophy is that I will
reserve spanking for moral infractions. I came by
this philosophy because of my own upbringing.

When I was 9, I tried to cheat on a test. Not only
that, but I lied to my mom and told her that the boy
next to me tried to cheat off me and I got in trouble
for it. (Yeah, I was pretty stupid back then... I hope
that has changed by now.)

So, of course, the truth came out eventually and I
got a major paddling (looking back, it wasn't that
bad, it was the guilt and disappointment and all
that stuff that was worse) and had to stand in a
corner for HOURS and HOURS (it probably was
just half an hour) and I swore to myself that I would
NEVER cheat again. And I can swear on any bible
that I have never done so since.

I think paddling is the wrong punishment for not
picking up toys or making a mess while eating, or
not getting good grades. BUT, if Pillbug ever
shoplifts or gets in with a gang of bad kids, and if
all else failed, I have no problem with corporal
punishment to make sure he learned not to do the
bad thing again.

-- Anita --

Angela writes:

I confess, we do swat. One swat, with a bare hand on a clothed backside. I
haven't found that screaming in the child's face works any better (and this
is what I have seen, and heard confessed, to be the alternative in a great
many cases. And I don't see why it would *be* any "better" for the child.

I can sort of see that point, but in my experience, a swat on the hand (which
is about as far as I've been prepared to experiment with corporal punishment)
is of no particular use anyway. I hear people saying over and over that they
spank because it actually works, but the trouble is, if it's *not* going to
work, well, you could easily see other parents thinking they just didn't hit
hard enough, or whatever, and combined with a hot temper, that could really go
overboard in a hurry.

--Helen

"H Schinske" wrote in message
...
Angela writes:

I confess, we do swat. One swat, with a bare hand on a clothed
backside. I
haven't found that screaming in the child's face works any better
(and this
is what I have seen, and heard confessed, to be the alternative in
a great
many cases. And I don't see why it would *be* any "better" for
the child.

I can sort of see that point, but in my experience, a swat on the
hand (which
is about as far as I've been prepared to experiment with corporal
punishment)
is of no particular use anyway. I hear people saying over and over
that they
spank because it actually works, but the trouble is, if it's *not*
going to
work, well, you could easily see other parents thinking they just
didn't hit
hard enough, or whatever, and combined with a hot temper, that could
really go
overboard in a hurry.


Rule #1 for me- Never hit in anger. If I spank, it isn't based on how
angry I am at the offense
or how upset and tired I am. Its done after I've had time to think and
have decided that maybe
a few swats will help. Hitting in anger usually isn't discipline, but
merely an act of frustration.

"H Schinske" wrote in message
...
Angela writes:

I confess, we do swat. One swat, with a bare hand on a clothed backside.
I
haven't found that screaming in the child's face works any better (and
this
is what I have seen, and heard confessed, to be the alternative in a
great
many cases. And I don't see why it would *be* any "better" for the
child.

I can sort of see that point, but in my experience, a swat on the hand
(which
is about as far as I've been prepared to experiment with corporal
punishment)
is of no particular use anyway. I hear people saying over and over that
they
spank because it actually works, but the trouble is, if it's *not* going
to
work, well, you could easily see other parents thinking they just didn't
hit
hard enough, or whatever, and combined with a hot temper, that could
really go
overboard in a hurry.

Oh, I know.

Now, *my* parents used a wooden paddle. A big heavy wooden thing with a
rubber handle, from the game 'Jokari'. Dad said he preferred this to a belt,
which stung his hand and made him mad, and "made him hit harder".

Now, I'll agree with Larry that it sounds wonderful to get in the child's
face and say, very firmly, "Don't do X." But there has to be some kind of
consequence that the kid actually wants to avoid, or he's just going to do
it again the next time. Or maybe YOUR kids aren't going to, but I guarantee
MY kids will do it the second my back is turned. Then they blame *me* for
not putting things out of their reach. I'll use a bag of mini marshmallows
as a concrete, recent example.

I bought a pack because I'm using them to help Victoria learn to put food
items of some size into her mouth, and eat them. But of course the other
kids want them too. After removeing the bag from their bedroom where they
had sneaked it, with display of much displeasure on my part, I brought it
down and put it in front of me at my desk. Emmaline came and very very
slowly crept her hand toward it, watching my face the whole time. I said
"No, we're not having any more." The hand kept creeping.

Now, what would YOU do?

I barked "NO!" and it startled her. She turned red and started to cry. Then
she said I was too harsh, and I should've just put the marshmallows where
she couldn't reach them. Obviously, them being in sight at all was too much
for her self-control - or *she* believes that, anyway. But she's perfectly
capable of climbing onto the counter and getting them out of the box on top
of the fridge, which used to be our 'out of sight, out of mind' location.

Don't say, "Just don't have marshmallows in the house", that's not an
option. I have them here for a reason. And please don't say I ought to lock
them in the gun safe, that's a bit too extreme. But for goodness sake, what
would you do? I didn't even swat her. But clearly, nothing else I've
devised so far proves enough of a reason for them to not sneak things behind
my back, or even right in front of me if I'm distracted.

--angela

"Chotii" wrote
I bought a pack because I'm using them to help Victoria learn to put food
items of some size into her mouth, and eat them. But of course the other
kids want them too. After removeing the bag from their bedroom where they
had sneaked it, with display of much displeasure on my part, I brought it
down and put it in front of me at my desk. Emmaline came and very very
slowly crept her hand toward it, watching my face the whole time. I said
"No, we're not having any more." The hand kept creeping.

Now, what would YOU do?

Threaten them with a punishment for direct disobedience, e.g., no junk
food at all for the next X amount of time. And follow through, time
after time. Eventually, most kids will respond to this kind of
discipline.

I barked "NO!" and it startled her. She turned red and started to cry. Then
she said I was too harsh, and I should've just put the marshmallows where
she couldn't reach them. Obviously, them being in sight at all was too much
for her self-control - or *she* believes that, anyway. But she's perfectly
capable of climbing onto the counter and getting them out of the box on top
of the fridge, which used to be our 'out of sight, out of mind' location.

Don't say, "Just don't have marshmallows in the house", that's not an
option. I have them here for a reason.

You don't need a reason!

And please don't say I ought to lock
them in the gun safe, that's a bit too extreme.

yes, kids need to learn self-control. That said, at certain ages, an
occasional sneaking of a junk food is not a shocking thing. I remember
doing a lot of sneaking of all kinds when I was a kid, and my father
was a strict disciplinarian who might hit, so I did fear consequences.
But I had my own desires as well. Isn't sneaking things behind adults'
back just something kids do? (Or is my notion of childhood perverted
by _Huck Finn_ ). I would *of course* punish my kids if they snuck
junk food that they had good reason to know I didn't want them to have
(or in any other way directly disobeyed even implicit rules), but I
would not feel the need to change my whole approach to discipline,
unless they did that kind of thing (directly disobeyed me) a lot.

My husband would probably agree with you, though. Whenever the kids do
something noticeably bad, or are just really annoying for a night or
two, he decides we're doing something wrong and need to change our
dicipline methods. He suggested spanking for years, but finally gave
up. However, I try to take a longer view. My kids are far from
perfect, but I am definitely seeing growth and maturing as they age,
so I think we're on the right path.

But for goodness sake, what
would you do? I didn't even swat her. But clearly, nothing else I've
devised so far proves enough of a reason for them to not sneak things behind
my back, or even right in front of me if I'm distracted.

But it sounds like the swatting you do hasn't proved enough of a
reason either, or she would have known better than to do that. I don't
think every use of the hand on a child is abuse or anything like that,
but I really believe that other unpleasant consequences applied for
misbehavior will work just as well in the long run. I just think that
it takes a while for some kids to learn what they can and can't get
away with. Some are boundary-pushers, like my eldest (8 YO), and I
believe he would be even if we hit.

Anyway, I personally have a HOT temper, so if I opened the door to
hitting, it could get ugly. I don't advocate skrieking at kids -- not
at all -- but if you don't do it a lot, it can be effective. I agree
with Larry that a low, slow tone gets kids' attention. My 8 YO really
HATES it when I talk to him like that -- that's good, right?
Ultimately, I think that patient and regular application of
as-reasoned-as-possible, as-related-to-the-offense-as-possible
consequences to actions eventually does the job.

Nina wrote:

Rule #1 for me- Never hit in anger. If I spank, it isn't based on how
angry I am at the offense
or how upset and tired I am. Its done after I've had time to think and
have decided that maybe
a few swats will help. Hitting in anger usually isn't discipline, but
merely an act of frustration.

So your child does bad behavior x. You take a few minutes to process the
above (maybe 5 or 10?) and then go back and swat him after the fact?

I don't believe in spanking. I have spanked and it was completely out of
frustration. If I'd have taken 5 minutes to leave the room and think about
it I'd have never spanked them. I've spanked Hunter twice and Luke 3 times.
Not good I know but I don't think there will be any permanent damage either.
It didn't do a damn bit of good. It doesn't work with my kids. My brother
and I were spanked and it didn't do anything for us either.
--
Nikki
Mama to Hunter (4) and Luke (2)

"Nina" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"H Schinske" wrote in message
...
Angela writes:

I confess, we do swat. One swat, with a bare hand on a clothed
backside. I
haven't found that screaming in the child's face works any better
(and this
is what I have seen, and heard confessed, to be the alternative in
a great
many cases. And I don't see why it would *be* any "better" for
the child.

I can sort of see that point, but in my experience, a swat on the
hand (which
is about as far as I've been prepared to experiment with corporal
punishment)
is of no particular use anyway. I hear people saying over and over
that they
spank because it actually works, but the trouble is, if it's *not*
going to
work, well, you could easily see other parents thinking they just
didn't hit
hard enough, or whatever, and combined with a hot temper, that could
really go
overboard in a hurry.


Rule #1 for me- Never hit in anger. If I spank, it isn't based on how
angry I am at the offense
or how upset and tired I am. Its done after I've had time to think and
have decided that maybe
a few swats will help. Hitting in anger usually isn't discipline, but
merely an act of frustration.

This whole discussion is extremely painful to me. After spending a lot of
time on this newsgroup, I have finally arrived to the conclusion that
Americans are not as primitive and savage as we think, but this conversation
bombs me back into prejudice again. It keeps going in my head:: what can you
expect from citicens of a country that still considers guns in private homes
normal and approves of death penalty. We considered this in-human 60 years
ago (or more). Hitting in schools was forbidden 40 years ago. Hitting
children at all by anyone was forbidden 10 years ago (should have been
earlier) in the acknowledgement of hitting being humiliating and teaching
some not so wanted behavior.

I have never felt it necessary to hit. I have children who rage at me, but
they recognize my superiority never the less. I do shout once in a while,
but they know it's over in an instant. Where does hitting of any kind fit
with AP'ing?

Please - someone - convince me, that hitting, shooting, killing people (by
death penalty or by having guns in the house) is not the norm amongst
Americans.

Tine, in distress