Smack Your Kids, But Only If They’re Little
A study showed that spanking your kids before the age of six might make them perform better in school, help them become more successful and study better. It's not a big surprise this study isn't scoring points with a lot of people.
Did we really need a study like this? Who thought to themselves, hey why don't we conduct a study to see if spanking our kids will make them smart? I mean, who thinks that way? Who was this person? And I so do like the results, so long as the kid is less than six years old, then the study says "go ahead and spank those rugrats!" but if they're over the age of six, then spanking them might result in behavioral problems.
So if you have a real little one, and they don't understand what they did wrong when you tell them what they did wrong, the best solution is to smack them one. I guess that makes sense if we're living in a totally senseless world. Why on Earth would the kid understand why they were being hit if they didn't understand what they did wrong in the first place? And what does this do except teach our children that the solution to a problem is violence. Those first six years are a crucial time of development. Those are the years where they develop language, learn to understand the world, begin to feel love and joy. Should we mar those years by hitting our kids when they don't do what we wish?
Maybe it's because I come from a younger generation. I wasn't spanked. I figured out things. I figured out that fire is hot and that running full speed down the stairs with a pair of scissors in my hand isn't a good plan. I figured out not to talk back to people. I figured out I should behave in school and respect my elders. I figured out to refer to adults as sir and ma'am. I figured out how to study. I figured out how to read and write and do everything I was supposed to do.
But never was I smacked into learning the things I learned. If I tried to touch a stove, would a slap across the face have told me that touching the stove was a bad thing? Or would it have told me that my parents are violent and don't know how to say a simple "no" and pull me away from something harmful?
Smacking your kids is the easy way out. I'm sure your kids learn fast what not to do. But easy doesn't make it right.
January 5th, 2010 - 18:12
I don’t really have a problem with appropriate smacking, and under six sounds like a good rule of thumb (I’d put it lower and add a bottom limit as well, maybe 1.5yo to 4yo). I think one of the things that we’ve all tended to discover in the last decade is ‘the old way was the best way’ like “Eating the food your grandmother ate is probably the best diet to follow” or “Memorising long (yes, boring) poems in schools leads to better internal monologue and more self reflection in teens” or just simple stuff like “lots of sleep and only a little TV is good”.
I’d add “The odd smack helps more than it hurts (or sometimes, “you’ve got to be cruel to be kind”).
Your examples of when to smack a child are a little trite. I wouldn’t smack my daughter when she helps me cooking and goes to accidentally touch the hotplate (after all, I’d explained what a hotplate is to begin with). Gentle but constant reinforcement leads to understanding as is a much better parenting tool. That first actual touch is an excellent lesson, too.
However as soon as a child is old enough to walk and understand basic instructions, but not yet old enough to understand broader concepts like ‘roads are dangerous’ then I’d argue that, sometimes, smacking is appropriate. Maybe the ’six year old’ rule is a reflection of a child’s developmental stages? Under six reinforces rules, over six represents unnecessary violence?
I’m not a bad Dad. My daughter is an excellent, intelligent, outgoing four year old. I consider her free-range. She loves arts & crafts and books and when she plays with her dolls, I’ve never seen her act out smacking even when one of her dolls is naughty to another doll. Smacking is more a compliance tool (OK, a threat) these days than ever used. I use a variety of parental techniques – but I’ll not rule out smacking young children.
Rules like ’stay close at the shopping centre’ need to be enforced. They might not understand that running off is dangerous but after a few smacks they’ll remember ’staying close doesn’t hurt’. Nothing focuses a child’s attention like a smack.
The perfect, calm, hassle free and time rich parent does not exist. Sure, we’d all love to have the time to sit down and talk to a two year old about why it’s dangerous to run off towards the road. Or the patience to wait for some princess to calm down during a tantrum in the middle of a library, or enough hands to always hold my daughters hands in the mall but sometimes, you’ve just got to get stuff done. A smack does it.
January 5th, 2010 - 18:53
The vast majority of professionals agree that child buttock-battering isn’t healthy. A marginal few (mostly religious fundamentalists as those at Calvin) think that child bottom-slapping is good. They use the same selective literalist interpretation of the Bible as was used to justify “witch”-burning, depraved torture methods for those accused of sin and heresy, slavery, racism, wife-beating, oppression of women and a host of other social ills.
January 5th, 2010 - 18:53
Child buttock-battering vs. DISCIPLINE:
Child buttock-battering (euphemistically labeled “spanking”,”swatting”,”switching”,”smacking”, “paddling”,or other cute-sounding names) for the purpose of gaining compliance is nothing more than an inherited bad habit.
Its a good idea for people to take a look at what they are doing, and learn how to DISCIPLINE instead of hit.
I think the reason why television shows like “Supernanny” and “Dr. Phil” are so popular is because that is precisely what many (not all) people are trying to do.
There are several reasons why child bottom-slapping isn’t a good idea. Here are some good, quick reads recommended by professionals:
Plain Talk About Spanking
by Jordan Riak,
The Sexual Dangers of Spanking Children
by Tom Johnson,
NO VITAL ORGANS THERE, So They Say
by Lesli Taylor M.D. and Adah Maurer Ph.D.
Most compelling of all reasons to abandon this worst of all bad habits is the fact that buttock-battering can be unintentional sexual abuse for some children. There is an abundance of educational resources, testimony, documentation, etc available on the subject that can easily be found by doing a little research with the recommended reads-visit http://www.nospank.net.
Just a handful of those helping to raise awareness of why child bottom-slapping isn’t a good idea:
American Academy of Pediatrics,
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
Center For Effective Discipline,
Churches’ Network For Non-Violence,
Nobel Peace Prize recipient Archbishop Desmond Tutu,
Parenting In Jesus’ Footsteps,
Global Initiative To End All Corporal Punishment of Children,
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
In 26 countries, child corporal punishment is prohibited by law (with more in process). In fact, the US was the only UN member that did not ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
January 5th, 2010 - 20:52
Idle Dad, I appreciate your response. Don’t think my opinion is in any way a judgment on you. However, in my opinion, my daughter isn’t 1 yet, and she understands the word “no”. And if you have a child that’s old enough to walk with you across the street, then they should be old enough to understand “no”, and if they disobey “no”, you should give them a time out, take them out of the situation. If a child is throwing a tantrum in a library, I don’t believe it sets a good example to slap her in front of other people. It’s a public place. Her punishment should be her removal from said place. I agree with you that nothing gets a child’s attention like a smack, but like I said I think that’s taking the easy way out.
January 5th, 2010 - 20:54
PDeverit, thanks for the information. I completely agree. I think “bottom-slapping” or spanking is archaic. There are better ways to discipline a child and reinforce rules.
January 6th, 2010 - 18:07
Idle Dad, grow up. Don’t curse out other people using this site. If you can’t act maturely, then don’t visit this site. Thank you.
January 7th, 2010 - 03:51
D.
I apologise, I was a bit taken aback at the inference that I was a bible bashing Dad who secretly was sexually molesting my daughter. My response was perhaps a little pointed.
I did go over and have a look at nospank.net, especially at the section on ‘Sexual Abuse’. Below is a quote:
“What we’re talking about, it was not just a little paddling with the hand on a kid’s backside,” said Raymond Smith, a senior U.S. postal inspector who worked on the case. “They’re using paddles, whips, canes and severely brutalizing these very young children, sometimes as young as 4 years old.”
Now, we are talking about a little paddling with the hand. So is the report. Your suggestion that spanking = sexual abuse is disingenuous and a crafty attempt to shut down debate but painting your opposition as molesters. Nothing makes me more furious.
January 7th, 2010 - 08:19
Idle Dad, thanks for the reply back. I agree with you. I think it’s a bit much to correlate sexual molestation with a spanking. That was never my point; I think it moves too far away from the original debate.