For parents who don't believe in spanking their children what would you do instead?
What would you do if you caught your child playing with matches or engaging in otherwise dangerous activity? I know a lot of people say they would talk to their kids, but talking isn't really punishment, and it shouldn't be punishment as you want to keep the lines of communication open. I'm just trying to understand the other side's point of view. I do not live in Sweden, growing up when I misbehaved my parents spanked me. I turned out fine and am still close to my parents. I won't be having kids for some time, but I think that when I do I will use spanking as a disciplinary tool when necessary. I've done a research paper on the topic and I understand non-spankers' stance and arguments against it, I'm just wondering what would you do for situations in which you really can't afford to tell your child twice due to the risks to his or her safety.
2009-12-06T20:18:15Z
ok to clarify yes you talk to the child, but what do you do to drive the point home? for example you can talk to a child all day long about why they should set the table and look at where silverware comes from and have the natural consequence of the food getting cold etc. and yes you warn your kids about dangerous things and keep them out of their reach, but what if they come across it anyway. You really can't afford to have to tell a child more than once not to run in the street because next time they could get hit by a car and be killed. In dangerous situations you can't stand idly by and watch the natural consequences of them getting hit by the car, or getting burned of burning the house down. You have to make it perfectly clear that they can never touch a match again and always need to be holding an adult's hand before entering the street. Spanking should not be parent's only disciplinary tool or even their main one.
?2009-12-06T19:58:36Z
Favorite Answer
I do not think you need to show physical disapproval to get your point across as i have never had to resort to that even with issues of safety. It is simple, if my child were doing something that endangers them and those around them i would sternly talk to them about the danger as well as use punishment in terms of time outs, losing privileges and grounding depending on the child's age. Personally, i do not think parents should wait till the child plays with the said danger to make it known that this is dangerous and wrong, these talks need to come up when the child is old enough to understand when you explain danger and until then dangerous and even potential dangerous things need to be kept out of reach and out of site. I also want to say that though i do not spank i do not feel it is wrong, i just didn't choose that form of discipline for my family.
Well, I think there is some confusion about punishment vs discipline... Punishment is when someone pays for what they did wrong. (If you punish a child, you are enabling him or her to pay retribution.) Discipline is teaching. When we discipline a child, we teach them why they should not have done when they did.
Ok... But spanking is so effective, right? Let's consider why! (This is one reason I love that I have Aspergers... I can look at things in ways that others don't think of at first! Lol!) When a parent spanks a child, it's to get his or her attention. The reason it works well is because it got their attention to the extent that the could not forget the cause of the attention. The same could be said if you are in a relationship and your BF, in response to something you did, gave you an amazing smile and said, for the first time, "I love you, and I am going to make you my wife." You would probably not forgot what you did that caused that attention, right?
The key to disciplining a child is to get his or her attention. When it is deathly serious, then I would educate the child in a deathly serious kind of way. If a child is fascinated by fire, help them see all the sides of it by taking them to a burn unit. Playing with a knife? Pull up photos of people without their prosthetics on, or obituaries of kids who have dies in gunfights. There is a big difference between seriousness and urgency... If a child has a triggered grenade in his or her hand, it would require a different action from finding a bunch of extinguished matches under his bed. VEry very serious, but one is urgent and the other is not. Both are important.
When urgency is the case, it's normally because of safety. As a parent, the idea is to make the chile (an whomever else) safe as quickly as possible. Taking the item away immediately, for instance. Shouting to get them to turn their head. But once the urgency has passed, thee are better ways to get one's attention other than hitting a child.
I sincerely believe that when you hit a child, the pain does a few things. First, it gets the child to momentarily forget HIS "crime". He's not thinking how bad he was for breaking that dish while experiencing pain... But he is thinking about the hand or person giving him pain. This creates distrust between the kid and that person. Hands are for loving people, not for hurting. Ever see a dog flinch when her master waved at a friend?
The best consequence is a natural consequence. It's showing the child that when they do XYZ, then PDQ could happen. The best way to show that is by not taking the consequence away, but supporting them through it. If a child is ordering a parent around, the parent has the choice to go along with it, or show that orders will not control the parent. When going along with the orders, she is learning that she can get her way with being bossy. When the parent intentionally does NOT do what she wants him to do, then he is showing her that she will not get the desired result. It works better in controlled environments, and thus is the reason for parenting!! Managing that control until the child has learned what s/he needs to know to go out into the world!
I don't know if this answered your question, but it's something I feel strongly about. I'm an autism consultant, and helping kids, through their parents, is what I do.
You need to take a logic class and do a research paper for that. Just because you were spanked and turned out fine, is not a good logical arguement. I was not put in a 5-point harness, and am also fine, but I use a car seat with my kids.
I didn't like spanking my kids, and i have two sons. As i recall, they both got two spankings each (my last resort!).
I got beaten when i was a child -- not spanked, beaten. I had broken bones, trips to the hospital and have a permanent back injury because of it all.
In conclusion, i believe that so many people don't believe in spankings because some parents don't know the difference between spanking and beating/abuse. Hard to believe but some adults aren't that bright.
Depends on the childs age- if they are young ( under 5) then i certainly would smack them on the butt for that. Plus they would lose priveleges as well. For putting themselves in danger.
If the child is age 5-10 - grounding from friends, phone, tv, video games etc works wonders. A spanking would only be used for the worst of their behavior - like fires - they wouldnt be going anywhere for a long time.
10 to 18 -- Same as for age 5-10 . With the exception of spanking - dont spank a teenager. I would suggest that you never do that.