Spanking (re: #53163, #18810, #38456)

[Damasta]

I can't give a ringing endorsement of spanking. Nor can I give an absolute nix on it, either. I think, ultimately, it has to be catered to each child, individually, in consultation with your spouse (if you have one) and the Lord. A former roommate of mine has two children. Their son, who is almost four, hates timeouts (the 'uh-oh chair'). It's an effective discipline for him. Their daughter, who is one-and-a-half, will hit her brother, grin at her parents, and then put herself on the 'uh-oh chair'. Timeouts are joke for her; they're not effective for discipline. The only thing they've found that currently works for her is spanking.

A thought I've been having on this topic, recently, relates to my own experiences. My parents tried several approaches, all concurrently: corporal punishment (spanking, pepper on the tongue, &c.), timeouts, extra chores, removal of privileges (grounding), parental disappointment, &c. I never came to fear my parents from any of the methods (spanking included)—I just came to fear the punishment. My thought is this: every disciplinary measure will produce unintended consequences. It teaches the child that since activity x is used for punishment, activity x is a bad thing. Punish with timeouts? You teach the child to abhor boredom and seek constant entertainment. Punish with extra chores? You teach the child to abhor work. At least with spanking you teach the child to abhor pain, which is less detrimental to the child's future marriage and employment than ADD and/or laziness. It could just be in my nature, but I sometimes suspect that my constant need to watch movies, play video games, surf the internet, or read and my distaste for household chores are at least in part a consequence of my parents' disciplinary actions.

Some people (Pa Grape included, unfortunately) claim that spanking children teaches them to hit. But that's just silly. They figure it out on their own, kind of like the hominids on 2001: A Space Odyssey. My niece isn't a year old, yet, and she already hits when she's mad. Her parents don't spank her; she figured it independently. True, when you spank the child you teach them that hitting is (sometimes) okay. And they may be confused for a while that you, the parent, get to hit, but they do not. But I don't know anyone who still struggles with that contradiction/'hypocrisy'. Shocker, but children are actually smart enough to eventually figure that one out. And even without spanking in the picture, there are plenty of other things that parents do themselves but which they forbid their children to do.

Pa Grape's claim that

...it doesn't necessarily teach them anything.

is untenable. No disciplinary method necessarily teaches a child anything. I'd assert that Pa Grape would've played with fire again at the age of 13 regardless of what discipline his father had doled out. But once children are old enough to understand that there are consequences to their actions, then any of the disciplinary actions can be used to regulate behavior. Spanking, timeouts, extra chores, removal of privileges, parental disappointment, &c., didn't inherently teach me that what I'd done was bad. It taught me that there were negative repercussions to my actions—even if they were initially artificial. As I matured, those disciplinary actions contributed to my improved behavior, but none of them actually taught me to be good. Learning the Gospel and coming to perceive others as equal in value and sentiment to myself are what actually made me a better person. But discipline was a stepping stone to that understanding (see Kohlberg's stages of moral development).

Also, timeouts, extra chores, removal of privileges, parental disappointment, &c., can be inflicted in anger and be just as perplexing to the child as getting spanked in anger. It isn't the spank that sends the mixed signal, it's the anger. And the anger is independent of the method of discipline. Thus, self-control has to be exercised when issuing any form of discipline.

Viper asserted that

Spanking has been shown to be quite ineffective as a teaching tool.

This is true...as long as you ignore the other half of the research. This review concludes that corporal punishment is effective unless overused. This American Academy of Pediatrics conference review was inconclusive, except to say that parents should be counseled to "avoid those [practices] that are...dangerous, ineffective, or abusive." And this excellent article reviews the entire professional and lay controversy. There are certainly plenty of arguments against spanking, both peer-reviewed and in the blogosphere. I'm not claiming that there's no evidence that spanking is ineffective or detrimental, just that it's not as cut-and-dried as Viper tried to make it sound.

So, I conclude with my opening statement: I can't give a ringing endorsement of spanking. Nor can I give an absolute nix on it, either. I think, ultimately, it has to be catered to each child, individually, in consultation with your spouse (if you have one) and the Lord.

[TheAnswerIs42]

I have to say this is a topic I have been debating right now. My son is 3, and has learning disabilites. Teaching him anything is hard: teaching discipline has proved nearly beyond me. He just didn't seem to understand that "no" meant I didn't want him to do it. At best, I could convince him to stop an action for the moment, but five minutes later he would be merrily doing the same thing and looking at me like "whee! Isn't this a fun game I found mom?" For a while I thought that he needed an immediate (since he doesn't recall events on cue) and physical (since he doesn't understand English) negative effect. I tried gripping his arm, but he didn't always get the message. So it escalated to a slap on the hand that was doing the wrong thing, with the same long explanation of what he was doing wrong and why.

And now when he gets mad at his sister for something, he hits her on the hand.
So what has he actually learned? Mommy gets frustrated and hits me, so that's what I do too. Sigh. Damasta, I'm with Pa Grape on this one. He never hit others until I hit him.
Also, I very much agreed with not doing the punishment until you have calmed down. If you react in anger, they think that is how you should act when you are angry.

And yet, I still am back with causing a physical discomfort when he does something wrong. I mean, he doesn't understand the meaning of "stay here", so time out is rather ineffective. The kid will happily sit in his stool for 30 minutes for a snack because he likes to sit and babble to himself. I think Damasta is right. Each kid needs their own program. His little sister doesn't like to sit still, so a time out is great for her.
It reminds me of when I was a kid. I spent all day every day in my room, reading or playing alone. My parents punished me by locking me out in the backyard.

Sorry, about the venting. I just don't know how to teach a kid that doesn't understand 90% of what I say to him the true meaning of "no". He's such a happy, well meaning kid. . . .

[Cuddlefish]

My parents' primary method of punishment as I was growing up was to assign pushups. If you do something really really bad, and you get assigned a thousand pushups as a punishment, you're not likely to do it again.

Smaller misdeeds were generally assigned somewhere between 15 and 50 pushups.

Also, it gave us some pretty beastly uppper body strength.

[Damasta]

Thanks for your response, TheAnswerIs42. You have my sympathy in the difficult challenge the Lord has entrusted you with. I know you'll do well.

I see that I was overzealous in my statements about whether spanking teaches children to hit. I see that there are cases, like your own, where children really do learn it first-hand from their parents rather than discovering it for themselves. But I think in the majority of cases the children do figure it out on their own. However, that still allows for spanking by the parent to reinforce the hitting behavior. So perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but you're not teaching your child to hit, you're teaching them when and why to hit.

Cuddlefish, have you found that as an adult you have an aversion to push-ups? Or even exercise in general? I'm still turning this idea over in my head and I'd like to see if it actually holds any water.

To add to the debate, here are some quotes:

You will be far more successful with love as your watchword than you will be with a whip or lash or anything of the kind. —Gordon B. Hinckley (source)

I have never accepted the principle of ‘spare the rod and spoil the child.’ I am persuaded that violent fathers produce violent sons. Children don’t need beating. They need love and encouragement.... They need fathers to whom they can look with respect rather than fear. Above all, they need example. —Gordon B. Hinckley (source)

I am satisfied that such punishment in most instances does more damage than good…I recently read a biography of George H. Brimhall, who at one time served as president of Brigham Young University. Concerning him, someone said that he reared “his boys with a rod, but it [was] a fishing rod” That says it all. —Gordon B. Hinckley (source)

I’ve never been a believer in the physical punishment of children. I don’t think it is necessary. —Gordon B. Hinckley (source)

I have tremendous respect for fathers and mothers who are nurturing their children in light and truth, who have prayer in their homes, who spare the rod and govern with love, who look upon their little ones as their most valued assets to be protected, trained, and blessed. —Gordon B. Hinckley (source)

I don’t believe that children need to be beaten, or anything of that kind. Children can be disciplined with love. —Gordon B. Hinckley, October 2003 Ensign

Above all else, children need to know and feel they are loved, wanted, and appreciated. They need to be assured often of that. —Ezra Taft Benson (source)

Use no lash and no violence, but...approach them with reason, with persuasion and love unfeigned.... You can’t do it any other way. You can’t do it by unkindness; you cannot do it by driving.... You can’t force your boys, nor your girls into heaven. You may force them to hell, by using harsh means in the effort to make them good, when you yourselves are not as good as you should be. The man that will be angry at his boy, and try to correct him while he is in anger, is in the greatest fault. You can only correct your children by love, in kindness, by love unfeigned, by persuasion, and reason. —Joseph F. Smith (source)

It is not by the whip or the rod that we can make obedient children; but it is by faith and by prayer, and by setting a good example before them. —Brigham Young (source)

And several articles in the Ensign that address it, most of which seem to downplay it.

[Cuddlefish]

No, I like exercise, and I like pushups as long as they are the kind specifically made for women. I'm pretty sure that all my siblings feel more or less the same way. We are a rather athletic family. Only my littlest brother really hates pushups, but I'm pretty sure that's because he still lives at home and gets them assigned to him when he's disobedient/disrespectful.

[Damasta]

What did your parents do before you were old enough to do pushups?

[Cuddlefish]

They spanked us if we were very, very bad, and I think I got sent to my room once for cutting up the couch cushions, but we learned pushups very early, like 2 1/2 or 3.

We were generally good kids, though.

[Portia]

I don't think spanking is actually related to whatever the child did wrong. I think if a kid steals something, they should have to return it an apologize. If they're hitting, it makes sense to me to firmly hold their little wrists and say "no," and separate them from the punched. If they're talking back, they can be in their room alone. Physical violence always just made me EXTREMELY frightened; I think it feels abusive, myself. Because you're a kid, and the adult has power over you.

Not getting on a moral high horse, just trying to remember what is was like to be a kid.

[Cuddlefish]

I have a question about parenting tactics. My father is entering into a deal with my 15 year old brother that goes as follows: If my brother gets straight A's for the next semester, my dad will by him an iPod touch for Christmas. However, my dad will still technically own the iPod, and he will have to approve any and all music that goes on it. In addition, he can take it away for any reason. When my brother turns 18, assuming he's still making good grades, he will get the iPod to himself.

I'm all for good grades, and it'd be awesome for my dad to give my brother an iPod, but the thing about my dad is that he will change the terms of the deal at whim, and he will use it as a bargaining chip to force my brother into obediance ("if you don't get out there and weed the vegetable garden, your iPod will disappear for a month"). It doesn't even matter if you write the original contract down and have both parties sign; he'll still make up things that were never part of the deal.

Did your parents ever do this? My dad made these 'bargains' with me all the time in high school, and it always made my life miserable. Do you think it's a good parenting strategy that I'm biased against because I hated it so much?

[Darth Fedora]

I think by the time one's children are fifteen or so, they deserve to be treated fairly and as adults. Teenagers are old enough to understand that chores and curfews are a responsibility of each family member to keep the household running and to keep everyone happy, and not just a means to avoid punishments. I don't know, I just know that I would have been really offended and resistant if my parents had ever tried to hold some kind of bargaining chip over me.

[Damasta]

I think making deals to motivate your children (e.g. if you get straight A's this semester, I'll buy you an iPod) can be a useful tactic, depending on the maturity of the child. Where it sours, is when you use it to manipulate your children or force them to do what you want (e.g. if you don't get out there and weed the vegetable garden, your iPod will disappear for a month). This is where overuse of the tactic gets you into trouble--you either have to use the original prize for leverage, or you have to offer a new prize to resolve each and every conflict.

So I'd say it's fine for cases where there needs to be big, long-term improvement (e.g. grades). For less important cases, it would be better to withhold more common privileges (i.e. you can't watch TV/play on the XBox/go to Linda's house/&c. until you've weeded the garden). But even in those cases, it should be understood well beforehand that it's the child's responsibility to weed the garden. Otherwise, it's still just the whim of the parent, and the withholding of privileges is just manipulation rather than a contract.

[Unit of Energy]

I remember that as a child I would get spanked occasionally. But those aren't the punishments I remember as punishments. I used to read a lot as a child, and I would often be punished by not being allowed to read anything other than the scriptures for an evening. Or if we were rude to a sibling we would have to make their bed for a week. Of course that one sometimes backfired on our parents because we would be sneaky and get a sibling to act out so that we didn't have make our beds. Other punishments we had were picking up the dog poo or not being allowed to watch tv for a week.