# What do "spanking" and "smacking" mean in your country ? Are they the same as "beating" ?



## Jocaste

Bonjour à tous !
I recently watched an episode of the show "_Deperate Housewives_" and I was a bit stunned of what I heard. I explain you the story : Bree was looking after her friend's children and since they were as usual boisterous and cheeky Bree decided that it was time to change her manner of upbringing them (even if they weren't her own children) because they weren't listening to her at all. Therefore she spanked one of the children.
And when the boy told her mother that he had been spanked, she really drove mad "my friend beated my child, how she dared etc ...". And this very reaction truly stunned me because a spank or a smack are not like beating someone. 
Here in France (or at least in my family, perhaps that's not the same everywhere in France), spanking and beating a child are very different things : spanking is a "normal" thing, if the child really deserves it and beating is something extremely disgraceful and punished by the law.

But after having watched this show, I wondered what the other countries thought about spanking or smacking a child. 
Is it like beating for you ? Or do you see a difference like me ?

P.S. : my parents used to spank me when I was younger and when I seriously disobeyed or did something really bad. But anyway I'm not for this manner of punishment.

Thanks for you answers


----------



## Outsider

I don't think you can draw a consensual line between "spanking" and "beating". It's up to each individual to decide which is which. Some people are strongly opposed to any kind of physical punishment, "beating", "spanking" or whatever.

A curious linguistic note: in Portuguese, _espancar_ actually has a more violent connotation than _bater_. A stranger you meet on a dark alley may _espancar_ you, but your parents will only _bater_ you.


----------



## jonquiliser

In my eyes, and in the eyes of the Finnish law, spanking, smacking, beating or any other physical punishment/"correction"/reaction is out of the question. I cannot believe that parents think they have the right to such behaviour, full stop.

I do recall the rather recent debate in Great Britain, though, where the House of Lords thought it necessary that parents not be inhibited in their "raising their children". The end result was - smack as much as you want as long as it doesn't leave any physical mark on the kid. Makes me sick to the stomach how some people reason.


----------



## Outsider

I'm curious: how strictly are those laws enforced?


----------



## jonquiliser

Out - really really poorly .


----------



## Chrisk

In the vast majority of countries in the world there is no legislation forbidding parental physical discipline of children. In most places it is as accepted as the norm.
Fortunately, this is no longer the case in most of Europe, but there are still only a few countries, mainly Scandinavian, that have explicit bans on corporal punishment by parents and other carers. 

In England and Wales, if you physically chastise your child in any way that leaves a physical mark  -this can be just a scratch-, you can get 5 years in jail.

"Oh, that means you can do absolutely anything that doesn't leave a mark, right?". NO, as there is a long list of other offences you could be prosecuted for too

As for the laws being enforced "really really poorly" in the UK, this seems like a personal opinion from someone who is not resident in this country. In my experience (and my girlfriend is a nursery school teacher) if there is the slightest suspicion that you physically abuse your child in *any *way, you will be reported to social services and/or the police in no time. I don't have any statistics to hand about prosecution rates.



jonquiliser said:


> I do recall the rather recent debate in Great Britain, though, where the House of Lords thought it necessary that parents not be inhibited in their "raising their children". The end result was -  smack as much as you want as long as it doesn't leave any physical mark on the kid.


Completely and utterly untrue.


----------



## Outsider

I've just gone back and noticed the following in the original post (where was my head before?):



Jocaste said:


> Bree was looking after her friend's children and since they were as usual boisterous and cheeky Bree decided that it was time to change her manner of breeding them (even if they weren't her own children) because they weren't listening to her at all. Therefore she spanked one of the children.
> And when the boy told her mother that he had been spanked, she really drove mad "*my friend beated my child*, how she dared etc ...".


There is an important difference between spanking your own kids, and allowing a third party to do it to them. Most parents are a lot less accepting of the latter than the former, especially nowadays. They feel that only they have the right to apply harsh punishments on their children.


----------



## jonquiliser

Chrisk said:


> As for the laws being enforced "really really poorly" in the UK



I was talking about Finland when I said that, as I assumed Outsider to be asking about how those laws are enforced in Finland.


----------



## fenixpollo

According to WR:
spank: _to slap with the flat of the hand_
slap: _to hit with something flat_
hit: _deal a blow to, either with the hand or with an instrument; "He hit her hard in the face" _
smack:_ deliver a hard blow to; "The teacher smacked the student who had misbehaved"_ 
blow: _a powerful stroke with the fist or a weapon; "a blow on the head"_ 
beat: _hit repeatedly; "beat on the door"; "beat the table with his shoe" _
beat:_ give a beating to; subject to a beating, either as a punishment or as an act of aggression; "The teacher used to beat the students"_ 
beating: _the act of inflicting corporal punishment with repeated blows _

According to these definitions, to _spank_ is the same as to _hit_ or to _slap_; a _smack_ is to _spank hard_; and to _beat_ is to _spank_ repeatedly. 





			
				Jocaste said:
			
		

> And this very reaction truly stunned me because a spank or a smack are not like beating someone.


 In other words, a spank or a smack are very much like beating someone, only with fewer repetitions.

Here is a previous thread -- *spare not the rod* -- where we discussed _ad nauseum_ the benefits and evils of corporal punishment. Enjoy.


----------



## sunkitty

Where I live, the words "spank" and "beat" have very different meanings when referring to what you do to a child.

Without getting into whether anyone thinks spanking is right or wrong in general, most English speakers see "spanking" as a swat on the bottom to a child, not intended to injure, just as a discipline, where beating is much more severe, often done out of anger.

Many people who think spanking a child is OK do not think beating a child is OK.

This is my interpretation of the relative meanings of the two words based on my dialect.


----------



## mjmuak

Beating a child is strictly forbidden in Spain, but spanking is, obviously, not. My parents smacked me when I did something really bad and I will do the same with my children (I will never dare touch a child that is not my own, that´s different). I came home once totally drunk at the age of fifteen and I got a smack on the face and a month at home. I deserved it, and I thank my mother for doing it. Both things. I remember a case on a newspaper in which a mother reported her ex-husband for smacking their thirteen year-old child. The judge decided that a parent has the right to spank a child. I don´t know the laws in England, U.S.A. or France, but I imagine that it is also penalise to beat a child; I have lived with two different families (English-unitedstatian and French) and  when the children did something realy naughty they did spank them. Both parents in both families.


----------



## rodoke

In the United States, the only real answer I can give you is "it depends on who you ask". Opinions vary widely on spanking.  It doesn't help at all that these opinions seem to split so neatly down socioeconomic lines.  The working poor tend to favor it, while the middle class tends to abhor it. Blacks and Latinos seem to favor it a lot more than Whites. Rural and urban America favor it more than suburban America. Naturally you're going to have a lot of disagreement between what's a spanking and what's a beating.

Parents have a bit of latitude in the United States. They can do what they want as long as other people in the community don't object. The social stigma of a visit from Child Protective Services coupled with their legendary skepticism has stayed many a hand. It's also made calling them a popular revenge tactic, but that's another topic.

For my own part, I was also spanked as a child and I think spanking is a  useful tool--among many--for disciplining children.  I think learning that bad actions can have very painful, very direct physical consequences is an important lesson for children to learn. Most importantly, it becomes all the harder to control _anyone_ when they know that there are certain actions you're just not willing to take. 

I also think that your upbringing has a lot to do your opinions. Well-heeled children may respond more to loss of freedom and privileges, but for poor children who are used to having nothing, such punishments will get laughed off. There are some children who won't respond to anything less than a show of force. To tie parents' hands in the face of that fact is incredibly short-sighted.


----------



## Brioche

Chrisk said:


> In England and Wales, if you physically chastise your child in any way that leaves a physical mark  -this can be just a scratch-, you can get 5 years in jail.



And what happens to the children while mummy's locked-up for five years?

According to an article in a Scottish paper a few years ago, 75% of parents in UK admitted to smacking their children.

I have, in recent times, seen more children hit their parents than vice versa. Any chance of putting the children away for physical violence?


----------



## TrentinaNE

To me (and I think in AE generally) _slap_ and _spank_ both connote the use of an open hand.  _Beating _doesn't have the restriction: it could be done with fists or with another object, and therefore sounds much more serious to me than slapping or spanking.  

Elisabetta


----------



## alexacohen

I have noticed the large advertisements in my children's schools advising the children to contact their tutor if they think their parents are too hard on them.
The "too hard" thing can be anything from spanking to beating, from punishment to hard words.
If there is such a report, the family will be put under observation, the child or children questioned _ad nauseam_, the parents, the neighbours. Their home will be inspected, and if the parents are working, their workmates and bosses will be questioned too.

I learned all this when one of my workmates got into trouble for "psychologically abusing her children".
She had asked her 13 years old daughter to mind her little sister (8) and make sure she ate her dinner and do her homework while mum was at work.
There is a line between abuse and discipline. The trouble is that no one agrees where is the line.


----------



## LaReinita

I have to agree that children need discipline. Some children will respond to words, but many will not. I was spanked as a child and while it hurt, it hurt my feelings more than anything else. The spanking was not to injure me, but rather make me respect my parents' ruling. Someone said something about kids hitting their parents . . .these are children that never received spankings . . . and have no respect for their parents. With children and even dogs . . .sometimes, they must fear you before they can respect you. A smack on the butt and stern look never hurt anyone. As parents, boundaries must be set, but the children must also learn boundaries, or they will rule the nest with no respect for authority.


----------



## swift_precision

I'm only 25 and I see a drastic difference between how I was raised when I was younger and how kids today are raised.  From my observations, kids these days have no form of respect--both towards other kids and especially towards adults.  When I was younger, I couldn't possibly *conceive *of ever talking to my parents the way I see some kids talking to theirs these days.  Furthermore, the ways kids address adults who are strangers? Utterly pathetic. The way I see some of these kids addressing people who are many times 10, 20, 30 years their senior is truly a disgrace.  I can tell you from experience, my parents raised me by the rod.  And please understand, there were times when a simple "spank" did not suffice.  My parents used either a leather belt, coat hanger, a skinny tree branch plucked from the nearest tree, or some other object that could inflict pain.  At NO TIME during these boughts of disclipline did I ever perceive them to be "beating" me, as some people here seem to believe is a common definition for on what I have just said and seem to conclude that that is "negative".  It was simply another form of discipline and whenever they did do it, it was always on my lower extremities and never anywhere above the waist.  

Also, I would have to agree wholeheartedly with the individual above who has accurately observed that there seems to be a large difference between the way different groups of people disclipline their children. I do not like to generalize, but based my own experience, that is being raised by black parents (Nigerian to be exact) and what I have observed with  some of my friends who were white, it seemed to be the case that the white kids received lesser forms of "diclipline" whenever they commited an offense.  It always seemed to be the case that while my black friends could readily relate to the types of disclipline I was receiving, my white friends could not.  This also in turn seemed to explain why I never observed black kids acting out in public (screaming, yelling, throwing tantrums), but rather the white kids who were engaging in such activities.  I do not have any statistical information to support my observations, these are just observations from my experience growing up in a particular household.


----------



## jonquiliser

I find it highly strange people would believe respect is a form of fear. Is if people - children or adults - will be more open-hearted and respectful if they live in fear. It's a strange form of "discipline" to my ears, and it must say I find it disconcerting that people go to such lengths to differentiate between beating and spanking/slapping.

If children don't listen to words, how the f- do you think you'll make them listen slapping/spanking/whatever them?! And on top try to teach them not to hurt others physically/emotionally (though of course, I suppose not all parents want to teach their children that).

Physical or other punitive behaviour is teaching _one_ pattern/one form of interaction to kids. They probably learn their lesson.


----------



## Outsider

My parents also spanked me when I was little, and curiously they used some methods that were similar to those of Swift_precision's parents, although it seems that mine were more mild than his! I was never spanked with a belt, for example, although there seemed to be plenty of other kids who were, at the time. 

I agree with a lot in the spirit of Swift's post, but I disagree with some details. While it's tempting to think so, I'm not sure that young people today really are more disrespectful, and I'm definitely not sure that there's a relation between being spanked or not, and being well-behaved (either one way, or the other way).

As a kid, I thought that spanking was just horrible and wrong, but as I grew up I have moderated that opinion. We were generally well-behaved children, and if you ask me whether my parents could have raised us equally well without spanking, maybe they could have. But there are kids out there who are just impossible. I see spanking as a last resort for difficult children, when the parents are perhaps not very imaginative, or simply too exhausted to think of something else. Some people are capable of being intimidating and punishing you without ever laying their hands on you, but not all parents have that gift. 

Looking back, I don't feel like an "abused" child for having been spanked. I don't feel traumatized. The only cases that have stayed with me were those where I felt I had been unfairly punished. The others I can't even remember. I also believe that, as harsh as my parents may have been at times, that was little compared to what they had endured growing up.


----------



## swift_precision

jonquiliser said:


> I find it highly strange people would believe respect is a form of fear. Is if people - children or adults - will be more open-hearted and respectful if they live in fear. It's a strange form of "discipline" to my ears, and it must say I find it disconcerting that people go to such lengths to differentiate between beating and spanking/slapping.
> 
> If children don't listen to words, how the f- do you think you'll make them listen slapping/spanking/whatever them?! And on top try to teach them not to hurt others physically/emotionally (though of course, I suppose not all parents want to teach their children that).
> 
> Physical or other punitive behaviour is teaching _one_ pattern/one form of interaction to kids. They probably learn their lesson.


 
Who said that the child is living in fear? I think you are confusing this discussion with child abuse, which is another issue entirely.  Are you assuming that the form of discipline is so harsh that it frightens the child?  That the child is some how afraid of his OWN parents?  That is at all not the case with most people I know who discipline their children. The reality is, kids sometimes like to test boundaries that are set for them.  This means that giving verbal instruction is sometimes _not enough_ to get one's point accross and further reinforcement is needed so that kid learns that in life, there are consequences for certain actions.  I will tell you that I learned fairly quickly that some things were simply not acceptable to do and if I didn't get the point by simple verbal commands, a more _direct _method was needed.  Am I afraid of my parents? No.  Do I understand why they somtimes had to discipline me the way the did? Yes I do.  I may not have fully understood it at the time, but in retrospect, I find that it was the best methods for learning lessons.  

You also seem to imply that giving kids discipline can potentially lead that child to be abusive himself? What evidence do you have to make such a claim?  As I said before, in households where *child abuse* is an issue, that statment may hold some validity. We are not talking about child abuse here, but rather physical discipline as a form of verbal reinforcement.


----------



## swift_precision

Outsider said:


> My parents also spanked me when I was little, and curiously they used some methods that were similar to those of Swift_precision's parents, although it seems that mine were more mild than his! I was never spanked with a belt, for example, although there seemed to be plenty of other kids who were, at the time.
> 
> I agree with a lot in the spirit of Swift's post, but I disagree with some details. While it's tempting to think so, I'm not sure that young people today really are more disrespectful, and I'm definitely not sure that there's a relation between being spanked or not, and being well-behaved (either one way, or the other way).
> 
> As a kid, I thought that spanking was just horrible and wrong, but as I grew up I have moderated that opinion. We were generally well-behaved children, and if you ask me whether my parents could have raised us equally well without spanking, maybe they could have. But there are kids out there who are just impossible. I see spanking as a last resort for difficult children, when the parents are perhaps not very imaginative, or simply too exhausted to think of something else. Some people are capable of being intimidating and punishing you without ever laying their hands on you, but not all parents have that gift.
> 
> Looking back, I don't feel like an "abused" child for having been spanked. I don't feel traumatized. The only cases that have stayed with me were those where I felt I had been unfairly punished. The others I can't even remember. I also believe that, as harsh as my parents may have been at times, that was little compared to what they had endured growing up.


 
You're right.  There really isn't any evidence that shows that spanking or any other form of physical discipline is directly proportional to a child's behavior.  Indeed there are cases where spanking was not employed by parents as a form of discpline and their children grew up just fine---productive members of society. Also, I hope I did not give  the impression that I was constantly being beat, as if I was a bad kid.  I was not.  For the most part I was a mild-mannered kid.  There were times however, that I like to just see what would happen if....

At any rate, I just think that more discipline is needed today.  I see the way that kids my age and younger talk to their parents and I honestly feel embarrased for them.  Interestingly enough, those that I observe doing this are mostly white, upper-middle class individuals.  Again, this is not to say that all are this way, but from my exprience I have yet to observe a kid of color say "f--k you mom" or any other vile insult.  Maybe the US will have a black president before I ever see that....


----------



## fenixpollo

swift_precision said:


> Who said that the child is living in fear? I think you are confusing this discussion with child abuse, which is another issue entirely.  Are you assuming that the form of discipline is so harsh that it frightens the child?  That the child is some how afraid of his OWN parents?


 I believe that jonq was responding to this post:



LaReinita said:


> With children and even dogs . . .sometimes, they must fear you before they can respect you. A smack on the butt and stern look never hurt anyone.


 So, what you're saying is that we should treat children like dogs and make them fear us. In order to make them fear us, we should smack them on the butt, although that smack is not hurtful and/or painful to them. 

Swift, there is no confusion here between "child abuse" and "discipline". What jonq was pointing out (and correct me if I'm wrong) is the contradiction inherent in the argument that spanking is OK, as well as questioning the rationale for making kids fear parents. Nobody is saying that people who spank their kids are child abusers.


----------



## swift_precision

fenixpollo said:


> I believe that jonq was responding to this post:
> 
> So, what you're saying is that we should treat children like dogs and make them fear us. In order to make them fear us, we should smack them on the butt, although that smack is not hurtful and/or painful to them.
> 
> Swift, there is no confusion here between "child abuse" and "discipline". What jonq was pointing out (and correct me if I'm wrong) is the contradiction inherent in the argument that spanking is OK, as well as questioning the rationale for making kids fear parents. Nobody is saying that people who spank their kids are child abusers.


 
Well I don't see the supposed inherent contradiction in that argument at all.  Spanking as a form of discipline is just fine.  However, I do question the rationale of having to fear someone before you respect them.  I did not see that particular statement by la reinta, so I went on a simliar sentiment that joq expressed in his earlier post.  Joq, if I somehow misunderstood you then I apologize.


----------



## alexacohen

swift_precision said:


> Well I don't see the supposed inherent contradiction in that argument at all. Spanking as a form of discipline is just fine. However, I do question the rationale of having to fear someone before you respect them.


 
Hi,

I was spanked when I was a girl (and I don't know anyone my age who wasn't).
I never feared my parents, and I don't know anyone who did. Spanking was accepted then as a matter of course, at least, in Spain.
We had a healthy respect for our parents - one look from my dad and I did my homework as fast as lightning.     
Respect is not fear.

La Reinita: educating dogs has nothing to do with educating children; my dogs obey me without questioning, though I have never laid a hand on them. My children don't .


----------



## swift_precision

alexacohen said:


> Hi,
> 
> I was spanked when I was a girl (and I don't know anyone my age who wasn't).
> I never feared my parents, and I don't know anyone who did. Spanking was accepted then as a matter of course, at least, in Spain.
> We had a healthy respect for our parents - one look from my dad and I did my homework as fast as lightning.
> Respect is not fear.
> 
> La Reinita: educating dogs has nothing to do with educating children; my dogs obey me without questioning, though I have never laid a hand on them. My children don't .


 
And I agree with you completely alexa. I was just curious as to how reinta came up with the conclusion that before one respects someone else, that person needs to fear them first.  I think that the discipline I received really molded me into the person I am today.  I have the utmost respect for what parents have to go through when raisking kids.


----------



## alexacohen

swift_precision said:


> I think that the discipline I received really molded me into the person I am today.


 
So do I, Swift Precision. And I'd like to point out, that even if I was spanked and smacked, I was never beaten.
I never doubted my parents loved me, no matter how hard they smacked me. And I cannot speak for everyone else, but I never ceased to love my parents - and my dad is, has always been, my beloved daddy. And he was the one who smacked me the hardest!


----------



## Fernando

I could repeat the experience of most people here:

- My parents spanked me (the bottom was their favourite place) on a YEARLY basis. I mean, I had to do something really bad to be spanked. And I seldomly did it. I was (do I need to say it?) a good child.

- I respected my parents independently on that. I preferred a good slap rather than a cold sight of scorn/disapproving (very strange anyway, I was a good guy).

- It is different to spank one's children or other's children. I would only feel entitled to spank other chidren if it is a close relative and the child is really bad. I have never did it, anyway.

- I would have killed some children. I simply do not understand how evil can be sometimes. In comparison, I was such a good child!


----------



## LaReinita

When I mentioned fear, I meant in this way . . . I had fear, yes I did, if I didn't listen to my Dad, I knew there would be consequences to pay.  I guess what I'm looking at as "fear" everyone else just calls "respect."  Everyone doesn't have to get their feathers all ruffled, I never said to treat children like dogs, I was merely making a comparison.  I've only ever been the child in a parent-child relationship, I have no children.  The only "child" I have runs around on 4 legs. (unless you count my boyfriend)


----------



## fenixpollo

swift_precision said:


> Well I don't see the supposed inherent contradiction in that argument at all. Spanking as a form of discipline is just fine.


 It’s contradictory to intimidate children through fear of violence, then ask them to love you. In every other relationship in life, fear and intimidation are a deterrent to love. You do not love the bully who threatens you or the mugger who steals from you at gunpoint; if your boss intimidates you, you do not love your boss more; and you cannot threaten a man or woman into loving you. The child-parent relationship is no different. 





			
				Selma Fraiberg said:
			
		

> ...while parents may not regard a spanking as a physical attack or an assault on a child’s body, the child may regard it as such, and experience it as a confirmation of his fears that grown-ups under certain circumstances can really hurt you. [...] ...deep in the memory of every parent are the feelings that had attended his own childhood spankings, the feelings of humiliation, of helplessness, of submission through fear.


 Fear is not only a negative emotion, but it is only a temporary motivator. When a child is not afraid of the parent – for example, when she knows that she won’t get caught misbehaving – the child will stop obeying. 





			
				Nancy Samalin said:
			
		

> Guilt is often an appropriate response to wrongdoing, but punishment impedes the development of a conscience by taking away the opportunity for him to feel guilty. He has no chance to develop inner motivation.


 In other words, if your child follows the rules because you spank him, then he will only follow them when you’re there to spank him.


swift_precision said:


> However, I do question the rationale of having to fear someone before you respect them.


 We're in agreement on that one, swift.


----------



## alexacohen

fenixpollo said:


> It’s contradictory to intimidate children through fear of violence, then ask them to love you. In every other relationship in life, fear and intimidation are a deterrent to love. You do not love the bully who threatens you (...) and you cannot threaten a man or woman into loving you. The child-parent relationship is no different.


No; you don't love the bully. But children have to be taught there are limits, and rules. For their own sake.
"Never go with a stranger" is a rule. They may think it's a good choice to climb up into the car of a nice stranger instead of waiting for the school bus.
They have to obey the rule, even if they don't like it. And they have to know there'll be nasty consequences if they don't follow the rule, and that we will know if they have disobeyed.
Because children are children.
This does not mean bullying, fear or intimidation. 


> Originally Posted by *Selma Fraiberg, child psychologist*
> ...while parents may not regard a spanking as a physical attack or an assault on a child’s body, the child may regard it as such, and experience it as a confirmation of his fears that grown-ups under certain circumstances can really hurt you. [...] ...deep in the memory of every parent are the feelings that had attended his own childhood spankings, the feelings of humiliation, of helplessness, of submission through fear.


I, for one, don't remember any such feeling of humiliation or submission through fear. I remember being spanked, and I remember, too, why I had been spanked. Action/reaction. After all, I knew perfectly well that I was doing something that was not allowed, and I knew the consequences, too. It was my own choice.


----------



## swift_precision

fenixpollo said:


> It’s contradictory to intimidate children through fear of violence, then ask them to love you. In every other relationship in life, fear and intimidation are a deterrent to love. You do not love the bully who threatens you or the mugger who steals from you at gunpoint; if your boss intimidates you, you do not love your boss more; and you cannot threaten a man or woman into loving you. The child-parent relationship is no different.


 
I would hardly make a comparison between a bully/mugger/boss at work and a parent who just wishes to teach their kids values.  In the former cases, there is no motivation for why the bully bullies other kids except perhaps for his own selfish self-gratification and to hide his own insecurities about himself; the mugger who steals from you at gunpoint is doing so because there is a gain to be made--he knows that most of the time, the individual will comply because they obviously value their own life more so than their possessions; the boss who uses his position to intimidate employees beneath him probably does so because he himself has certain insecurities he wishes to hide behind his position of authority.  I highly doubt that parents who discipline their children do so because they do not feel good about themselves and see using "violence" as you put it, as a way of making themselves feel superior or hide insecurities. 

I do not know whether or not you were disciplined as a child and whether it is because of your own experiences that you view discipline as an ineffective method for teaching kids, but I was.  Do I love my parents any less? Absolutely not.  The discipline taught me the value of obeying the rules.  I don't agree that a kid will *only* obey rules because he is spanked.  I know that I obeyed rules because I knew that if I did not, there may be consequences for my actions. Sure you don't have to stop at a red light *only *when a cop car is behind you, but why do you stop at one anyways? Because you know if you don't there could be drastic consequences for your actions.  Does that somehow imply that the government is quietly instilling fear and violence into it's citizens? No.  There are rules and there are laws.  When you have rules, you need some sort of method to enforce them.  People need to be aware that there are consequences for their actions. Discipline is one form of reminding people.  

Originally Posted by *Nancy Samalin, parent educator* 
Guilt is often an appropriate response to wrongdoing, but punishment impedes the development of a conscience by taking away the opportunity for him to feel guilty. He has no chance to develop inner motivation.

Oh I see, so if a kid is not punished for a wrong doing, he instantly realizes that he has comitted wrong? He instantly feels guilty for what he has done?  How can the kid develop the emotion of guilt if he does not understand that he has committed an offense in the first place? In some cases a simple, "Johnny what you did was very wrong now I want you to apologize" may work.  But what if it is comitted again? What do you then do? How do you reinforce what you've already said to the kid?


----------



## fenixpollo

swift_precision said:


> I would hardly make a comparison between a bully/mugger/boss at work and a parent who just wishes to teach their kids values. In the former cases, there is no motivation for why the bully bullies other kids except perhaps for his own selfish self-gratification and to hide his own insecurities about himself; the mugger who steals from you at gunpoint is doing so because there is a gain to be made--he knows that most of the time, the individual will comply because they obviously value their own life more so than their possessions; the boss who uses his position to intimidate employees beneath him probably does so because he himself has certain insecurities he wishes to hide behind his position of authority. I highly doubt that parents who discipline their children do so because they do not feel good about themselves and see using "violence" as you put it, as a way of making themselves feel superior or hide insecurities.


 As you said, a mugger steals because he wants you to hand over your money.
A beggar also wants you to hand over your money, but uses a different tactic.
Both tactics can be efficient if used correctly. However, only one of them is effective in the long term: I've never heard of people seeking out a mugger to give their money to, but I've seen people actively give money to a beggar without being asked. That's an example of internal motivation.

An intimidative boss doesn't intimidate people because he's insecure, he intimidates them because he wants them to get work done. He chooses the tactics of fear to motivate them to get the work done because he's been socialized to think that intimidation is an effective management tool. These bosses may be successful at getting short-term results, but they fail at developing long-term commitment from their employees. 

I completely agree with you that parents who use corporal punishment do not spank because they are insecure or because they are bad people, nor do they do so with the intention of harming their child. They use that tactic because they have been socialized to think that intimidation and bullying are effective parenting techniques.


----------



## swift_precision

fenixpollo said:


> As you said, a mugger steals because he wants you to hand over your money.
> A beggar also wants you to hand over your money, but uses a different tactic.
> Both tactics can be efficient if used correctly. However, only one of them is effective in the long term: I've never heard of people seeking out a mugger to give their money to, but I've seen people actively give money to a beggar without being asked. That's an example of internal motivation.
> 
> An intimidative boss doesn't intimidate people because he's insecure, he intimidates them because he wants them to get work done. He chooses the tactics of fear to motivate them to get the work done because he's been socialized to think that intimidation is an effective management tool. These bosses may be successful at getting short-term results, but they fail at developing long-term commitment from their employees.
> 
> I completely agree with you that parents who use corporal punishment do not spank because they are insecure or because they are bad people, nor do they do so with the intention of harming their child. They use that tactic because they have been socialized to think that intimidation and bullying are effective parenting techniques.


 
lol Fenix I see your point.  But I think we'll have to agree to disagree.  I don't know if kids can be taught "internal motivation" without proper reinforcement which includes discipline.  In order for the kid to be internally motivated to follow the rules, there has to be some incentive or rather something that will enable him to understand that "if you do the right thing you may be rewarded" but "if you do the wrong thing, consequences may result"  In the example you provided, I see how a boss could use intimidation and bullying to get results.  Usually, however, those results in someway benefit the boss and rarely ever benfit the employee.  Parents use discipline not necessarily because "the kid will do exactly what I want him to do when I want him to do it" but rather because it teaches the child that after verbal instructions have been given and failed after "go to your room jonny" does not work, then a swat or two on the backside is what will get the point accross.  In the long run, the child does learn a valuable lesson: there are consequences for every action you commit, bad or good.


----------



## fenixpollo

swift_precision said:


> lol Fenix I see your point.  But I think we'll have to agree to disagree.  I don't know if kids can be taught "internal motivation" without proper reinforcement which includes discipline.


I agree totally. All people need to learn self-control and self-discipline.





> In order for the kid to be internally motivated to follow the rules, there has to be some incentive or rather something that will enable him to understand that "if you do the right thing you may be rewarded" but "if you do the wrong thing, consequences may result".


 Yes, positive and negative consequences can be used in combination very effectively. Right on.





> In the example you provided, I see how a boss could use intimidation and bullying to get results.  Usually, however, those results in someway benefit the boss and rarely ever benefit the employee.


 Yes, when intimidation is used. But when other methods are used to motivate the employee (such as positive consequences, or rewards), then the employee does benefit. 





> Parents use discipline not necessarily because "the kid will do exactly what I want him to do when I want him to do it" but rather because it teaches the child that after verbal instructions have been given and failed after "go to your room jonny" does not work, then a swat or two on the backside is what will get the point accross.


 While I agree that when a win-win attitude on the part of the parents is not successful, that it's appropriate for the parents to change to a win-lose attitude. The problem, as I see it, is that so many parents have the "do this now, or else!" attitude right from the start; and when the child asks to be involved in the process by asking "why?", the parents react even more negatively. 





> In the long run, the child does learn a valuable lesson: there are consequences for every action you commit, bad or good.


 There are other consequences, good and bad, that will teach them that lesson, besides spanking.


----------



## Twoflower

I have followed this thread with interest. Philosophically, I am opposed to the physical chastisement of children, as are many of my compatriots. However, I have a greater philosophical objection to the failure by parents to instill in their children the attitudes and values that will provide them with a happy and prosperous life. 

I exercise _self_-discipline in many areas of my life - turning up to work, turning down another slice of cake, studying for exams. I do not believe that I would have learned to do that if my parents had not taught me discipline. 

Parents do not have to use corporal punishment to achieve this, indeed my parents now admit that they regret the occasions when they resorted to it, *but *(and it's a big but), some parents lack the energy, skills, imagination, education or whatever it may be, to use other methods of discipline. Now that those parents are bereft of the one form of discipline that they understood and could use, their children run wild, and as a result they fail at school, cannot hold down jobs, and some end up in prison. All of these are consequences of never having learned discipline.

To me, in these cases, _failing_ to spank their children is a much greater form of child abuse than _actually_ spanking them. The latter leads only to momentary pain; the former to a lifetime of pain and frustration. The modern liberal mind is much too interested in the _rights_ of children, and takes hardly any thought at all for their _needs._


----------



## germinal

Brioche said:


> And what happens to the children while mummy's locked-up for five years?
> 
> According to an article in a Scottish paper a few years ago, 75% of parents in UK admitted to smacking their children.
> 
> I have, in recent times, seen more children hit their parents than vice versa. Any chance of putting the children away for physical violence?


 
Mummy would have to do something much more serious than to leave a slight mark or a scratch on a child in order to qualify for a five-year prison sentence.     Such a sentence would only be handed down for an extremely violent assault with serious injury.    Most often cases of this type are treated leniently with the parent either being discharged or bound over to keep the peace.


----------



## TRG

I suppose I should put in a word since as a child I was beaten on one occasion in a way that would be criminal nowadays if it were done to a dog.  The beating was administered full force with a leather whip intended for herding animals, just so you can appreciate what I'm talking about.  Even so, from my perspective,  there are worse things than being physical abuse, and that being verbal and mental abuse.  When I reflect on my childhood, it is not the beating that is most painful, it is being led to believe that you are unworthy or a curse upon your parents.    Regardless, none of this has been deterministic in my life and I know after all is said and done that the people who raised me (my parents) loved me even though one of them had a really bad temper.  So I don't think spankings and swats amount to much, especially for very small children and I'm sure in many instances are quite necessary. Verbal abuse and mental cruelty are much worse than the occasional spanking.  Children do not grow up to be dysfunctional adults because they got spanked!


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

TRG said:


> [...]Children do not grow up to be dysfunctional adults because they got spanked!


I'm glad for you.  Some can't cope with it.
My father has been a witness of a teacher who used to spank pupils (with a  flexible stick he asked to my father to chose...). Even if never spanked himself, the effect of the vision of his friends being spanked and the fear to be spanked one day have traumatized him so much that he's turned to be a stammerer since (not that much nowadays fortunately)... Such a treatment is rarely innocuous in one child's growth to my opinion.
Fortunately those days — teachers allowed and even sometimes asked by the parents to beat their children if « needed » — are gone in France.


----------



## germinal

<<My father has been a witness of a teacher who used to spank pupils (with a flexible stick he asked to my father to chose...).>> Quote.

There seems to be some confusion as to what spanking is.     In the UK at least it has always meant smacking a child (spanking adults is outside the scope of this thread) on the buttocks using the flat of the hand.    

The flat of the hand is used because the person applying the punishment does not wish to cause injury, but to administer a sharp leasson to the child - usually when other, milder methods, have failed to curb his/her unruly behaviour.

The use of a strap, stick, tawse, sjambok, hosewhip, cat-o-nine-tails etc takes the punishment away from mere spanking and into the realm of beatings, floggings and other forms of grievous bodily harm.


----------



## fenixpollo

germinal said:


> There seems to be some confusion as to what spanking is. In the UK at least it has always meant smacking a child (spanking adults is outside the scope of this thread) on the buttocks using the flat of the hand.
> 
> The flat of the hand is used because the person applying the punishment does not wish to cause injury, but to administer a sharp leasson to the child - usually when other, milder methods, have failed to curb his/her unruly behaviour.
> 
> The use of a strap, stick, tawse, sjambok, hosewhip, cat-o-nine-tails etc takes the punishment away from mere spanking and into the realm of beatings, floggings and other forms of grievous bodily harm.


 This is your subjective opinion. Other people feel that there is little distinction between a spank or swat, whether it is delivered by a hand or by a switch or strap. The intent is the same and the result is the same; only the severity is different.

You happen to draw the line between "mild discipline" and "harmful violence" according to what instrument is being used: a hand is not violent to you.  Other people draw that line according to the anger level or intent of the parent: a belt is not violent to them if administered in the name of loving discipline. 

The debate in this thread (and the other thread that I posted a link to, above) centers largely around what is "acceptable" corporal punishment. On that issue, there will always be "confusion", as you put it -- and there will never be agreement, nor one "correct" answer.


----------



## germinal

fenixpollo said:


> This is your subjective opinion. Other people feel that there is little distinction between a spank or swat, whether it is delivered by a hand or by a switch or strap. The intent is the same and the result is the same; only the severity is different.
> 
> You happen to draw the line between "mild discipline" and "harmful violence" according to what instrument is being used: a hand is not violent to you. Other people draw that line according to the anger level or intent of the parent: a belt is not violent to them if administered in the name of loving discipline.
> 
> The debate in this thread (and the other thread that I posted a link to, above) centers largely around what is "acceptable" corporal punishment. On that issue, there will always be "confusion", as you put it -- and there will never be agreement, nor one "correct" answer.


 

The confusion I was referring to was simply a linguistic one:   I was trying to define what the word `spanking` means - i.e. smacking on the buttocks using the flat of the hand and that the use of a cane or other implement would not be classified as spanking.   

Nowhere in my post did I say what you accuse me of saying so please take the time to read and digest the actual meaning of postings before laying into contributors so violently.


----------



## alexacohen

Twoflower said:


> However, I have a greater philosophical objection to the failure by parents to instill in their children the attitudes and values that will provide them with a happy and prosperous life.
> (...)
> To me, in these cases, _failing_ to spank their children is a much greater form of child abuse than _actually_ spanking them. The latter leads only to momentary pain; the former to a lifetime of pain and frustration. The modern liberal mind is much too interested in the _rights_ of children, and takes hardly any thought at all for their _needs._


 
I don't like corporal punishments. But Twoflower's *"but"* is indeed a big *"but"*.
Discipline must be taught. Rules must be set. A teenager who has never been taught how to behave, never been taught there are limits, never been taught what respect for others mean, never been taught he can't always get what he wants, has never been punished for doing wrong, who in fact does not know the difference between wrong and right, who was never taught to be responsible, who has never suffered the consequences of a wrong action is a danger both to himself and to others.


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

germinal said:


> [...]
> There seems to be some confusion as to what spanking is.     In the UK at least it has always meant smacking a child (spanking adults is outside the scope of this thread) on the buttocks using the flat of the hand.
> 
> The flat of the hand is used because the person applying the punishment does not wish to cause injury, but to administer a sharp leasson to the child - usually when other, milder methods, have failed to curb his/her unruly behaviour.
> 
> The use of a strap, stick, tawse, sjambok, hosewhip, cat-o-nine-tails etc takes the punishment away from mere spanking and into the realm of beatings, floggings and other forms of grievous bodily harm.


Thanks Germinal.  It's the way this thread help me too: to use the right verb to describe the right action.
Let me add this teacher used a stick to « beat » children but he used to say he only « spanked » them to parents, and in order to not hurt his own hands (that's his own words), then used a stick.
But I think this man were a perfect pervert...


----------



## swift_precision

germinal said:


> <<My father has been a witness of a teacher who used to spank pupils (with a flexible stick he asked to my father to chose...).>> Quote.
> 
> There seems to be some confusion as to what spanking is. In the UK at least it has always meant smacking a child (spanking adults is outside the scope of this thread) on the buttocks using the flat of the hand.
> 
> The flat of the hand is used because the person applying the punishment does not wish to cause injury, but to administer a sharp leasson to the child - usually when other, milder methods, have failed to curb his/her unruly behaviour.
> 
> The use of a strap, stick, tawse, sjambok, hosewhip, cat-o-nine-tails etc takes the punishment away from mere spanking and into the realm of beatings, floggings and other forms of grievous bodily harm.


 

I suppose I was "beaten" and "flogged" then since my parents at times used more than their hands in order to discipline me. I would not use the above terms because although they may be defined as such according to whatever dictionary you used, to me they convey a much more severe method of punishment than "whipped" for example. Also, at no time during those "floggings" or "beatings" did I sustain any form of "grevious bodily harm."


----------



## Linguilly Confused

Anyone who thinks that it is under no circumstances at all justified to smack one's child obviously either has not raised his or her own child or if they have, they have, they have had a reasonably well behaved child. Full stop.


----------



## alexacohen

Don't tell me. I have three of my own. 
I, personally, don't like either smacking or flogging or beating or whatever you want to call corporal punishments. 
But my children have been punished, because they have to learn. Let me tell you all that my twins usually say "Why don't you smack us like Snow White's mother does instead of forbidding us to watch the telly during a WHOLE week?" and "It's so _humiliating _that we can't discuss the last chapter of "Rebel way" with our friends at school".
It may be _humiliating _for my children; but I can't allow them to do such a thing as skipping school to go shopping without punishing them. And they won't develop a sense of guilt at all if I don't. Rather, they will do it again and again, as apparently no one would care if they go to school or not.


----------



## tvdxer

A "spanking" is a swift hit to the buttocks, but generally not bruising.  Enough to (hopefully) teach a child a lesson without abusing them.  A "smack" is a quick hit directed somewhere else, typically less painful than a spanking.  

"Beating" is a very different matter, also known as "child abuse".  While spankings may be given out of love and do not injure the child in any way, a parent who beats their child is probably doing so out of anger, and beatings can leave scars in better cases or permanent injuries in worse.


----------

