Is it effective to smack the fingers or hand of a 1 year old?

[yeawutever]

I'm tired of the whole ''But explain why the older generation was more respectful towards adults and now, the newer ones are not... it's because they don't get a spank'' blah, blah. There was always been crimes, felonies, fights, etc. all the time and still is. Nothing has really changed. The only difference is that with the internet and more technology the news is spread at a fast pace. There will always be spanked spoiled out-of control children, rude ones who never got spanked, and productive respectful who got or didn't got spanked.

 

Anything can fail if you're overusing (doing it on a constant basis) it or it's not consistent.

Anyways as for swapping a 1 year-old on the hand, how about keeping dangerous things out of the reach of toddlers as well as holding them tightly when walking outside with them.

Then again... I'm not a parent and never plan as I can imagine a crying, whining child would make my hair turn gray. Next thing is I would already aged fast.

[greywolf]

I am not against it, but I think it should be used as a last resort. I also think that different kids respond to different things, and there will be kids that don't respond to a firm scolding. When I was a kid, the threat of getting a spanking was enough for me.

[punk76]

no one is sure. but what is important that you do one or the other consistantly

[IphigeniaSaysHi]

Certainly true

[yeawutever]

When I was a kid, the threat of getting a spanking was enough for me.

Obviously... I can't think of any sane person who would rebel against physical pain.

Though I recalled on one occasion when I was 13, using the ''I'll call the cops if you touched me'' threat to my father (spanking started at age 4 but ended quickly at age 7) and he got the message.

 

From what I understand and my views towards it, I see nothing but physical pain along with raising of voice (sometimes with yelling) and the more angry, the more force apply. I hated it when my father used a leather belt when some things could have been explained but he comes from the older generation and it was worst than a belt at the time. I don't really have good memories about it and maybe that must be a hidden reason I never want kids (I might not hit but maybe will be verbally abusive).

 

All I know is if you want to continue relying on that method by the time the child is pass age 12, you lost already. The child might laugh in your face just like I did when I threatened my father to report him.

 

I'm not scare nor fear him if we were coming to a heated argument. Why should I? I'm a grown woman now and no one rules nor controls me.

[TouchNastY]

Iphigenia:

 

Interestingly enough, I didn't share my personal stance on the matter - it may not be what you imagine.

The point was that arguing against physical reprimands by stretching the definitions of "beating" and "violence" is not substantive. Better ones can be made.

 

I honestly don't know what you mean by "my one definition" - I tend to use "violent" in more the colloquial sense as well, and actually was a bit surprised at the definition. I stood corrected. Yes, physical contact by reprimanding may be construed as "abusive," but it's not "violent." Parents, of course, can be violent toward children, but those actions no longer fall under reprimanding.

 

"Violence" in the sense of a "physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing" is very one-dimensional. Arguing that physical reprimands are violent by adopting this definition of violence is erroneous as well, since reprimanding is a manifold process: reproach, execution, resolution. Violence in this contextual sense is one very arbitrary step (execution), with no intended goal aside from personal gain.

 

One could call it nitpicking, but it's important to commit to a certain understanding of words [facetious side-note: look at what happened to the colloquialism "curvy"]. "Violent," as well, other words, can't be tossed around with no regard to their meaning in a bid to support stances. You, personally, may deem slapping one-year-olds' hands wrong because you're against physical reprimands, but that doesn't make the action violent. Perhaps abusive, but even that is neglecting that the physical action is a means to an end, and not simply arbitrary.

 

[it's okay to say simply "I don't stand for it," but saying "I don't stand for it because it's _____" is going to open yourself up to critique, as the stance is founded on _____, whatever it may be. If _____ is improperly expressed or not germane to the topic, and it is _____ on which the stance is founded, then...well...there's a problem. I'm not trying to change your stance; Catdancer is looking for insight on her situation, and the prevalence of no-physical-reprimands attitudes is not conducive to that.]

 

 

greywolf nailed it as I was writing. Different means must be adopted for different children. Static commitment to one method is inefficient and not effective - one must find the approach which engenders the appropriate response. If it entails the use of physical means, then physical means will have to be used for the appropriate conditioning to be learned. If the parent is adamantly against such means to which the child will respond (again, their prerogative), there may arise developmental problems. Is the benefit worth the costs? Up to the parent, but a poorly-groomed child is a negative externality that must be endured by society in exchange for the moral benefit of the parent. Again, up to the parent, but consider that perspective.

 

The best-case scenario, then, for this type of parent, would be that their child is one that responds to aural means, circumventing the use of physical ones. If the parent's stance against engaging in physical reprimands is static, and they're matched with a child whom responds to them, there will be problems in conditioning.

[sharsachan]

it depends on the parent and the child cat. if YOU feel uncomfortable doing in, then don't do it.

 

i do sometimes smack bear's hand if i have already told and redirected him 3 times. and i did start around 12-15 months. i don't just run over and smack him without warning. we also do standing in a corner and he hates that more than getting his hand smacked. the warning before i smack or do corner time, i tell him "you're going to be in trouble if you don't stop _____" its never out of control and i also reiterate why after i smack his hand, or while he is standing in the corner. "mommy spanked your hand because you did ____ after i asked you not to so now you're in trouble" or "you have ot stand in the corner because when mommy asked you to stop ____ you didn't listen to her, so now you are in trouble"

 

dot just barely turned one and she really isn't purposely defiant yet. i have only smacked her hand one or twice, redirection still works best with her most of the time. bear loves to push his boundaries right now and see if mommy's rules are still the same as yesterday.

[Catdancer]

Thank you all very much. I know this is a very sensitive subject. Personally, I was spanked and I feared getting spanked. I did fear my mom back then because she did spank. But I also want to make clear that she only did it when I was extremely defiant (which was very often) and after giving me several verbal warnings. I found out years later that she cried every time she spanked me. She hated it, but it was the only thing that worked for a very defiant and rebellious child.

 

For Landon, my 1 year old, I am still in the trial and error stage. Smacking his hand didnt work. So, I use a very stern "no" and redirection. As he grows older, I may have to resort to a smack on the hand, but I hope not. Time will tell. God, I hope he's not as bad as I was. lol

[Hermes]

Up to the parent, but a poorly-groomed child is a negative externality that must be endured by society in exchange for the moral benefit of the parent.

 

I just love all these euphemisms, TN.

 

Gosh, I must be one of those "poorly-groomed externalities" (sounds like something from another galaxy) since I was never hit. I was a very lively child, very, believe me. And I would say quite a hand-full for my parents. So far I have not caused society any problems.

 

We can apply all the euphemisms we like (they do that kind of thing too where warfare is involved) and fancy it up all we like but violence is violence, and solves nothing.

 

H

[TouchNastY]

Gosh, I must be one of those "poorly-groomed externalities" (sounds like something from another galaxy) since I was never hit.

Facetiousness aside, I believe it is you expressing that sentiment. Please find where I stated that not being physically reprimanded leads to being poorly-groomed.

["So far I have not caused society any problems." So then you're not poorly-groomed. Simple.]

 

I said that if a parent does not implement the method to which their child responds, then the child will not be conditioned properly, which may lead to developmental problems. If the child responds physically, and isn't reprimanded physically, then they may become poorly groomed. As well, if the child responds aurally, and isn't reprimanded aurally, they may become poorly groomed. The latter situation may not occur in reality, though, considering most parents begin with aural measures. The only instance I can imagine in which the aural-responding child becomes poorly groomed is when the parent doesn't reprimand the child whatsoever.

 

[Perhaps I need to translate it colloquially: if the parent doesn't figure out how to reprimand their child and teach them right/wrong, good/bad, then the child won't learn the boundaries. That's not saying that not physically reprimanding them will lead them astray, because there are children who don't respond to it, and thus don't need it - you sound like that, since you were never physically reprimanded, likely because you didn't need it, due to responding to aural reprimands. Since most parents start aurally, anyways, the aural-responding child would never get to the physical reprimanding stage.]

 

The parent must find out what "type" their child is, to learn how to condition them. Failure to do so will be...lacking in results: if you are deaf, and I teach you by speaking, you won't learn anything. If you are blind, and I teach visually, you won't learn anything. These examples are much easier to remedy, though, as a young child doesn't come with much indicia of how they learn, short of gauging the efficacy of different reprimands. There's not a label that says "reprimand me aurally" on some, "reprimand me physically" on others. Even then, it's not static; the parenting style will change to suit the child's growth.

 

 

I just love all these euphemisms

Honestly, I'm not sure how to respond to this. There are no euphemisms, as euphemisms hide truths behind polished words. Perhaps you would have preferred "spoiled little " to define said cohort of children who aren't conditioned properly? That's not very objective, though it seems to be what you're suggesting.

 

And really, when there are children in public areas, like restaurants and store checkouts that whine and scream and throw tantrums, or early adolescents spewing foul-mouthed invective - are you saying that this impetus has no resultant effects on everyone else?

 

 

(they do that kind of thing too where warfare is involved)

They also "do that kind of thing" in fields as benign as computer programming. What's your point? It's general and neutral word choice to describe something that may manifest differently.

 

I say this with utmost respect, but perhaps you should educate yourself more on the terminology before posting in an emotionally reactive manner.

[mca1975]

I think that you can get the effect of smacking the same way be being stern in your voice, and punishing them with missing out on something they like. Like Supernanny does.

[Catdancer]

I think that you can get the effect of smacking the same way be being stern in your voice, and punishing them with missing out on something they like. Like Supernanny does.

 

At Landon's age, taking something away isnt a big deal. He just goes and gets something else to play with. For him, time out is working. We've just started doing it, as they had to do it at daycare and he does pretty well with it. We sit him down for 1 minute (it goes 1 minute per year of age and he's 1) and he has to sit there for the full time. If he gets up, the minute starts all over again. It breaks my heart to do it as he cries big huge crocodile tears and reaches for me going "mama". But I keep a stern look on my face and I say "no..we dont hit or pull hair" or whatever it was that landed him in time out. So, far it's working pretty well. MOnday at daycare he got written up FOUR times for hitting and hair pulling. He walked up to a little boy, clocked him the face and took his ball. I have no idea where he sees this and thinks it's ok. They did tell me at daycare that all the toddlers are doing it, not just Landon and it's just a phase that they go through. That made me feel better. I was worried that my son was the class bully, and we cant have that. But yesterday at daycare he had a wonderful day. No hitting, hair pulling or time outs. So, his dad, his aunt and I have all collaborated and are doing time outs for bad behavior. So far, so good.

 

Oh and I asked if they can understand time out at his age, 14 months, and they said yes, that they do understand, and they also told me that the twins (2 boys in his class) mom had researched it and she found out that they know what it is and what it means, so she started using it too.

 

SO, for all of you mommies that are looking for disipline for a toddler, so far time out is working. But I have to stand there for the minute and keeping telling him no. Otherwise, he's up and into something else, so I really have to be consistant with it.

[Applewhite]

Sounds like you solved this one! Wonderful.

 

Now start thinking ahead. Time out isn't going to work for when he is 13, 18, 21

[Catdancer]

Sounds like you solved this one! Wonderful.

 

Now start thinking ahead. Time out isn't going to work for when he is 13, 18, 21

 

eekkkkk!!!! One day at a time. You're going to give me a heartattack!

[Hermes]

Calm down TN, LOL.!!

 

I say this with utmost respect, but perhaps you should educate yourself more on the terminology before posting in an emotionally reactive manner.

 

I will stand behind every word I say. Striking a child is wrong, it is abuse. You can fancy it up any way you like.

 

H

[Notreadyet87]

I wouldn't smack the fingers of a one year old. But that's just me. I did get spankings when I was a younger but I was at least 3 or older before they began. I think hitting a child under 3 may not be as effective(depending on the child) as it is to put them in time out, take away ALL of their toys, yell at them and say "no", etc.

 

I would try every single resort before hitting a child, because I believe that violence is never a good thing UNLESS needed. And for a lot of children all they need is love and patience, and rules--which can be enforced and followed if your stern and strict.

 

I do believe that if a child is really bad then I would grab their hand and look them in the eye and say "no"--but I would never hit them and if I did hit them it would be such a soft hit that it wouldn't hurt--but it would get the point accross. My boyfriend did this to his neice--hit her softly on the hand and she cried, not because it hurt but because her feelings were hurt. But she stopped doing what she was doing.

 

But for the record overall I don't see anything wrong with spanking a child. In my culture, and in my family it's very common. None of us turned out bad at all, or had behavioral issues, nor were we violent or anything of that nature(LOL). Sometimes these studies are pure crap. They come out with a new study every year with completely contradictory information from the previous study.

 

So i don't even take that into account in terms of parenting a child. Each parent has their own method of disciplining their child--and as long as it isn't abuse, each method should be respected.

 

No two children are alike and will respond to the same things. Spankings and smacks could very well be the ONLY way to discipline a very unruly child. But for most children that can be avoided if the parent nips it in the bud early on and is creative with their punishing.