Just hide the damn candy

[kb2]

I'm interested in this. How did it not hurt? Are you saying it didn't hurt at all or it didn't hurt much?

It didn't hurt at all--they only spanked on top of clothes and too lightly to hurt, there was no sadistic search for the perfect implement to make sure we felt as much pain with the fewest marks or anything, it wasn't meant to hurt as badly as possible, it was just a way to grab attention. Which, you don't need to spank to grab your kid's attention and if you're going to the trouble of making sure it doesn't really hurt you might as well just not use corporal punishment at all...I'm not trying to defend spanking as a necessary tool of parenting. I get that it's unnecessary and possibly harmful. I just don't think everyone who was ever spanked was harmed by it.

ETA: I also don't mean to say that there's some magical combination you can do to spank and not be abusive, like maybe if you only spank five times you won't be an abuser but if you spank six times you've crossed the line. ETA2: Or, if you do what my parents did you'll be fine but if you do what those guys did you'll be abusive. I just don't think in my life with my parents that I, personally, was abused when I was spanked. And I don't see why everyone, everywhere, who was ever spanked had to have been definitely abused.

[Koala]

Hisey, I have asked this question 3 times. Would you please address it?

I wonder, if a husband slaps his wife in the face (just once!) is it okay to call that abuse, or should I reserve that term for women who really have the shit beat out of them?

[Koala]

Fine, they hit me but I wasn't scared and it didn't hurt.

Thank you for admitting that. I really bothers me when people play the "but spanking isn't hitting" card.

[meda]

Ok, as a woman who was severely abused by my ex, I really think playing the domestic abuse card here is bullshit. Was being stomped, threatened with a loaded gun, and getting my ribs cracked abuse? I think so. I also think abuse is when a partner slaps the other only once. However, they are far different degrees of abuse. Just like when an incredibly frustrated parent smacks a tantruming, PITA child on the butt once, it is not actually the same thing as systematic flogging with plumbing line. Nuance, we can all have some.

I am not a fan of spanking, but parents, being human, make mistakes. Does not make then all evil child abusers. This whole "I never, ever spank because I am such an enlightened parent" is a bunch of mommy war bullshit, akin to the breast feeding wars. There are many ways to abuse a child that don't involve ever laying a hand on them that are far worse than a one time swat on the butt. Should parents hit their children? I don't think so, but lumping everyone who has ever spanked a child in with the Pearls is silly.

[StarrieEyedKat]

[DarkAnts]

You can either be raised by fundy, or you can be dead, those are the two options.

How about Tea and Cake or Death?

rZVjKlBCvhg

[Turtle]

Ok, as a woman who was severely abused by my ex, I really think playing the domestic abuse card here is bullshit. Was being stomped, threatened with a loaded gun, and getting my ribs cracked abuse? I think so. I also think abuse is when a partner slaps the other only once. However, they are far different degrees of abuse. Just like when an incredibly frustrated parent smacks a tantruming, PITA child on the butt once, it is not actually the same thing as systematic flogging with plumbing line. Nuance, we can all have some.

I am not a fan of spanking, but parents, being human, make mistakes. Does not make then all evil child abusers. This whole "I never, ever spank because I am such an enlightened parent" is a bunch of mommy war bullshit, akin to the breast feeding wars. There are many ways to abuse a child that don't involve ever laying a hand on them that are far worse than a one time swat on the butt. Should parents hit their children? I don't think so, but lumping everyone who has ever spanked a child in with the Pearls is silly.

Saying that hitting a child is abuse isn't the same as saying hitting a child once is the same as repeatedly stomping her face. It's also not saying that spanking is the only way to abuse a child. There are many types and levels of abuse, and different people respond differently to different types/levels of abuse. Just because someone turned out fine or their mom just hit them once or their dad was doing the best he knew how or their neighbor experienced much worse or whatever doesn't change the fact that hitting is abusive.

[Koala]

Saying that hitting a child is abuse isn't the same as saying hitting a child once is the same as repeatedly stomping her face. It's also not saying that spanking is the only way to abuse a child. There are many types and levels of abuse, and different people respond differently to different types/levels of abuse. Just because someone turned out fine or their mom just hit them once or their dad was doing the best he knew how or their neighbor experienced much worse or whatever doesn't change the fact that hitting is abusive.

Well said.

[meda]

Fine, call all parental touch that is unwanted by the child abusive. All of it. Trying to put boots on a resistant 3 year old? Abusive. Grabbing an unwilling child's hand to cross the street? abusive. It's all abuse, because both of the things I describe could involve more struggle and potential physical pain than what you seem to consider "hitting", which is, without exception, apparently abusive.

My point is that this whole debate, like breast feeding, and peanut butter, invariably becomes a shrill declaration of how much better a parent one person is than another, and sweeping declarations about who's childhood was abusive. Why is it so hard to acknowledge that bad things happen with different degrees of severity? Again, I do not agree with hitting as an appropriate child rearing technique, but I also do not agree that every parent who has ever hit a child is abusive.

[Guest Anonymous]

Fine, call all parental touch that is unwanted by the child abusive. All of it. Trying to put boots on a resistant 3 year old? Abusive. Grabbing an unwilling child's hand to cross the street? abusive. It's all abuse, because both of the things I describe could involve more struggle and potential physical pain than what you seem to consider "hitting", which is, without exception, apparently abusive.

My point is that this whole debate, like breast feeding, and peanut butter, invariably becomes a shrill declaration of how much better a parent one person is than another, and sweeping declarations about who's childhood was abusive. Why is it so hard to acknowledge that bad things happen with different degrees of severity? Again, I do not agree with hitting as an appropriate child rearing technique, but I also do not agree that every parent who has ever hit a child is abusive.

I don't think anyone is denying this. In fact, I think it was mentioned explicitly in the post you're responding to.

[meda]

Actually, the response said that hitting is abusive. Without a qualifier. Which means that any parent who has ever hit a child is a de facto abuser.

[emmiedahl]

Corporal punishment is highly problematic because it is counter-productive. It does not teach the child what they did wrong and it actually creates bad behavior. It can spiral out of control so quickly, especially when you are dealing with a family that has other stressors or a parent who has a bad temper.

However, most parents give their children the best they have to give. A healthy person wants only good things for their children. I would like to see spanking phased out of American parenting, because it is so reflexive here. People equate hitting with discipline. The immediate response when I say I do not hit my children is to assume that I do not discipline them, that they run wild with no input whatsoever. Or the parent tells me that I don't spank because my children are so well-behaved I do not need to. Yes, I have been told that and I find it amusing; my children are just as trying as any other children and maybe a bit more than normal even.

The best thing we can do is spread awareness about alternatives. Don't talk about what you *don't* do, but what you actually do. Many parents are spanking but otherwise loving; I doubt that those people will respond to being told they are abusive. What we need to do is educate people about how to parent without violence.

Even a few generations ago, it was considered normal for a husband to be physically violent with his wife. Even in a loving and otherwise healthy relationship, it was acceptable to push, slap, demand sex, etc. We have changed the paradigm and now a man who lays hands on his wife is automatically abusive (a good thing). I think that the elevation of women has contributed to this, and also the fact that women can more easily leave a man who mistreats her. We need to change the way we view children and the common wisdom about how to deal with them effectively. A lot of otherwise good parents are doing the best they can, and pointing fingers does not help them to change.

[Koala]

Why is it so hard to acknowledge that bad things happen with different degrees of severity?

I don't think anyone is denying this. In fact, I think it was mentioned explicitly in the post you're responding to.

Actually, the response said that hitting is abusive. Without a qualifier. Which means that any parent who has ever hit a child is a de facto abuser.

From my original quote:

Are there higher levels (for lack of a better term) of abuse? Yes. Is hitting still abusive? Of course.

[Minerva]

Actually, the response said that hitting is abusive. Without a qualifier. Which means that any parent who has ever hit a child is a de facto abuser.

I think several people on this thread believe just that.

Here's what I'm getting from this exchange: We all agree that bad things happen on a spectrum of severity. Your definition of abuse encompasses slightly less of that spectrum than mine or Koala's. That's the difference between our opinions. Maybe I missed a post somewhere, but I haven't seen anyone claim that smacking a kid on the butt is as bad as beating them with plumbing line, or that smacking a kid on the butt is as bad as breaking one's spouse's bones, or that smacking one's spouse on the cheek is the same as breaking one's spouse's bones. All of these examples have come up, but I haven't seen any equivalencies drawn between them, which makes me wonder where the lack of nuance stuff comes in.

[DarkAnts]

Corporal punishment is highly problematic because it is counter-productive. It does not teach the child what they did wrong and it actually creates bad behavior. It can spiral out of control so quickly, especially when you are dealing with a family that has other stressors or a parent who has a bad temper.

However, most parents give their children the best they have to give. A healthy person wants only good things for their children. I would like to see spanking phased out of American parenting, because it is so reflexive here. People equate hitting with discipline. The immediate response when I say I do not hit my children is to assume that I do not discipline them, that they run wild with no input whatsoever. Or the parent tells me that I don't spank because my children are so well-behaved I do not need to. Yes, I have been told that and I find it amusing; my children are just as trying as any other children and maybe a bit more than normal even.

The best thing we can do is spread awareness about alternatives. Don't talk about what you *don't* do, but what you actually do. Many parents are spanking but otherwise loving; I doubt that those people will respond to being told they are abusive. What we need to do is educate people about how to parent without violence.

Even a few generations ago, it was considered normal for a husband to be physically violent with his wife. Even in a loving and otherwise healthy relationship, it was acceptable to push, slap, demand sex, etc. We have changed the paradigm and now a man who lays hands on his wife is automatically abusive (a good thing). I think that the elevation of women has contributed to this, and also the fact that women can more easily leave a man who mistreats her. We need to change the way we view children and the common wisdom about how to deal with them effectively. A lot of otherwise good parents are doing the best they can, and pointing fingers does not help them to change.

[dianapavelovna]

+1 - This was me just now.

[formergothardite]

Am I the only one who has no idea what any of this means? I feel like I'm reading Cleverbot talking to itself.

No. You aren't. It is like she doesn't understand that there are various types of abuse. Some are worse than others. An adult hitting a child once or twice, not as bad as an adult burning the child with a cigarrette lighter once or twice. That one isn't as bad as an adult slowly torturing a child to death over a long period of time. All of these things are abuse, some cause less damage, still doesn't negate that an adult hitting a child is abusive.

[Talitha Cumi]

I wonder, if a husband slaps his wife in the face (just once!) is it okay to call that abuse, or should I reserve that term for women who really have the shit beat out of them?

No one is saying that there aren't different levels of abuse, but hitting is violent, and as far as I'm concerned, and adult hitting a child is abuse.

QFMFT

[Turtle]

Actually, the response said that hitting is abusive. Without a qualifier. Which means that any parent who has ever hit a child is a de facto abuser.

If you are referring to my comment, I said the act of hitting is abusive and (qualifier) there are many types/levels/responses to abuse.

Hitting isn't wrong just because it is uncomfortable for the child or they don't want you to do it (like making a child put on boots or whatever). It's an act of aggression and violence. It's not the only aggressive or violent act, and there could be worse acts, but that doesn't change the fact about hitting. How is "It's not as damaging as XYZ" an argument that something is acceptable?

[Sprocket]

Another shining example of why I hump your leg. :clap:

[valsa]

How is "It's not as damaging as XYZ" an argument that something is acceptable?

It's not.

Or if it was, nothing would be abuse.

Let's face it, the ultimate level of abuse is when someone kills their child/significant other/whoever.

By the logic of some people on this thread, nothing is abuse until the victim is dead, because nothing is as bad as being dead.

[Koala]

It's not.

Or if it was, nothing would be abuse.

Let's face it, the ultimate level of abuse is when someone kills their child/significant other/whoever.

By the logic of some people on this thread, nothing is abuse until the victim is dead, because nothing is as bad as being dead.

Honestly, it shocks me that it's so hard for people to come to the conclusion that an adult hitting a child is abusive.

I don't understand why we have special exceptions when it comes to hitting children. As I've said previously, if a man hits his wife, there is no question that it's abuse. People would be dog cussing him, and begging her to get out (and rightly so), not sitting around pondering how hard she was hit and how dare she call it abuse when other women are truly abused. But a child? Well, it's not the best option, but we shouldn't speak too harshly to the parents or they might take it the wrong way. We have to hold their hands and gently bring them round to the idea that hitting their child is just as wrong as hitting their spouse.

Why is it that way? A child has no defense. It's the same with the excuses. Well, all parents "lose it" sometimes. Why does that excuse only work if you "lose it" and hit a child. You hit anyone else and they'd haul your ass straight to jail.

Then we have to get into how hard the child was hit and different levels of abuse and all of the kids that have it worse. Yes, there are higher levels of abuse, but that doesn't mean it should be okay to commit "lower" levels of abuse.

[Cannelle]

Actually, the response said that hitting is abusive. Without a qualifier. Which means that any parent who has ever hit a child is a de facto abuser.

Let's switch this around. How about:

"Which means that any husband who has ever hit his wife is a de facto abuser."

That works.

Why are your standards different for children? Why does it change when it's a big person and a little person? Why is it abuse if you do it to an adult, but not if you do it to a child? Please answer that.

[Koala]

Let's switch this around. How about:

"Which means that any husband who has ever hit his wife is a de facto abuser."

That works.

Why are your standards different for children? Why does it change when it's a big person and a little person? Why is it abuse if you do it to an adult, but not if you do it to a child? Please answer that.

:clap:

[Sprocket]

Honestly, it shocks me that it's so hard for people to come to the conclusion that an adult hitting a child is abusive.

I don't understand why we have special exceptions when it comes to hitting children. As I've said previously, if a man hits his wife, there is no question that it's abuse. People would be dog cussing him, and begging her to get out (and rightly so), not sitting around pondering how hard she was hit and how dare she call it abuse when other women are truly abused. But a child? Well, it's not the best option, but we shouldn't speak too harshly to the parents or they might take it the wrong way. We have to hold their hands and gently bring them round to the idea that hitting their child is just as wrong as hitting their spouse.

Why is it that way? A child has no defense. It's the same with the excuses. Well, all parents "lose it" sometimes. Why does that excuse only work if you "lose it" and hit a child. You hit anyone else and they'd haul your ass straight to jail.

Then we have to get into how hard the child was hit and different levels of abuse and all of the kids that have it worse. Yes, there are higher levels of abuse, but that doesn't mean it should be okay to commit "lower" levels of abuse.

Yup. There are a lot worse things than being dead. Starving to death would be a horrible way to die, but at least the misery is over. Being emotionally, physically, sexually and spiritually abused for decades seems less humane. I don't get people who condone any level of abuse, whether it be "lower" or otherwise.