Flabby Chick wrote:Good grief what a load of rubbish. Whatever your intention, the act of smacking anyone is violence.snoopy wrote:"Violence is NOT in love, while physical punishment MUST be in love."
Notice it doesn't say "the use of physical force" -- but the use of physical force with the intent to damage or abuse. It doesn't say "the exercise of power" -- but the exercise of power in an abusive or unjust way.THE DICTIONARY wrote:vi·o·lence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v-lns)
n.
1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
3. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
5. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.
Not all physical force qualifies as violence. Giving your child a quick slap on the butt isn't violence. Giving your child a kick in the face is violence -- but a slap on the butt? That's only violent if it's unrestrained.
What makes something violent is the intent and the degree of severity. Which is, uh, exactly what Stuart was getting at -- violence is not done in love (by definition), while effective physical punishment MUST be done in love. It must be restrained, without intent to injure, and with a clear purpose. The child has to learn the lesson that "when I disobey, I'll be punished" -- but not the lesson that "when daddy gets angry he's gonna beat the snot out of me". If they see a spanking as the result of daddy getting angry, you've failed. If they see it as a result of disobedience, though, you've succeeded.
I once had a kid in my Sunday School class whose daddy taught the second lesson -- he'd come home drunk and angry, and randomly beat his kids. The end result was, by the time this boy was 13, he still hadn't formed the idea of consequences for his actions. He still hadn't realized that people treated him better when he behaved, and punished him when he didn't. To his mind, punishment was just this thing that happened every so often, independent of your own actions. I don't know if he'll ever get it together enough to manage to be adopted, or if he'll keep randomly breaking stuff and getting kicked out of foster home after foster home. This is an extreme failure of parenting.
On the other hand, I know a number of kids who, when they were young and disobeyed, their daddy would be like "ok, you broke the rules, and that means you get a spanking" and then they'd get a little spanking. For the most part, these kids knew and (at least loosely) followed the rules of their house. The most skilled parents built on this, by giving their kid a little bit of responsibility and benefits from it. They established connections in the kid's brain both for what happens when you break the rules, and what happens when you are responsible -- and that's what needs to be done.
Perhaps. I've known far too many spoiled brats to believe that, though -- the well-adjusted kid who was never spanked is a rare breed. I think you need a special kid for that -- you need the type of kid who, if you give them a disapproving look, will run crying to their room. You can try to form that in your kid, but I think it's partly innate, and probably also partly due to other things beyond your immediate control.There are better, more educational, more pursuasive ways of teaching a child right and wrong in my opinion, without the need to raise a hand.
I would like to hear your "better ways", though. Some of them may be better for some circumstances, and it can't hurt to listen.