Spanking Isn't Always the Answer
But, like I said, this argument has devolved into a shouting match between two equally absurd, ill-informed, ill-gotten points of view. Is there "always an alternative" to spanking? Well, of course there is! The question begged is "Will the supposed alternative be as effective, in the situation in question, as a spanking?" The answer may be yes or no. I believe that there are times with certain children that a spanking is the most effective response to misbehavior. Adults have a responsibility to help children control misbehavior. That requires, in any given situation, the most effective disciplinary response available. Sometimes, I contend, that's a spanking. But all spankings are not equal. There are spankings that accomp lish something, and some that do not. Unfortunately, most parents do not accomplish anything when they spank, as evidenced by the FACT that most parents who spank say they spank for the same offenses over and over again. The problem with spankings, therefore, is the manner in which they are delivered, not spankings per se.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Patience is an imperative key when disciplinig children. It is hard to accomplish, but we've all got to remember that these are children. They are very impatient. Controlled patience allows the parent to analyze the situation and find a creative way to discipline and to teach the child what they are doing is wrong. Patience is a quality that most people do not have, but as an adult, the "mature human," it is important that as a parent, practicing patience will better the circumstances. Spanking is not always effective because it shows the child that you do not have the patience for the child to actually teach them the misbehavior as a misbehavior.
Spanking should be used as a last resort if it is effective. There's always another option to getting a message across to a child and whatever your methods, there is also always a limit as to how far you should go. I'm not saying a pat on the behind or a total beating will get a message into a child's head, but you as a parent should know the limit. As Rosemond said, it depends on what form of discipline is effective with your child and you shouldn't beat your child for just the heck of it, but to show them when they are doing something right or wrong.
In this argument Rosemond gives great reasons to never hit kids, but he then supports hitting them. He says "certain" kids should be hit -- which ones, how he defies this, is never said. Let's here it, what kids should and should not be hit Rosemond, what are your criteria? How hard should those kids be hit, and how does a parent know how much force they are using? Are bruises acceptable consequences? Red marks? White marks? What is you have two children, and one fits his criteria for "it's ok to hit this one" but the other does not -- how devastating to the struck child is that?
Good discipline is instilled in the mind, not the behind. Rosemond needs to re-evaluate his position and apologize to the many children out there growing up with bad memories caused by his advice to their parents.