# Spinoff- Comparing spanking to domestic violence



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

I'm not trying to justify spanking- on the contrary, I want to point out a situation that many parents may find themselves in, so maybe we can think of alternatives BEFORE we find ourselves in those situations.

I'm personally sick of hearing "You wouldn't hit your spouse/partner, so why would you hit your child?"

When another adult does something that angers you, you have the option of walking away. So does the other adult. Even with "biggies" like adultery, there's a time lapse you don't have with children. If you actually walk in on them having sex, you can walk right out (though I know that if you do perform an act of violence in such a situation juries tend to be lenient.) If you learn about it in a less dramatic way, you have some time to think about it before taking any action. If your partner is actually violent towards you, you can pick up the phone and call 911.

With little kids, their violence towards you is often the first step. A nursing infant can bite your nipple. Toddlers can kick, hit, pinch, bite, etc. They're not being criminal, they're being children. But there is an instinct to react to violence with violence. If somebody hits you, it's a normal reaction to hit back. Many times the "hit back" happens first and the cognizance of what's just happens comes second. This can happen even to parents who are dedicated to GD who are simply unprepared for the intensity of their own emotions.

In parenting, your child is not another adult. Babies and children act like babies and children. This can include keeping mama (and/or papa) up all night, shrieking at the top of their voices for no apparent (to us) reason, throwing tantrums, and generally being very unpleasant to be around. The combination of lack of sleep and general unpleasantness can grate on anybody's nerves- having a few minutes of peace and quiet can often help restore equilibrium. Many new parents don't get those few minutes of peace and quiet- and can be put into situations where controlling their own emotions is very, very challenging.

Imagine that, after a night of continually interupted sleep, and a whole day without personal boundaries being respected, the child hits/kicks/bites the parent, and the parent, without even thinking about it, hits back. It happens! It's not a "proud mommy moment" but it does happen!

If another adult woke you every 2 hours during the night, and then refused to leave you alone for 30 seconds all day, even following you into the bathroom, and talked loudly whenever you tried to use the phone, it would be abuse. When a baby does that, it's just called parenting.


----------



## rmzbm (Jul 8, 2005)

I must be really dense...but I can't see what your point is.


----------



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

My point is that hitting kids is NOT the same as violence between adult partners. I think we can address the reasons parents end up hitting children (and discuss strategies to prevent it) without constantly comparing it to violence between adults.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

ITA Ruth. I think you make a really good point. I also think it is absolutely unacceptable to hit children, but ITA that the relationship, and the obligations, are not the same as between adults.


----------



## rmzbm (Jul 8, 2005)

OK, that's valid. But I don't think that contradicts "You wouldn't hit your spouse so why would you hit your kid."

I MUST be dense cuz I just really feel like I'm missing something!







:


----------



## mollyeilis (Mar 6, 2004)

"so maybe we can think of alternatives BEFORE we find ourselves in those situations."

Good idea. For me, I've been very glad that I had anger management counseling, so that even if my first impulse is a flash of anger, I can control my mouth and even hands (though really, my only violence in my life is to hit innocent doorjams, and once I broke my OWN hand by punching it while angry in a parking lot) very VERY fast.

So that's my preparation, even though I didn't realize how much it would help me with parenting, when I had the counseling so many years ago.


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

Another dense mama here









I definately agree that details are different, but violence is violence is violence. The whole point of comparing violence towards children with violence towards women is to trigger "That's not acceptable!" thought.

As in - if it's not acceptable to hit a grown person, why is it acceptable to hit a child? (NO matter what the circumstances are, true self-defence being a separate category)


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *irinam*
As in - if it's not acceptable to hit a grown person, why is it acceptable to hit a child?

I agree that it is not acceptable. But there are differences, including that our other coping mechanisms are not as available with children.


----------



## peacelovingmama (Apr 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *irinam* 
Another dense mama here









I definately agree that details are different, but violence is violence is violence. The whole point of comparing violence towards children with violence towards women is to trigger "That's not acceptable!" thought.

As in - if it's not acceptable to hit a grown person, why is it acceptable to hit a child? (NO matter what the circumstances are, true self-defence being a separate category)









: I absolutely agree. Sure, adults and children are different. But family violence is unacceptable no matter what the family member's age. I personally see a very strong analogy between domestic violence between adults and between adult and child.

It used to be legal for men to hit their wives for many of the reasons people justify hitting children -- family order, discipline, etc. I simply do not see that a grown woman has any greater right to be free from physical violence than a child does.

Sure, an adult can "walk away" from another adult. But an adult can also place a child in a safe place like a crib, playpen or child-proofed room until the adult is able to proceed without violating the child's body.

And I don't buy the argument that kids engage in more rage-provoking behaviors. Adults commit adultery, develop awful addictions, suffer from mental illness, squander the family's finances, etc. There are many situations in which people become as (or more) enraged at their romantic partners as they become at young, defenseless family members. The only difference? It is illegal to indulge your anger to the point of violence when it comes to an adult. But children do not have that protection in our country (although they do in many).

In the end, family violence is unacceptable whether it is directed at the 25-year-old wife, the 85-year-old father, or the 2-year-old son. I think the analogy of domestic violence toward an adult is a powerful one and it is one I frequently invoke to provoke discussion of violence against young people.


----------



## mollyeilis (Mar 6, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *irinam* 
Another dense mama here









I definately agree that details are different, but violence is violence is violence. The whole point of comparing violence towards children with violence towards women is to trigger "That's not acceptable!" thought.

As in - if it's not acceptable to hit a grown person, why is it acceptable to hit a child? (NO matter what the circumstances are, true self-defence being a separate category)


Well, if my husband walked up and bit my leg, or smashed his head into my nose, or hauled off and hit my when I wasn't making dinner fast enough, for me, that would be justifiable self-defense (to me and my mind, not talking legally here, LOL) to do whatever I could to stop him (within reason).

But with a kid, it's the same feeling when you're bitten or hit or smashed, but it's being done for vastly different reasons. However, the feeling you have in the exact millisecond of being harmed, even by an infant who was just flailing her head around when she smashed your nose, the feeling inside is the same, your hurt part doesn't know the reasons...

At least that's how I see the difference. And yeah, to me the "you wouldn't hit your partner, why hit your kid" thing has never made 100% sense to me, b/c what happens first is different. My self-defense reflexes do kick in, and I have to control them...they are different situations, b/c I am not harmed by my hubby, but I am harmed by my kiddo!







:


----------



## carolhagan (Oct 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *peacelovingmama* 







: I absolutely agree. Sure, adults and children are different. But family violence is unacceptable no matter what the family member's age. I personally see a very strong analogy between domestic violence between adults and between adult and child.

It used to be legal for men to hit their wives for many of the reasons people justify hitting children -- family order, discipline, etc. I simply do not see that a grown woman has any greater right to be free from physical violence than a child does.

Sure, an adult can "walk away" from another adult. But an adult can also place a child in a safe place like a crib, playpen or child-proofed room until the adult is able to proceed without violating the child's body.

And I don't buy the argument that kids engage in more rage-provoking behaviors. Adults commit adultery, develop awful addictions, suffer from mental illness, squander the family's finances, etc. There are many situations in which people become as (or more) enraged at their romantic partners as they become at young, defenseless family members. The only difference? It is illegal to indulge your anger to the point of violence when it comes to an adult. But children do not have that protection in our country (although they do in many).

In the end, family violence is unacceptable whether it is directed at the 25-year-old wife, the 85-year-old father, or the 2-year-old son. I think the analogy of domestic violence toward an adult is a powerful one and it is one I frequently invoke to provoke discussion of violence against young people.









: My thoughts exactly!


----------



## ameliabedelia (Sep 24, 2002)

Quote:

And I don't buy the argument that kids engage in more rage-provoking behaviors. Adults commit adultery, develop awful addictions, suffer from mental illness, squander the family's finances, etc. There are many situations in which people become as (or more) enraged at their romantic partners as they become at young, defenseless family members. The only difference? It is illegal to indulge your anger to the point of violence when it comes to an adult. But children do not have that protection in our country (although they do in many).
Oh, I definitely think kids engage in WAY more rage-provoking behaviors. My husband has never refused to get into the carseat , he has never unbuckled himself from the carseat, he has never hit me, kicked me, pulled my hair, bit my nipple. He has never taken EVERY SINGLE THING from his sister and wanted THAT toy just because sister has it. He has never been totally happily playing and then suddenly want to play with whatever sister has and done this 20 times in 1/2 hour. He has never asked me over and over again if it is time to go to X now, when I have explained 1 million times that we are doing X TOMORROW. He has never refused to leave the playground and run away when it is time to go. He has never thrown a temper tantrum in public. He has never hit and pushed other kids, so frequently that I was homebound and afraid to take him out around other kids, consequently isolating me. He has never dumped out a $10 bottle of organic maple syrup, destroyed a chandelior, broke the electronic windows in the car, ruined my favorite DVD's., etc. I could go on and on.

Besides, you CHOOSE your spouse, and I didn't choose anyone who would be likely to commit adultery, squander finances, do drugs, etc., etc. I choose someone who I am fairly sure (of course you never know if someone will change) would not do those things. You can't choose your kids. And, sometimes you get kids with special needs or behavior problems, or high needs or developmental delays. All these things, can make normal childish behavior even MORE difficult to deal with.

I defintiely agree that violence is wrong no matter what...but there is a HUGE difference between spousal violance and a mother or father who spanks or hits a child on rare occasion when they are at the end of their rope. When I had dd1, I firmly resolved to never spank, hit, slap, etc., etc I am totally against it..but guess what I am human..and I have on occasion hit or spanked or slapped a hand that was pulling my hair and refusing to let go. It was defintiely wrong, it is defintiely something I feel guilty about. But, you can't compare it to spousal abuse. My husband has NEVER pushed my buttons they way my kids have. And, I am responsible for my kids in a way I will never be responsible for my husband. And, my kids are childish (duh, they are children)..but children behavior can be VERY diffuclt to deal with. Especially when I am tired from being up all night, or worried and stressed about something else, or have PMS or sick. It can be really hard to be gentle and patient and loving when I am feeling sick and tired and stressed, kwim?

I love my kids more than anything but they can be DIFFICULT..very, very DIFFICULT.

I defintiely think it does not serve parents well to just clichely say "well, you wouldn't hit your spouse, so don't hit your child" I think everyone HERE on the GD forum believes that hitting children is wrong. We know that. However, we deal with situations with our children EVERYDAY which we will never deal with, with our spouse. My husband is MUCH EASIER to live with than my children are. And, sometimes you CAN'T get away from your kids. In public or a car, you can't put them in a playpen or go in the bathroom by yourself. Sometimes they follow you no matter where you go in the house. Sometimes you really do just need them to listen RIGHT NOW..and they refuse and you feel stuck and helpless and don't know what to do. That is why this forum is so important..so we can know WHAT TO DO WHEN WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO. I think parents who have reached the end of their rope need patience and help and support to find gentler ways..not just be told that hitting is wrong.. we all know that.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

I think the point here is that all analogies break down somewhere. I think we all agree that it's as wrong to hit our kids as it is to hit our spouses, parents, and so on -- and I think we all agree that, in our roles as parents, we're in continuous, close contact with our kids and we ALSO have responsibilities for our little ones that we don't have for adults. So the analogy comparing spanking to spouse abuse makes us wake up and really think -- but it's more of a thought and conversation starter than it is a real help for figuring out how to live violence-free lives.

As for me, I've found some real help in reading "How to Talk So Kids Will Listen and Listen So Kids Will Talk" by Adele Faber and Elaine Mazlish. Also it helps to just relax and not pressure myself to have it all together and have perfectly-behaved kids who never throw tantrums or embarrass me in public. Once you can feel okay while knowing others are looking at you and your child and thinking, "The kids are in control in that house," you'll feel a freedom beyond anything you imagined before -- the freedom to embrace the journey and learn something new.

So many parents are scared of their kids forming the wrong habits, they can't open themselves at all to any new ideas. Some friends, on learning our first dd was sleeping with us, said, "You're going to regret it! You'll never get her out of your bed." She's six-and-a-half and we still feel no need to get her out of our bed; we love the togetherness ... I feel sad for all those parents who maybe felt an urge to bring Baby to bed but resisted 'cause they just COULDN'T allow any "habits" to form. Early on I realized I couldn't worry-worry-worry constantly about all the potential "habits" that could be formed by this or that decision. I decided to relax and follow my heart; if something resulted in a "bad habit," we'd cross that bridge when we came to it.

I'm finding that dealing with MY mistakes is a lot easier than following everyone else's "rules" about how to have the perfectly-behaved child. At least I can BREATHE. And enjoy my kids a lot more than I would if I lived on tenterhooks, waiting to squelch the next potential bad habit.


----------



## Roxswood (Jun 29, 2006)

All adults have incredibly annoying moments though, to my way of thinking, far more so than children. I have been angrier at my spouse than I have EVER been at a child and for not very much as well. He has never done anything dreadful to me to make me feel that way but I can step back and look at my child and KNOW that she is just a child and is doing normal child things and control my feelings over it all.

My husband too has at times had a very hard time not hitting out at me. The main time for him I was taking Clomid tablets before getting pregnant with dd and just could NOT stop yelling at him for tiny things. I was so angry inside and hurt and upset and would wake him up at 3am to yell at him because he left a dirty cup in the sink or something stupid, I also followed him around the house yelling when he tried to get away from me and hid the front door keys so he couldn't leave to get away. Now if he had hit me at that point everyone would have been shouting ABUSE! But the way I was behaving was FAR FAR more challenging to him than anything a child can do. He had NO way of escaping me without being violent towards me or towards our house and possessions and he ended up punching a hole in the door and scaring me so I eventually left him alone, but I did this on a regular basis until I stopped taking the Clomid tablets.

If hitting your spouse occasionally was at all acceptable in our society I know he would have done it then but it isn't, and hitting children shouldn't be either.
If it was publicly declared to be completely unacceptable and became a reportable offence then I'm damn sure more people would think twice.


----------



## Sharlla (Jul 14, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ruthla* 
My point is that hitting kids is NOT the same as violence between adult partners..

You're right, it's a lot worse







Children can't just leave their abuser like a spouse could.


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

Clare, great example!









(Brings back memories of *my* pregnant self







)


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roxswood* 
If it was publicly declared to be completely unacceptable and became a reportable offence then I'm damn sure more people would think twice.

A reportable offence...I've seen this here before. What legal remedies do you all think would be appropriate for a report of spanking?


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roxswood* 
My husband too has at times had a very hard time not hitting out at me. The main time for him I was taking Clomid tablets before getting pregnant with dd and just could NOT stop yelling at him for tiny things. I was so angry inside and hurt and upset and would wake him up at 3am to yell at him because he left a dirty cup in the sink or something stupid, I also followed him around the house yelling when he tried to get away from me and hid the front door keys so he couldn't leave to get away. Now if he had hit me at that point everyone would have been shouting ABUSE! But the way I was behaving was FAR FAR more challenging to him than anything a child can do. He had NO way of escaping me...

Now you see, I may be in the minority, but I actually wouldn't be shouting "abuse" in this situation. When someone deliberately goads someone into anger, then refuses to allow the angered person to remove themselves from the situation, then I'm going to expect the s**t to hit the fan.

What is Clomid? It sounds freaking awful!


----------



## mollyeilis (Mar 6, 2004)

clomid helps with ovulation, and can cause enormous moods and mood swings.

*Roxswood*, your story of Clomid's effects on you sounds like I did when I was on birth control. I stopped after 9 months b/c it was making me insane (and I found out that the boyfriend was *trying* to cheat on me (too drunk to be successful) so I went back to condoms).

That time in my life was actually the reason I did the anger management counseling I mentioned in my first reply, after trying repeatedly to beat up that boyfriend, who was 60 pounds heavier and more than a foot taller than me...ended up with bruises on my wrists b/c he just held my wrists as I struggled...







We ended up both blaming ME, so I went into counseling...I was glad to get the "tools" to control my nasty temper, but I haven't been THAT angry since he and I went our separate ways.

Anyway, those extrinsic hormones or hormone regulators/helpers...they can certainly do a number on us, can't they?!!!?


----------



## mommy2abigail (Aug 20, 2005)

I do agree with the op, in that kids (for the most part!) annoy, provoke, and anger parents more that the average spouse. However, I believe that violence is violence. I think its just more socially acceptable (unfortunately) to strike out against an annoying child vs. an annoying adult. I can see where a mother at the end of the day, at the end of her rope, would strike out at her child without thinking. BUT we, as adults, have the capability to have more self control than that, and if not, to seek help in dealing with anger issues. And I think spanking, as prescribed in so many awful parenting books, is NOT just a mindless striking of a toddler who bites your nipple. It is a methodical, well thought out, step-by-step ordeal. You are to calm down, send the child to his room to wait, go in, talk about why you have to do this, spank, hug and basically demand that the child show you affection. NOT the same as striking out as a reaction before thinking. I agree, violence is violence is violence. I dont believe anyone, baby, child, adult should be hit, spanked, pushed, shoved, ect. I think that anytime a child is hit or otherwise violated, he is scarred. I do think that much more damage happens when it is a regular occurance, well thought out and methodical. If a mother who is stressed and tired strikes her child in a moment of anger, and immediately apologizes and makes sure her child knows that 'mama was wrong, sometimes mama gets very angry and she needs a time-out to regroup, mama will not do that again, she will keep you safe' ect. I think a child can learn alot from that. (NOT to say we should hit our children to teach them anything) Ok, does any of that make any sense? Hope so.


----------



## peacelovingmama (Apr 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roxswood* 

If hitting your spouse occasionally was at all acceptable in our society I know he would have done it then but it isn't, and hitting children shouldn't be either.
If it was publicly declared to be completely unacceptable and became a reportable offence then I'm damn sure more people would think twice.


I agree. I think that we can rationalize til kingdom come about all of the ways that children challenge us, annoy us, frustrate us, test us, we don't get breaks, they are so demanding, etc. I personally think that many adult relationship situations are just as volatile and could easily provoke violence if violence against women were still legal and culturally acceptable.

But in the end, I'm not sure comparing the victim's "bad" or provocative behaviors is very productive. Personally, I use the adult domestic violence analogy because I believe that we should legislate against violence against children as we already have against adults. Even if one accepts the premise that it is more tempting or understandable to hit a child, it makes such violence no more acceptable.

I would not favor penal consequences but would prefer legislation similar to Sweden's. Hitting children is so engrained in our cultural and collective psyche that I really think that it would take several generations to really curb it. So I would advocate advisory laws coupled with public education outreach to begin with and later change the consequences to things such as parenting classes, counseling, etc. This has worked for many countries and I think that, even despite our strong culture of violence, it could work here. It will take several generations to break the cycle of violence but many other countries have already shown us that it can be done.

Otherwise, I think that people will continue to rationalize and justify violence against children. Regardless of who is more annoying -- children or adults -- all human beings desere protection from physical violence. So to me, the analogy is a good one because it points in a direction I (and many others) would like to see our country go. In fact, legislation designed to make Oakland, CA a "spank-free" zone was only narrowly defeated. Other cities have had such legislation pending. Even James Dobson wrote in his latest book that he believes anti-spanking leglislation is "likely." I really hope and believe that, one day, our country will step up and take a stand against ALL family violence.


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

I think the analogy is useful in the sense that hitting a spouse was at one time considered legal and socially acceptable, and now it is not at all. In the same way, I think it helps to point out that just because a certain type of violence is currently a accepted social norm does NOT mean that its morally acceptable, and that the trend in the case of spanking a child will probably go in the same direction that spousal abuse has.

There was a strong relationship between the arguments for women's rights and the abolition of slavery. Many people drew analogies there too. The analogies were not perfect, but again -- one movement supported the other in the sense that it increased the consciousness level of most people toward human rights and dignity. In the same way -- we can now use old arguments to fight for the dignity and rights of children.

FTR -- I tend to use different analogies in my arguments. I will more often compare caring for a child to caring for a disabled adult or elderly person. While violence does occur against that population, it is never deemed acceptable. The analogy fits more closely. It also illustrates the dependancy in the relatinship a little better. Obviously - a disabled person or a small child is not "better off" without a caregiver. While a battered spouse might well be.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamaduck* 
Obviously - a disabled person or a small child is not "better off" without a caregiver. While a battered spouse might well be.

Good point. I also wonder what would happen if there was legislation prohibiting spanking? Would parents who spanked lose custody of their kids? See, even though I disagree with my friends' decisions to spank their kids, I honestly feel the children, who are bonded with their parents, would be devastated to be jerked out of their homes and placed in foster care (also, though foster parents aren't "supposed" to spank I heard of one foster family who made children wear their wet underwear on their heads after wetting the bed). I really believe children are better off with their parents unless those parents are extremely cruel and abusive.


----------



## ShaggyDaddy (Jul 5, 2006)

The reason it is so often compared is because people hit their spouses and their children for the same reasons. They hit them because they consider it an option. In order to prevent losing control and "accidentally" hitting someone else, you have to have an attitude that violence is never a way to solve a problem. If violence is in your "tool box" eventually you will use it. Violence has to be regarded as something that is not even a little acceptable, not something to "resort to".

If my wife smacked me and I punched her in the eye, guess who would go to jail... and I am only slightly stronger than my wife. My son has no real ability to defend himself, yet if I hit him on the butt, it would be called "spanking" and be accepted as parenting. In my opinion the difference between hitting your child and hitting your spouse is that your spouse is legally protected and can defend themselves. And children are so forgiving and compassionate that they will generally still love us even if we hit them. So I agree, they should not be compared as equal.

I am of course speaking in ideals, and all we can do is strive to be ideal and ask for forgiveness when we are not.


----------



## peacelovingmama (Apr 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Good point. I also wonder what would happen if there was legislation prohibiting spanking? Would parents who spanked lose custody of their kids? See, even though I disagree with my friends' decisions to spank their kids, I honestly feel the children, who are bonded with their parents, would be devastated to be jerked out of their homes and placed in foster care (also, though foster parents aren't "supposed" to spank I heard of one foster family who made children wear their wet underwear on their heads after wetting the bed). I really believe children are better off with their parents unless those parents are extremely cruel and abusive.

I am one who supports legislation against hitting children. But I, and many others who support such legislation do NOT advocate a penal system that would remove children from the home if the law were violated. Hitting our young people is simply too culturally entrenched to suddenly change the rule and rip families apart. And although I strongly oppose hitting people, I do acknowledge that there are countless parents who hit and who are wonderful, loving parents.

So I favor a law modeled after Sweden's -- educational only to begin with and later introducing counseling and possibly mandatory classes. Over time, as fewer children grow up enduring violence, the cycle of violence will erode. After all, how many people who have never been hit are tempted to hit? It will be much easier for our children, never having been hit (or having been hit very rarely,and hopefully with accompanying apologies) to refrain from perpetuating the violence.


----------



## peacelovingmama (Apr 28, 2006)

ShaggyDaddy said:


> The reason it is so often compared is because people hit their spouses and their children for the same reasons. They hit them because they consider it an option. In order to prevent losing control and "accidentally" hitting someone else, you have to have an attitude that violence is never a way to solve a problem. If violence is in your "tool box" eventually you will use it. Violence has to be regarded as something that is not even a little acceptable, not something to "resort to".
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *peacelovingmama* 
I So I favor a law modeled after Sweden's -- educational only to begin with and later introducing counseling and possibly mandatory classes.

This always interests me. What if the parent refused counselling and didn't go to the mandatory classes? What next?


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

I am reposting here my response from another thread:

Comparing children to adults is very helpful in terms of philosophical shifting of how we view our "rights" in relating to our children. It's also a great way to clarify how our concept of fundamental rights can and does shift as social values change.

However it's important to keep in mind that practical solutions are the keystone of this forum. We do live with and tolerate from children a degree of aggression for which most parents are unprepared, based on interactions with other adults. It can be a genuine shock for parents when a 3 year old slaps them across the face or kicks a parent hard in the stomach with a boot covered foot. If we are thinking about a child only in terms of treating them as we would an adult, our reaction in such a moment could be more defensive and aggressive, rather than less.

Ultimately many parents find more value and resolve in 'not hitting', if they stay connected to what is unique about their relationship to their children. Also, and most important, is clarifying in our own minds what response we are committed too when/if our child is aggressive towards us. Parents need something tangible to fall back upon--words, actions, and thoughts that form a non violent response. Beneath that is the fundamental commitment not to hit. That is vital. But as with anything, it's not enough to say what we won't do...we need to keep each other focused on tangible solutions for the moments a parent finds personally challenging


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Personally I wish the U.S. would adopt a policy of citizen rights that extended to children. However, considering the high abuse rate in U.S. foster care, I would not support any law that put a conventionally spanked child at risk of landing in the foster care system. I could only support a non punitive system for handling conventional spanking parents. Which is what most countries use (non punitive laws).

I am curious~does anyone know how countries with anti spanking laws rationalize self defense between parent and child? If children have the same rights as adults, how does that work with self defense?

If I were Swedish and bit my Swedish husband, and he slapped me so I'd let go, I'm guessing I'd be in the wrong as the aggressor, and he justified in self defense? So how does this work if my Swedish 3 year old bites me? Is he violating my rights, and am I justified in shoving or slapping him to defend myself?

Quote:

I will more often compare caring for a child to caring for a disabled adult or elderly person. While violence does occur against that population, it is never deemed acceptable. The analogy fits more closely. It also illustrates the dependancy in the relatinship a little better. Obviously - a disabled person or a small child is not "better off" without a caregiver. While a battered spouse might well be.
I love this comparison~I remember you posting it long ago.

The practical side of me wonders though~with a caregiver of potentially violent adults, it is considered acceptable to put them in a restraint, sedate, or otherwise confine them until they calm down again. Something nobody would use to handle a tantrum from a 4 year old. And too, if you are a caregiver of potentially violent geriatric patients, it's doubtful you would have a fragile 2 week old baby in the same room with them.

But parents are in these very situations. So, I tend to want to focus on the unique skills required of a parent who must handle a strong 4 year old who sqeezes his newborn siblings face and won't let go, or who must figure out what to do with a 5 year old who just.won't.stop.kicking.her.mother.

Handling aggression without agression really is something amazing and special, and there is almost no precedent for it in our culture. We tend to use avoidance or restraints when handling aggressive adults...and when you take these options away (parents can't just leave, or lock a hysterical child in a padded cell), it can seem like uncharted waters. It's tough.

And I know you get that completely! But sometimes the comparisons make it seem "so obvious" that a parent should simply never ever hit. In real life it may not be obvious at all what a parent should do instead.


----------



## peacelovingmama (Apr 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
This always interests me. What if the parent refused counselling and didn't go to the mandatory classes? What next?

Honestly, I don't know how that works in all of the countries that already have laws protecting children from adult violence. I would imagine that it differs country to country.

Personally, given our deeply ingrained culture of violence against children, I would prefer the law here to be advisory and educational at first (as in for at least a generation). Like so many others, I don't support penal consequences or placing kids in foster care as "punishment" for the parents.

At some point, hitting kids would hopefully phase out to a large extent because it would become so socially unacceptable. As for what would happen if an offending parent refused mandatory counseling or classes, the options are numerous: anything from citations, fines, loss of benefits, and all the way up to incarceration. That part would be up to our lawmakers.


----------



## maryjane (Jul 13, 2004)

I completely agree with the OP -- and I agreed with her when she posted this in the original thread as well. Not that this is an EXCUSE for hitting/spanking a child, but it does explain the rage that wells up inside. Not being able to walk away is HUGE for me. And I don't agree with a PP who said that you can put a child in a safe place. When my older son is in a rage, he will not be separated from me. I can walk away. I can put him in his room. But he comes back to me like glue and then follows me around, hitting me, kicking me and screaming. I can NOT get away from him, without literally locking him in his room, which would probably involve some (a lot) of force to get him there - not to mention that locking him in his room is clearly not something I'd be comfortable doing.

Now for me, understanding why it is SO hard is actually helpful in diffusing it a bit. Once I know what is happening -- and why it's happening -- it has less power over me. Which is why I feel strongly that it isn't fair or even helpful to just out-of-hand disregard the OP's post w/ "Let's not blame the child" or "but you wouldn't hit your spouse". (And maybe it isn't disregard, but that's the vibe that I'm getting).

Quote:

I will more often compare caring for a child to caring for a disabled adult or elderly person. While violence does occur against that population, it is never deemed acceptable. The analogy fits more closely. It also illustrates the dependancy in the relatinship a little better. Obviously - a disabled person or a small child is not "better off" without a caregiver. While a battered spouse might well be.
I love this comparison~I remember you posting it long ago.

The practical side of me wonders though~with a caregiver of potentially violent adults, it is considered acceptable to put them in a restraint, sedate, or otherwise confine them until they calm down again. Something nobody would use to handle a tantrum from a 4 year old. And too, if you are a caregiver of potentially violent geriatric patients, it's doubtful you would have a fragile 2 week old baby in the same room with them.

But parents are in these very situations. So, I tend to want to focus on the unique skills required of a parent who must handle a strong 4 year old who sqeezes his newborn siblings face and won't let go, or who must figure out what to do with a 5 year old who just.won't.stop.kicking.her.mother.

*Handling aggression without agression really is something amazing and special,* and there is almost no precedent for it in our culture. We tend to use avoidance or restraints when handling aggressive adults...and when you take these options away (parents can't just leave, or lock a hysterical child in a padded cell), it can seem like uncharted waters. It's tough.

And I know you get that completely! But sometimes the comparisons make it seem "so obvious" that a parent should simply never ever hit. In real life it may not be obvious at all what a parent should do instead.
I also love that comparison! It resonates with me, whereas the spouse one doesn't at all. And I also appreciate what heartmama is saying -- especially the part that I bolded. Thanks!


----------



## asherah (Nov 25, 2001)

Well I have always thought comparisons/analogies were lovely things in poetry..
but not very useful in persuasion.

Because the analogy won't work for everyone, will almost always offend SOMEONE.. and then the conversation derails into a dicussion of the analogy instead of the subject at hand.

If I am trying to persuade someone not to spank, I find it much more powerful to just talk about SPANKING.. why it doesn't work in the long run, and what it does to the parent-relationship over the long run. I think those things are powerful and persuasive enough.

I think analogies are potentially divisive. You always run the risk of someone focusing on the analogy and getting offended by it and I don't want that to dilute the point I am trying to make.

So I don't compare spanking to domestic violence.. though I personally feel spanking IS a form of domestic violence. I realize that perspective would turn a lot of people off though, so I don't say that when I am trying to be persuasive.

I believe specificity is the most persuasive thing, so when I am trying to change a heart/help someone with GD, I don't really make comparisons. ANYMORE.

I have learned that lesson by putting off lots of people lol.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *asherah* 
So I don't compare spanking to domestic violence.. though I personally feel spanking IS a form of domestic violence. I realize that perspective would turn a lot of people off though, so I don't say that when I am trying to be persuasive.

Sometimes I've even felt the analogy is not used so much to persuade parents not to spank as to distance ourselves from those we disagree with. I've heard from some who claim they can't even UNDERSTAND how anyone could even THINK of spanking -- who speak as though parents who spank are wierd grotesque aliens from another planet, not fellow human beings who could benefit from our love and understanding.


----------



## peacelovingmama (Apr 28, 2006)

asherah said:


> I think analogies are potentially divisive. You always run the risk of someone focusing on the analogy and getting offended by it and I don't want that to dilute the point I am trying to make.
> 
> So I don't compare spanking to domestic violence.. though I personally feel spanking IS a form of domestic violence. I realize that perspective would turn a lot of people off though, so I don't say that when I am trying to be persuasive.
> 
> ...


----------



## abac (Mar 10, 2005)

Haven't read the responses yet, but I'm in a hurry and wanted to reply quickly. Ruthla, your OP sounds like the excuses people make when they DO hit their spouses. You list all of the reasons why someone would feel the urge to hit. Men sometimes say it's because their wives nag them constantly and "she just wouldn't stop."


----------



## ameliabedelia (Sep 24, 2002)

Quote:

In order to prevent losing control and "accidentally" hitting someone else, you have to have an attitude that violence is never a way to solve a problem. If violence is in your "tool box" eventually you will use it. Violence has to be regarded as something that is not even a little acceptable, not something to "resort to".
The only problem with that is that it doesn't work. If you look at the poll listed in this forum "have you ever hit a child" you will see that over 50% of the people chose this option _I beleive hitting children is WRONG but I've hit a child, and felt awful about it._ . For those people, I am sure hitting/spanking was not "in their toolbox" It wasn't something they considered an option, or something they ever thought they would resort too. We aren't talking about a parent who gives a deliberate spanking. We aren't talking about poeple who use spanking as a"tool" or discipline method We are talking about humans who reached the end of their rope..who slapped a hand that was pulling their hair and wouldn't let go..who were incredibely frustrated and tired, etc. We aren't talking about parents who spank or hit on a regular basis. We (at least I) am talking about the parent who on rare occasion hits or spanks or slaps w/o really meaning too, w/o thinking it out...just out of pure human reaction to a very intense trigger.


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

Quote:

The practical side of me wonders though~with a caregiver of potentially violent adults, it is considered acceptable to put them in a restraint, sedate, or otherwise confine them until they calm down again. Something nobody would use to handle a tantrum from a 4 year old.
Well, the simplist response is that a violent 4 year old is a lot smaller than a violent adult! You don't need to use extreme measures in order to protect yourself.

However, I did work with potentially violent adults males in a rehab setting for a period of 18 months, and we had no sedatives or restraints at our disposal. We used reasoning and distraction methods with them. In a worst case scenerio, we were instructed to call the police. (I never experienced that scenerio though.)


----------



## heartmama (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

Well, the simplist response is that a violent 4 year old is a lot smaller than a violent adult! You don't need to use extreme measures in order to protect yourself.
Yes, of course I agree. I am just pointing out that what may frustrate parents about a comparison (and I think yours is great!), is that the coping mechanisms in place for the caregiver of a potentially violent adult aren't necessarily available to a parent and their child.

Aggression tends to be *the* scenario that prompts otherwise GD parents to hit back~either aggression towards a parent or a smaller sibling. In our society it may be the first and only situation in which an adult finds him/herself smacked or kicked~it's critical to recognize the uniqueness of that, of having to really handle physical aggression, in order to find non violent ways to cope.

For myself comparisons are very helpful. That's why I remembered yours! I can also see how they confuse a person in the moment, making them go "...but what am I supposed to DO??".

Quote:

However, I did work with potentially violent adults males in a rehab setting for a period of 18 months, and we had no sedatives or restraints at our disposal. We used reasoning and distraction methods with them. In a worst case scenerio, we were instructed to call the police. (I never experienced that scenerio though.)
I find this fascinating. Was there a training program for the caregivers?


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Let's be careful to avoid discussing other threads, please


----------



## sparkprincess (Sep 10, 2004)

I've used the domestic violence comparison when talking about spanking, but not on a self defense/end-of-my-rope level - I'm thinking more about something that's done routinely. Something that's seen as an acceptable way to "discipline".

I do like what a pp said about NOT using analogies though. I think I'll drop them from now on.


----------



## AntoninBeGonin (Jun 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ameliabedelia* 
That is why this forum is so important..so we can know WHAT TO DO WHEN WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO. I think parents who have reached the end of their rope need patience and help and support to find gentler ways..not just be told that hitting is wrong.. we all know that.

Bravo!!
















~Nay


----------



## Mothra (Jun 4, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *abac* 
Haven't read the responses yet, but I'm in a hurry and wanted to reply quickly. Ruthla, your OP sounds like the excuses people make when they DO hit their spouses. You list all of the reasons why someone would feel the urge to hit. Men sometimes say it's because their wives nag them constantly and "she just wouldn't stop."

I'm not dense, and I disagree with the OP. I agree with this. I've worked with victims of domestic violence and, in a more limited capacity, with men who have abused women. I've also worked more closely with victims of child abuse and those who abuse them. The things that the men and child abusers said were remarkably similar and it isn't a correlation I'm willing to ignore. In addition, the reminder that other things that were once considered as socially acceptable as hitting a child, such as hitting one's wife and slavery, are now considered abusive. Just because most people do it and there are just so many darned good reasons to do so doesn't make it more acceptable than either of those things. We categorize things and organize them in our minds. How we think about something affects how we act. I would no more hit my child than I would my spouse, and I think that's a good way to look at it.

And sometimes the best reason to NOT hit is that IT IS WRONG. I'm not a hitter, I never have been, but I have a tendency to raise my voice and I've found myself absolutely yelling at my kids before. To stop myself, I remind myself that it is just WRONG. The logical part, the part where I think about it and do what I can to keep myself from getting to that point, works well in certain situations. Other times, I've had to just tell myself that it isn't an option because it is abusive and it is just plain WRONG. I think that's the first thing that someone has to accept before he or she will be open to committing to stoping the behavior, no matter what it is.


----------



## peacelovingmama (Apr 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mothra* 
I'm not dense, and I disagree with the OP. I agree with this. I've worked with victims of domestic violence and, in a more limited capacity, with men who have abused women. I've also worked more closely with victims of child abuse and those who abuse them. The things that the men and child abusers said were remarkably similar and it isn't a correlation I'm willing to ignore. In addition, the reminder that other things that were once considered as socially acceptable as hitting a child, such as hitting one's wife and slavery, are now considered abusive. Just because most people do it and there are just so many darned good reasons to do so doesn't make it more acceptable than either of those things. We categorize things and organize them in our minds. How we think about something affects how we act. I would no more hit my child than I would my spouse, and I think that's a good way to look at it.

And sometimes the best reason to NOT hit is that IT IS WRONG. I'm not a hitter, I never have been, but I have a tendency to raise my voice and I've found myself absolutely yelling at my kids before. To stop myself, I remind myself that it is just WRONG. The logical part, the part where I think about it and do what I can to keep myself from getting to that point, works well in certain situations. Other times, I've had to just tell myself that it isn't an option because it is abusive and it is just plain WRONG. *I think that's the first thing that someone has to accept before he or she will be open to committing to stoping the behavior, no matter what it is*.









I agree -- especially with the bolded portion. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we should just all agree that hitting children is wrong or that it is akin to other domestic abuse and then stop focusing on the reality that many people hit, who wish to stop hitting. Or stop focusing on alternatives to hitting. I think that is what much of this forum is all about. We have this forum to promote gentle and non-violent discipline and to help those who hit/yell/shame/insert other harmful act to do better, to support one another, to find respectful alternatives. It seems to me that the vast majority of posts here do just that. I have gotten so much good advice here -- it is amazing.

But I absolutely agree with the above poster -- before we truly take a step toward changing a behavior, I think we must really appreciate just how wrong and harmful it is. If any sliver of us rationalizes it, that is the part of us that rears up when enraged and commits the act. So to me, the starting point is to embrace that hitting little ones is wrong. Period. No matter what. So to have threads that discuss the harm of violence (rather than rationalize it) is very beneficial, IMO. The occasional thread that reiterates the harm of hitting -- especially in this culture where hitting is so common -- is, in fact, an important component of this forum, I think.


----------



## Mothra (Jun 4, 2002)

I want to say, too, that it is very important for someone who wants to stop hitting their children, or any behavior, to identify what it is that brings out that particular behavior. In this case, it's hitting their child/ren. I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about that, because that's a crucial step in solving the problem. But what I have seen here and on other message boards and in RL discussions about this is a tendency to get stuck on the why's before it has been decided that absolutely, under no circumstances, ever should a child be hit. For me, that's the problem. The why's coming before the decision to not hit has really been committed to.


----------

