Punishing a kid seems like the ultimate slippery slope with no solution as reliable and predictable as the rising and setting of the sun. Some days time-outs work. Other days Toddler in Chief cheerfully heads for his time-out zone. Some days when TIC turns his trains into tiny missiles and I take them away, he cheerfully declares that he was finished playing with them anyway.
Still, no matter how irritating or naughty or conniving TIC becomes, I'd like to believe I'll have the wherewithal to avoid physical discipline. I would never hit my spouse, my parent, or a friend--no matter how angry I am--so why shouldn't I demonstrate that same level of courtesy and restraint towards my kid?
There are lots of annoying and irritating people out there who do dumb, inconsiderate, and down-right rude things--think rage drivers, people who dent your car without leaving a note, or important people who cut in front of you at the Post Office. I might give them dirty looks, or swear at them under my breath, but I would never hit any of them. So why would it be okay to hit my kid? It just doesn't make sense, even if the blow is designed to be "benign-yet-purposeful."
What about those times when a spanking will make a difference?
I agree that you should extend common non-violent courtesies to your child, but will an infrequent spanking cause any lasting trauma to this child? Or will it help drive home a point?
While hitting is a no-no in my book, will there not be times that you feel the need to use spanking as a type of punishment? This answer will be yes for some parents and no for others. What works for you might not work for others. That is why we are each our own parents and have our own parenting styles.
Now, for a humorous look at this whole situation, I overhead a conversation the other day at lunch. Since this site does not accept html, just find the referring post on my site entitled "Overheard A Conversation on Discipline at Lunch Today".
Posted by: The Parental Olympian | Nov 11, 2005 5:21:05 PM