# The Facts about Spanking - Science shows...



## Makalakumu (Aug 29, 2011)

This video shows some of the most recent scientific studies regarding spanking.  As martial artists many of us teach to use force as an absolute last resort, yet children are regularly beaten without any other options being explored.  Think about how spanking affects our lives and our society based on this research.  Is it worth it?


----------



## granfire (Aug 29, 2011)

Well, I got 2 of the 4 spankings in my life because I was engaging in dangerous behavior and did not listen...then I hurt myself.
After my mother bandaged my heavily bleeding wound she spanked my bottom. (the second spanking in this context was actually unfair, as she removed the bandage the gauze was stuck to the wound and it hurt, so I cried....)

I was maybe 4 at the time. (Oh, I was playing with a rug making tool that had a razor blade in it...sliced the top of my left middle finger nail off - wanna see?  - it's healed but I have the hint of a scar under the nail) 

There is a difference between spanking and beating IMHO. At an age when reasoning does not work, a pop on the bottom seems to be an effective way to redirect the attention.

At an older age...I guess we can argue about that.

Personally, I much prefer spanking over 'time out' , which to me is close to psychological abuse. 
Then again, not every child responds the same way. 
One kid is fine with time-out, not phased at all, another is in fits. 

I guess the main problem is, how is the punishment administered. In anger and excessive? Or pop and done?

I find it interesting to read the results of this study, but I wonder how they picked their test subjects and how do you do a 'double blind' in a case like this. 
Do the non spankers really never raise a hand, are the spankers really this evil?


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 29, 2011)

The video is 17 minutes long and cites all kinds of research into the effects of spanking.  In the end, it's like smoking, it may not kill you, but it increases your chances of experiencing the negative effects.  Some people can get spanked and not have it adversely affect them.  On average though, if you are spanked, you will be adversely affected by that experience.


----------



## Balrog (Aug 29, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> This video shows some of the most recent scientific studies regarding spanking. As martial artists many of us teach to use force as an absolute last resort, yet children are regularly beaten without any other options being explored. Think about how spanking affects our lives and our society based on this research. Is it worth it?


Spanking is not beating.  

Spanking is a very viable means of discipline.  It should be used as a final resort and should be pitched as a direct consequence of the child's actions.  Believe me, even a four year old will understand that.


----------



## Stealthy (Aug 29, 2011)

granfire said:


> After my mother bandaged my heavily bleeding wound she spanked my bottom.



I always got my spankings before the bandages. Once I was standing there with blood pissing out everywhere and my finger hanging by a thread while copping a flogging with the wooden spoon.


----------



## granfire (Aug 29, 2011)

Stealthy said:


> I always got my spankings before the bandages. Once I was standing there with blood pissing out everywhere and my finger hanging by a thread while copping a flogging with the wooden spoon.



I bled too much....


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 29, 2011)

Balrog said:


> Spanking is not beating.
> 
> Spanking is a very viable means of discipline.  It should be used as a final resort and should be pitched as a direct consequence of the child's actions.  Believe me, even a four year old will understand that.



How is spanking not beating?  If I slapped an adult once, good and hard, to teach them a lesson, what would the law say about that?

If spanking is the last resort, what steps are taken before physical force is administered?  Do all parents who spank follow those steps?


----------



## granfire (Aug 29, 2011)

I find it somewhat interesting though, considering that we see a lot of people growing up with the symptoms of 'your momma didn't beat you enough'


----------



## Nomad (Aug 29, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> This video shows some of the most recent scientific studies regarding spanking.  As martial artists many of us teach to use force as an absolute last resort, yet children are regularly beaten without any other options being explored.  Think about how spanking affects our lives and our society based on this research.  Is it worth it?



As a parent, I think it's a tough call.  I don't like the idea of spanking a child, but recognize that occasionally (and by occasionally, I mean really infrequently), it can be a viable way to show the consequences of bad decisions that likely put themselves or someone else in danger.  In other words, it can get their attention in a way that a time out (or other punishment technique) won't. 

I've met many kids who have never had boundaries set or enforced, and they tend to run roughshod over their parents and have WAY bigger problems ahead of them (many of which will be a direct result of the parents not setting and enforcing boundaries from an early age).

I think saying "never spank a child" takes a sometimes necessary tool away from parents, and I've yet to see an alternative method of disciplining a kid that takes the place of this.  

I wholeheartedly agree with Balrog that a "spanking" and a beating are two entirely different things, and there's no excuse, ever, for the latter.  If used excessively spanking can certainly cross over into abuse, and leave lasting scars.   I think it's a very difficult issue, and much depends on the personalities and traits of both the parent and the child.


----------



## Nomad (Aug 29, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> How is spanking not beating?  If I slapped an adult once, good and hard, to teach them a lesson, what would the law say about that?
> 
> If spanking is the last resort, what steps are taken before physical force is administered?  Do all parents who spank follow those steps?



IMO (and yes, it's my opinion... obviously not everyone thinks the same way), a spanking is not about hurting the other person, while a beating is.  A spanking causes some humiliation (one reason I would not do it in public is because I don't think it's necessary to emphasize this) and gets their attention when other methods fail.

Obviously, not all parents follow the same steps, which is why this has always been a controversial topic, as the term "spanking" means different things to different people, from a light swat on the butt to a full beating that leaves lasting marks.  

As an example, when my daughter was in preschool, she did get a spanking after the second (and last) time she bit another child (hard enough to leave marks, but not breaking the skin).  The first time was her big sister, and we told her why it was wrong, made her apologize and gave her a time out for several minutes.  The second time was within a week of the first.  The spanking was administered cooly (not in the heat of anger), and judiciously to make sure there would be no marks left or actual harm caused, but hard enough to get her attention and let her know we were really upset with her (From memory, ~3 moderate swats).  The spanking was also accompanied by a longer talk, and we followed through by having her write a letter of apology to the person she bit.

I cannot and will not speak for all parents; I'll just try to raise my children in the best way possible.  So far, I think I'm doing a pretty good job.


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 29, 2011)

i disagree 100%

beating is bad, no question

spanking is a valuable and needed tool for parents to teach thier kids discipline.


----------



## MA-Caver (Aug 29, 2011)

My father was the disciplinarian in our family. My mother would recount my misdeeds to him when he arrived home from work and left to him to decide mode of punishment... after discussing with my mother what was appropriate. Yeah he spanked me up til the time I was of about 12. The last time was when I had played around with a guest's 67 impala convertible and the roof got stuck mid-way up. I got ten licks with the belt. I learned then never to touch what wasn't mine... a life long lesson. 
Teachers in school paddled us for screwing around in class and always after a warning (or two), then it was out in the hall with another teacher present (c-y-a) and the smack of wood on denim could be heard clearly, telling us all that such behavior will not be tolerated. They were few and far between in my school. None of my class-mates I recall, ever reading about them growing up and climbing a tower and sniping at people with a high-powered rifle. 
I speculate that those who got up in arms when their child was spanked fell back upon old, bitter resentments of "unfair punishments" administered by adults who had (at the time) proper authority to do so. They grew up to become the lawyers who took a client's grievance to the hilt and threatened lawsuits against the school system and changed the paddling rule. Thus molly-coddling their children when-ever they misbehaved in school. Though sometimes people did get carried away but it was that particular individual that should've been themselves disciplined, not the entire system. Way back when, if the situation warranted, my parents (usually my father alone) would come to the school to discuss the seriousness of my "crime/rule-breaking/insubordination/whatever!" and while he would argue against suspension he didn't complain a whit about the paddling I got. 

There is indeed a fine line between discipline and abuse. Spanking/paddling on the glutenous maxims would only sting at best but it got the message across that "hey, you screwed up/broke the rules/didn't obey" and it'll happen again if you do it again until you learn not to. Spanking/paddling til there's blood or bruising or excessive amounts (no more than 10 I think is fair) of strokes/hits, striking the face/head or other vulnerable spots on the body is abuse. To do so also in anger for no other reason than the child was merely being a mild annoyance (shouting during playing after being told to be quiet) is abuse but marginally. Some girls told me that the worse that their mothers have done is smack them resoundingly across the face and only once... reasons varied from smart-assed remarks to calling the mother a ***** out of spite. 


It's a fine line and a good parent should know where it is and maintain discipline upon themselves when administering it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 29, 2011)

Spanking is the administering of physical force to get an individual to  do what you want.  It is the very definition of a coercive beating.

If an adult uses physical force against another individual to get them to do what they want, that is considered a crime.  If an adult does this to a child, it is considered discipline.  Think about the hypocrisy of that standard for a minute.  We can use coercive beatings against the most powerless individuals in our society, but we cannot do this once we pass some arbitrary age standard.  Technically, I could beat my 17 year old son for not doing his homework until his 18th birthday, at which time he could call the police and have me arrested.  Why can't we extend human rights to our children?

Also, if spanking is a last resort, what steps precede it's administration?  If the steps are arbitrary, spanking truly is nothing more then coercive beating.  There is no philosophic rationale behind it.

Lastly, many of us who were beaten as children don't want to admit this was abuse.  Maybe we want to protect our parents.  Maybe we need to justify our own actions in copying our parents.  The studies on violence are clear, however, it begets more violence.  This violence acts its way out in our society in a lot of different ways.

If a non-violent solution exists to solve problems, why do we choose violent ones?  Ever wonder if that is the result of childhood beatings?  

If it's possible to raise your kids without beatings, why beat them at all?  Yet people choose violence again and again and again.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 29, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> i disagree 100%
> 
> beating is bad, no question
> 
> spanking is a valuable and needed tool for parents to teach thier kids discipline.



Can you teach discipline without the use of force?


----------



## Thesemindz (Aug 29, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Can you teach discipline without the use of force?



I'm with you Makalakumu. Imagine if someone six times your size picked you up off the street and beat you while you struggled to break free. It's a terrifying image that most people don't even consider before smacking a child. It isn't discipline, it's laziness. It's beating instead of teaching. It's abuse, and it's not ok. Period.

And it doesn't matter if the kid is unable to comprehend logical prohibitions on behavior. Neither can some retarded adults, but I'm not justified in beating them in the streets because they violate social norms. It's simple, dumb, violence. And it's not acceptable.

The reason people support it is because they don't want to admit that they were beaten by their parents, who may have genuinely loved them. But admitting that your parents, who were no doubt untrained amateurs when it comes to parenting, may have abused you out of ignorance doesn't invalidate the very real love they may also have had for you or the fact that you made something out of yourself. And saying that "I was a bad kid who had it coming" isn't a justification either. Kids are blank slates. What makes them bad to begin with? Bad parenting. Doubling down on bad parenting by adding abuse to "fix" your earlier mistakes as a role model doesn't make it ok. It's just more bad parenting.

I used to be on the other side of this issue. But once I realized that children are people too I realized that using violence to coerce their behavior, except in self defense, is completely unacceptable. It doesn't matter that they are young and dumb and their concepts of personhood and private property are not fully formed. If those were the criteria that justified violence we'd be welcome to pop half the people we run in to day to day. But we're not, because being ignorant doesn't give other people the right to beat on you.

Unless of course you're smaller than they are.


-Rob


----------



## David43515 (Aug 29, 2011)

Food for thought.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 29, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> If it's possible to raise your kids without beatings, why beat them at all?



Aye, that's true.  There are those who understand the rules and comply with them early on without any need for physical correction.  But there are many more that don't.

Likewise, there are those parents who find it hard to discover the boundary between enforcing discipline and obtaining obedience and going too far.

As with anything there is no simple answer, other than that prohibiting corporal punishment is not the sensible route when it is the only comprehensively effective method of raising young humans so that they, eventually, become reasoning and functional members of our society.

The argument that you wouldn't do such a thing to an adult doesn't hold water but I shall not even attempt to show why it is wrong as it is far to early in the morning for me and I am not likely to express myself well.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 29, 2011)

Thesemindz said:


> But once I realized that children are people too



And therein lies the misconception that causes the whole problem.


----------



## Thesemindz (Aug 29, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> And therein lies the misconception that causes the whole problem.



Meaning you don't believe that children are people too?


-Rob


----------



## cdunn (Aug 29, 2011)

Speaking as someone who has endured both true, outright beatings, with the sole intent to inflict harm for amusement, and 'spankings', there can be a difference. I certainly recognized that at the time. But, honestly, while beatings are wrong, and spankings may, or may not, be excessively violent coercion, I have a sneaking suspicion that the nature of the particular punishment/coercion, be it spankings, 'time-out', etc, etc, has very little to do with the end result, and much, much more to go with the way that the punishment is administered. 

*If* the child understands before he 'misbehaves' that the punishment will be the consequence of his actions, it actually is the consequence for his actions, in the future, it always is the consequence for his actions as immediately as possible, it is administered with dispassion, and it does not exceed the child's ability to understand that this is a punishment, *then* it will start to instill 'correct' behavior in the child. Break off from any of these, and you end up with a spoiled, broken, or vengeful human being. Most 'bad parents' can't seem to manage to walk the line, but it is amazing when someone does it right.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 29, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> As with anything there is no simple answer, other than that prohibiting corporal punishment is not the sensible route *when it is the only comprehensively effective method* of raising young humans so that they, eventually, become reasoning and functional members of our society.



This, my friend, is a statement that I would love for you to defend.

The informed, scientific, and rational view from every pediatrician, therapist, and psychologist I've ever interacted with has had a neutral-negative to negative view of spanking.  Here is an entire website dedicated to the subject.

Here is just one of the thousands of options for parent education on child rearing that does not include striking our even shouting at a child.



Sukerkin said:


> The argument that you wouldn't do such a thing to an adult doesn't hold water but I shall not even attempt to show why it is wrong as it is far to early in the morning for me and I am not likely to express myself well.



The crux of this argument rests on the premise of extending human rights to children.  In order to inflict coercive beatings, we must accept that children are less then human and deny them basic rights over their own bodies.  Our society draws arbitrary lines where this is concerned.  I would like to recommend the following resource in this discussion.


----------



## granfire (Aug 29, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> This, my friend, is a statement that I would love for you to defend.
> 
> The informed, scientific, and rational view from every pediatrician, therapist, and psychologist I've ever interacted with has had a neutral-negative to negative view of spanking.  Here is an entire website dedicated to the subject.
> 
> ...



K, step one:
Who paid for the study.
Who conducted it
Who was in it (how where they picked)

Then I would like to hear the expert opinion on how come that our jails are full after nearly 20 years of Barney, while places like Singapour (I am sure it is a bad example) has a very low crime rate while having corporal punishment for people found guilty of various offenses...

Curiosity speaking.


----------



## seasoned (Aug 29, 2011)

Thesemindz said:


> Meaning you don't believe that children are people too?
> 
> 
> -Rob


People yes, people in training yes yes.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 30, 2011)

granfire said:


> K, step one:
> Who paid for the study.
> Who conducted it
> Who was in it (how where they picked)



It's kind of a meta question now.  There are so many studies that show the harmful effects that its draw any trends.  Usually, those questions are raised for studies that show the opposite, like when religious fanatics tell us that they have the proof that "spare the rod, spoil the child" is the only way to go.  



granfire said:


> Then I would like to hear the expert opinion on how come that our jails are full after nearly 20 years of Barney, while places like Singapore (I am sure it is a bad example) has a very low crime rate while having corporal punishment for people found guilty of various offenses...
> 
> Curiosity speaking.



Now, we're talking about a completely different animal.  The US has more people locked in prison then any other nation on Earth per capita.  What would our prisons look like if we released all of the non-violent offenders?  What would they look like if we treated people like humans and help them into responsibility again?  If we treat people like animals, they become animals.  

Singa*pore* is a *poor *comparison.  Sorry for that, btw, but it's like comparing Fargo to New Orleans.  Melting pots are spicy.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 30, 2011)

Two arguments and a story.

1.  If we believe that the use of force is appropriate for self defense and we hit our children to correct their behavior, isn't that contradictory?
2.  If we strike our children, we turn them back into chimps.  That's why violent societies are filled with unreasonable people.  Violence changed the structure of their brains.

I was regularly spanked as a child.  My mother and father were simply doing what they knew best, which is what their parents did.  As the oldest and rowdiest of five boys, they definitely had their hands full.  At around the age of 12 (my youngest brother was 2) my mom went back to school to become a parent educator.  It didn't take long for the spankings to stop, in fact, I don't think any of us got hit unless we really wrecked something and my parents lost it.  After my parents separated, my mother worked all of the time and really had her hands full.  She left it up to me to take care of my brothers and forbid me to hit any of them.  We worked together and I learned how to negotiate and my mom basically raised us from that point on without hitting any of us.  Those were lean times, we had lots of problems, and few easy solutions AND it was possible to raise a gang of rowdy boys without violence.  I'm telling this story because I really respect my mother for doing what she did.  She learned what the right thing to do was and then stuck to it when the going got really tough.  How easy would it have been to simply come home and dish out lickin's to five rascals into mischief?  

So, I have to say, if it's possible to raise your kids without violence, why resort to it?

As an addendum to my story, the reason why my mom had to forbid me from hitting is because my first instinct after a good ten + years of getting spanked was to hit.  I had to unlearn that behavior.  That's one of the reasons why I don't spank my own children.  At the time, I was old enough to understand that my mom was trying to break a cycle.  That was actually a powerful life lesson for me.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 30, 2011)

I have never hit or beat my son.  How am I supposed to show him that violence of any kind is wrong if I am telling him that with the one breath and then smacking him myself?  That is hypocrisy, no?

Yet perhaps I am just lucky that I have raised him to understand my reasoning and logic when he does a thing I disapprove of.  I am not being self-righteous because I would NEVER try to tell anyone else how to raise their child because that is the worst thing for any parent to be told.  I am sad to admit on many occasions I would have lost my temper in frustration, I am only human and yet I bear this myself because to smack him out of my frustration or my anger means at that moment I am not thinking logically and am overwrought.  When I calm down, I realise how much I love him and think, why would I want to smack him now?

I think parents suffer greatly being told in report after report to do this thing and that thing and being harangued at every turn with very few in authority offering us any tangible help or even a well done for managing, though academics and politicians are quick enough to direct outrage at parents for every ill in society.  It is not easy for some of us.  Having said that, I will say this clearly and dare anyone to contradict me... *the one thing that will make a child flourish more than anything else is a demonstrative parent SHOWING them that they care*.

Different parents do that different ways.  If smacking is part of that package for your child then that is not for me to put a rebuttal.

Yes I was smacked when I was younger.  And more than a smack I will say.  My father was old country and old school.  Did that prevent my waywardness?  No.  Did I grow up maladjusted?  I do not believe so though it is not for me to say.  Do I hate him for that?  No. Even when he got stuck into me I could see the guilt on his face afterwards and but he would never say sorry.  And but I do not hate him for that.  He acted in anger and but perhaps I gave him no recourse.  Perhaps he had no patience.  All parents suffer their own stresses though perhaps it is not to take out on the child who is often ignorant of their "crime".  Do I hate him?  No.  Do I think he could have done things differently?  Absolutely.  Self-defence is one thing and but the hardest person to justify violence in other circumstances to, is oneself.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 30, 2011)

In the UK we say smacking as spanking has sexual connotations here, seriously, and when dealing with children it must be clear.

Standing there smacking a child telling them not to hit other children has always seemed to me to be absurd. Smacking is absurd, it's assault. I wasn't smacked nor were my children. In fact i don't think anyone in my family has ever been smacked and no we didn't turn out to be gangstas.

Thesemindz, that is a brilliant post. Well said.


----------



## Cyriacus (Aug 30, 2011)

Jenna said:


> I have never hit or beat my son.  How am I supposed to show him that violence of any kind is wrong if I am telling him that with the one breath and then smacking him myself?  That is hypocrisy, no?
> 
> Yet perhaps I am just lucky that I have raised him to understand my reasoning and logic when he does a thing I disapprove of.  I am not being self-righteous because I would NEVER try to tell anyone else how to raise their child because that is the worst thing for any parent to be told.  I am sad to admit on many occasions I would have lost my temper in frustration, I am only human and yet I bear this myself because to smack him out of my frustration or my anger means at that moment I am not thinking logically and am overwrought.  When I calm down, I realise how much I love him and think, why would I want to smack him now?
> 
> ...



On the flipside, there are some kids who are absolute pricks to incredibly caring Parents, and do everything to defy them. And can be violent at times (For little kids. Like, breaking stuff by pushing it over).

Being a Caring Parent is fantastic to a Receptive Child. What if the Child is not Receptive to Care?

Im not justifying the act, but i do think the viability of certain actions is subject to the situation.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 30, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> On the flipside, there are some kids who are absolute pricks to incredibly caring Parents, and do everything to defy them. And can be violent at times (For little kids. Like, breaking stuff by pushing it over).
> 
> Being a Caring Parent is fantastic to a Receptive Child. What if the Child is not Receptive to Care?
> 
> Im not justifying the act, but i do think the viability of certain actions is subject to the situation.


I understand completely what you are saying.  I think though that you have zoomed in on one stage of a child's life without perhaps acknowledging their life overall.  And that is fair enough, I understand.  

Still, I think to say "there are some kids who are absolute pricks to incredibly caring Parents" is perhaps to omit a stage in the development of that child.  Barring certain neurological conditions, no child begins this way.  The behaviour of the child is a product of its environment and upbringing.  In the case you cite, something has happened to make the child the way they are.  Outside events excepted, in many cases, children are defiant because rules and appropriate conduct have not been explained and enforced by parents. It is a situation which parents can inadvertently *allow* to happen because they are stressed, or too preoccupied with other aspects of their life etc.  In which case, a child, being exploratory of limits, will test boundaries.  And often break through them. And if that "fence" is not mended quickly then the precedent is set and the problem worsens.

I am not seeking to apportion blame and but I do not think this provides a case for smacking and but rather points to a breakdown somewhere in the upbringing of that child.


----------



## Cyriacus (Aug 30, 2011)

Jenna said:


> I understand completely what you are saying.  I think though that you have zoomed in on one stage of a child's life without perhaps acknowledging their life overall.  And that is fair enough, I understand.
> 
> *Oh, i dont mean the whole "Rebellious" thing. I mean, 3-6 year olds refusing to listen to a word theyre told.*
> 
> ...



My Contribution 

Your Contradiction, does, however, make alot of sense. Well versed.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 30, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> This, my friend, is a statement that I would love for you to defend.



What I mean by it is that it is the methodology that has worked for hundreds of thousands of years to give us reasonably stable and enduring societies - that's why there still is a human race (stable-ish societies).

If there is a method that improves on this very simple one, then, aye, it would be foolish not to try it.  Sadly, in the UK, we have had quite a few generations now raised without proper discipline (because many parents cannot implement some of the 'bleeding-heart 'solution's' the experts (I dispute their expertise) come up with).  Each was worse than the last, in schools at least, which is why corporal punishment is on the cards to return.



Makalakumu said:


> The crux of this argument rests on the premise of extending human rights to children. In order to inflict coercive beatings, we must accept that children are less then human and deny them basic rights over their own bodies. Our society draws arbitrary lines where this is concerned. I would like to recommend the following resource in this discussion.



I agree.  I shall read the source linked when I'm not at work and see what I think.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 30, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> My Contribution
> 
> Your Contradiction, does, however, make alot of sense. Well versed.


As ever, I appreciate your contribution 

And I beg your pardon, your reference to "kids who are absolute pricks" conjured an image of teenagers.  That is my fault for assuming.  

I am not good at child psychology and but stubbornness and wilfulness in young children is I think common and natural and nothing unexpected.  Your reaction as a parent on the other hand is crucial.  I still believe a child being wilful is not an excuse to strike them.  They are acting according to their "program" as it were.  I think though due care must be taken to ensure that disobedience is not tolerated and to nip it in the bud right away.  As I say, to allow or otherwise be seen to be condoning inappropriate behaviour will only set that precedent and lead to further misbehaviour.  In terms of this OP, there are many ways to deal with misbehaviour.  As long as they can understand words, any child of any age can be reasoned with.  Parents know their children's motivations best and if it is done with obvious compassion rather than Mum or Dad "raining on my parade" then it is difficult for a child to defy parental logic. Even if they resent that Mum or Dad is correct (again)!

Let me say I would hate to sound pontificating in my tone.  It is a parent's choice to raise their child as they see fit.  It is not my job to intervene.  Where a crime is committed, that is for legal procedure.  I am not a social worker.  Nevertheless, does it not sound absurd to you if I say: Go ahead and smack your child if you love them.  I think that is one paradox that does not compute.

I mean while I can see plenty of apparently valid reasons for striking a child, I think ultimately something has gone awry between the parent or carer and the child if it has come to the impasse where violence (by any other name) is the only recourse.  

I would compare that to an argument you might have with any of your work colleagues.  Or even anyone on here.  If I provoke you enough will you smack me?  Perhaps.  Perhaps it would never come to that.  And but that is the point - that if ever it came to the stage where I provoked you enough to encourage you to smack me, would you not feel your situational assessment, your deflationary skill, your obvious sense with language and logic and reasoning had let you down?  As adults, we are equally culpable for that situation.  For an adult and a child, adults are meant to have more sense.  For a parent and their own child.  Surely love does not include violence no matter what way we dress it or find supporting anecdotal heuristics "spare the rod...", or even decontextualised verses from any of the holy texts we might have to hand.

Sorry.. I am rambling.


----------



## Cyriacus (Aug 30, 2011)

Jenna said:


> As ever, I appreciate your contribution
> 
> And I beg your pardon, your reference to "kids who are absolute pricks" conjured an image of teenagers.  That is my fault for assuming.
> 
> ...


Your not Rambling - Its an extensive topic. There is no short cut answer. Retrospective is essential.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 30, 2011)

I wouldn't say that it has worked for thousands of years because not all cultures use physical punishments on their children. I can't speak for all of my people but smacking isn't a common thing among the many I know. In other cultures however physical punishments are acceptable not only for children but also for women. Violence is violence as far as I'm concerned and if you have to beat children to make them do what you want I think there's something very wrong.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 30, 2011)

Speaking for my own opinion only, I think spanking for a young child is a viable option _if_ discipline is employed by the parent in when and how to use it.  _Some_ children are either too young for discussion to work, or too defiant for less invasive punishments to have any effect.  

I don't think, however, that it's necessary. Should the parent decide, there are other means of enforcing discipline (denying privileges, extra work around the house, scare tactics) that don't carry the same risks as spanking does.  Personally, I would prefer not to use spanking if I should be lucky enough to ever raise a child.  I think that the "run amok" examples people use to argue that spanking is _necessary_ are examples where no form of discipline was used at all.  

Spanking in and of itself I don't like, but I really don't have a problem with per se.  The undisciplined use of it by irresponsible parents who just want to enforce their will rather than actually discpline their child is of much more concern.


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 30, 2011)

It is best used among younger children BECAUSE they don't understand the consequences of their actions.  Developmental psychology has shown that young children are no better at understanding you talking to them as your dog does.  It will understand tone, but not the true meaning.  They are limited to stimulus/response actions, thus if you do that, and you get a swat on the butt you correlate the pain that goes with the action and learn not to do it.

Children are NOT just "young adults" and can't understand logic the way people portray that.  As they get older and understand more, then you can have other options.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 30, 2011)

It's nonsense to say young children can't be taught without smacking, it's far too easy to just smack a child instead of thinking how to discipline and teach without smacking. Smacking a child is laziness. it's not to do whether you talk to them or not, if they can't understand the spoken word how can they actually understand what a smacked backside is for? Fear of violence is such a good way to teach children isn't it? Children live what they learn, parent smacks them so hey it must be fine to smack other people mustn't it?

It's well understood that boys who see their father knocking his wife around will follow the same pattern and girls who see their father knocking his wife around also end up with men who knock them around, it's what they accept as normal growing up in a house where violence is used so why should smacking children be considered any differently? What actually is the difference between parents who give their children a 'good hiding' for 'their own benefit' to teach discipline etc and the man who bashes his wife around because she 'asked for it'? Violence in the home is violence full stop. A tap on the backside is still violence however much you may say it's not, adult to adult it's still assault, adult to child and 'it's for the child's good'?


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 30, 2011)

Depends on application...spank a child everytime they disobey? Of course not. I have probably spanked each of my children probably once in their lives. If used to reinforce an important point of discipline when their immediate attention is required, a smack on the hindquarters can be a valid tool. 

One time I remember it had to do with refusing to hold my hand while in a parking lot..the "pull your hand away and try to walk off" thing. Not a place for a "reasoned discussion" with a 4 yo. To reinforce that I wasn't kidding around and that this was dangerously unacceptable behavior, she got grabbed and given a frim swat on the behind. I never had that problem again. And never had to spank her again.

The effect of that one swat added more mileage to "dads authority" than routine spanking would have however. If a spanking becomes routine discipline it looses much of its potency IMO.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 30, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> A tap on the backside is still violence however much you may say it's not, *adult to adult it's still assault*, adult to child and 'it's for the child's good'?



Well..while I understand your basic point..really it's not. "Assault" is a specific term of law. In my parts a "smack" like that would be considered a harassment. My calling you on the phone and threatening to smack you would be a more serious crime (if you can comprehend that). And legally, using force on a child to instill discipline is an exemption specifically listed in my states use of force law. The law has recognized the necessity to "spank" or to have to drag a child across the yard kicking and screaming back into the house if necessary.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 30, 2011)

I got at the very least, a spanking every day for one thing or another.  I got beaten on a regular basis.  It did not hurt me.  I am not a victim and my dad was not a criminal.  End of discussion.


----------



## Nomad (Aug 30, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Speaking for my own opinion only, I think spanking for a young child is a viable option _if_ discipline is employed by the parent in when and how to use it.  _Some_ children are either too young for discussion to work, or too defiant for less invasive punishments to have any effect.



Exactly.



RandomPhantom700 said:


> I don't think, however, that it's necessary. Should the parent decide, there are other means of enforcing discipline (denying privileges, extra work around the house, *scare tactics*) that don't carry the same risks as spanking does.  Personally, I would prefer not to use spanking if I should be lucky enough to ever raise a child.  I think that the "run amok" examples people use to argue that spanking is _necessary_ are examples where no form of discipline was used at all.
> 
> Spanking in and of itself I don't like, but I really don't have a problem with per se.  The undisciplined use of it by irresponsible parents who just want to enforce their will rather than actually discpline their child is of much more concern.



The use of "scare tactics" (whether it's cancelling playdates, taking away privileges, or getting a spanking) is only effective as a parenting technique if you follow through when challenged; otherwise kids will quickly learn that there's no bite behind your bark, and will further defy the rules.  I've seen it happen.  On the other hand, when my wife or I threaten a punishment of any kind to our daughters, we're taken seriously because we've been very consistent in following through.  The corollary of this, of course, is that you have to be careful to never threaten something that you can't/won't follow through with.

With my preteen, I am finding that pushups for serious transgressions can be fairly effective as well, to steal a bit of discipline directly from the dojo (less a punishment than a reminder, and hey, it makes her stronger at the same time).


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 30, 2011)

And as to the "science shows" part...

Like how science has shown how some foods are GOOD for us...uhhh wait now they are BAD for us....disregard they are now GOOD for us again? 

Im even more skeptical when it comes to the "sciences" of psychology and sociology.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 30, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> Developmental psychology has shown that young children are no better at understanding you talking to them as your dog does.  It will understand tone, but not the true meaning.  They are limited to stimulus/response actions, thus if you do that, and you get a swat on the butt you correlate the pain that goes with the action and learn not to do it.


Stimulus-response? Pffft.. That is exactly the kind of absurd theory that I have come to expect of academia; created under test conditions which are a million miles away from the reality of average homes and dispensed to parents as a panacea to all the ills of parenthood. 

Plainly a child will not understand your logic if you employ the logic of an adult.  

Use the logic of a child in the language of that child and the child will understand perfectly. (Assuming we are talking about a child that can speak and comprehend words)

To say a child is no better than a dog and understands nothing but a). the tone of your voice or b). a smack, is a far cry from parenthood as I have experienced it.

I guess I have gone astray in not carrying a cane and smacking his hindquarters to keep him to heel, and in not ringing a bell like Pavlov to get him to sit up and beg at eating time 

Woof


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 30, 2011)

If I had a penny for every disobedient, spoiled brat I have observed throwing a tantrum while mommie tried to "reason" with the tyke I'd be moving into my new mansion.

Anecdotal I know..YMMV.

Of course I will take SOME attempt at discipline..spanking involved or not...vs the total LACK of any supervision which is the root of FAR more of our social problems than if you spank or not IMO.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 30, 2011)

Nomad said:


> Exactly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, I totally agree with this actually.  Whatever form of discipline a parent chooses, it would have to be consistently applied.  Not only because the child will learn that the parent isn't willing to follow through, but also to make sure that the right lessons are getting across.  

When I used the term "scare tactic", I was specifically referring to the practice of exposing kids to scary scenarios in order to dissuade them from certain paths.  A trip to the local jail, or boot camps, or drives through bad parts of town, or visits to rehab clinics, for example.  I'm not saying whether scare tactics are effective or not effective, just another alternative to physical punishment.  

Again, all my posts are the opinions of a layperson.  I'm not a parent and I'm certainly not a developmental psych. expert.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 30, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Of course I will take SOME attempt at discipline..spanking involved or not...vs the total LACK of any supervision which is the root of FAR more of our social problems than if you spank or not IMO.



This.  Also, why can't I thank Archangel's post?


----------



## Balrog (Aug 30, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> How is spanking not beating?  If I slapped an adult once, good and hard, to teach them a lesson, what would the law say about that?
> 
> If spanking is the last resort, what steps are taken before physical force is administered?  Do all parents who spank follow those steps?


I never slapped my kids.  Spanking is a couple of pops on the butt with the open hand.  Beating involves a closed fist and/or hitting elsewhere on the body.  If you slapped an adult, it would be assault, simply because you are not related to them. 

Spanking should be strike three and presented as such:  If you do (whatever) again, you will earn a spanking.  This is after they have been asked to stop, then told to stop.  Phrasing it that way puts the burden squarely on their shoulders.  When the spanking is administered, it is reinforced:  You were told that if you did (whatever) again, you would earn a spanking.  You did it again.  You have earned a spanking.

Do all parents follow those steps?  Sadly, no, and I don't see why not.  They are simple and nothing more than common sense.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 30, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> This. Also, why can't I thank Archangel's post?



Am I on your ignore list?


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 30, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> This.  Also, why can't I thank Archangel's post?


Try reloading/refreshing the page.  I've noticed that sometimes, the  thanks feature "disappears" for all the posts after you use it once.  A  refresh usually seems to take care of it.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 30, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Am I on your ignore list?



I don't have anyone on my ignore list. In fact, I just added someone and then removed them to make sure. :lol: Oddly, I can thank your posts now. Glitch maybe? :shrug:


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 30, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> This.  Also, why can't I thank Archangel's post?



Try reloading the page - sometimes MT's server throws a wobbly and doesn't send  some of the 'on click event' icons.

EDIT:  Ah I see it's sorted now and JKS beat me to it .


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 30, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I wouldn't say that it has worked for thousands of years because not all cultures use physical punishments on their children.


 
I am surprised.  I have to say that I think of corporal punishment as being universal, at least in the Western societies (and Japan) whose history I am pretty well versed in.



Tez3 said:


> In other cultures however physical punishments are acceptable not only for children but also for women. Violence is violence as far as I'm concerned


 
Every time we have this discussion, this point of view comes forward.  I can't see it as anything other than hyperbole and 'straw man' logic, even if the poster doesn't intend it that way.  There is a world of difference between proper disciplining of a child and 'beating'.  As I've said before (again whenever this topic comes up), I got a good hiding for some malfeasance or other many times as a wilful and aggressive child.  *Never* was it a beating.



Tez3 said:


> if you have to beat children to make them do what you want I think there's something very wrong.



I entirely agree.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 30, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Im even more skeptical when it comes to the "sciences" of psychology and sociology.



There is a reason why every toilet roll dispenser at my first university had "Sociology Degrees - Please Take One" written on it :lol:.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 30, 2011)

I'm not going to add much to this. However, it somewhat amuses me to see martial artists decry the use of violence, and to use such hackneyed phrases as "violence never works." We KNOW damn well that in certain situations, violence is the ONLY thing that works, to pretend otherwise, is silly.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 30, 2011)

I confess that that implicit irony had occurred to me also .

To be fair to those that hold that spanking a child is as violent as beating someone, I can see their philosophical point of view.  I just don't agree with it and find it remiss that those who don't wish to discipline their children physically want to impose the same restrictions on all of society, when we see all too clearly the end-product of such thinking.  To be clear, I do give those people the credit of assuming that their alternative methods are effective at preventing their children from misbehaving and would not dream of saying that they *must* spank their child if they want it to grow up to be a useful member of adult society.


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 30, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Stimulus-response? Pffft.. That is exactly the kind of absurd theory that I have come to expect of academia; created under test conditions which are a million miles away from the reality of average homes and dispensed to parents as a panacea to all the ills of parenthood.
> 
> Plainly a child will not understand your logic if you employ the logic of an adult.
> 
> ...



The brain IS NOT WIRED YET FOR LOGIC, there is no "logic a child can understand".  They can memorize Act A=Mommy/Daddy mad, but not understand the reasoning behind it on why you (generic you) is mad.

Also, how ironic to have "science" show that spanking is harmful, but then poo-poo brain development research that can show clearly that the areas of the brain wired for logic don't have the neurological connections at a very young age.


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 30, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> It's nonsense to say young children can't be taught without smacking, it's far too easy to just smack a child instead of thinking how to discipline and teach without smacking. Smacking a child is laziness. it's not to do whether you talk to them or not, if they can't understand the spoken word how can they actually understand what a smacked backside is for? Fear of violence is such a good way to teach children isn't it? Children live what they learn, parent smacks them so hey it must be fine to smack other people mustn't it?
> 
> It's well understood that boys who see their father knocking his wife around will follow the same pattern and girls who see their father knocking his wife around also end up with men who knock them around, it's what they accept as normal growing up in a house where violence is used so why should smacking children be considered any differently? What actually is the difference between parents who give their children a 'good hiding' for 'their own benefit' to teach discipline etc and the man who bashes his wife around because she 'asked for it'? Violence in the home is violence full stop. A tap on the backside is still violence however much you may say it's not, adult to adult it's still assault, adult to child and 'it's for the child's good'?



Very nice logical fallacy to join that a swat on the butt is equal to domestic violence in every case.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 30, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I got at the very least, a spanking every day for one thing or another.  I got beaten on a regular basis.  It did not hurt me.  I am not a victim and my dad was not a criminal.  End of discussion.



Maybe not, but do you think it was necessary?  And if it was necessary, why didn't the spankings/beatings have the desired effect of changing your behavior?  If you (general you) need to be punished nearly every day for something, then clearly the lesson isn't internalizing, yes?


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 30, 2011)

Big Don said:


> I'm not going to add much to this. However, it somewhat amuses me to see martial artists decry the use of violence, and to use such hackneyed phrases as "violence never works." We KNOW damn well that in certain situations, violence is the ONLY thing that works, to pretend otherwise, is silly.



Yeah, but the topic is discipline of children, not "certain situations."  I certainly haven't seen any martial artists here or anywhere else claiming that violence is useless when you've been attacked by a mugger.


----------



## granfire (Aug 30, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Yeah,* but the topic is discipline of children, not "certain situations.*"  I certainly haven't seen any martial artists here or anywhere else claiming that violence is useless when you've been attacked by a mugger.



well, when you deal with children you will have plenty of 'certain situations' 

Are there situations that are better dealt with in a different manner? Naturally.
Are there never situations when the pop on the butt could be warranted? I doubt it.
I think many a tantrum in a store would be quickly resolves with that proverbial pop, no fuss, no muss (because those little monsters know good and well they won't get that in the store, thank you anti spanking movement) 

We have gone to extremes...kids being rewarded for not behaving bad....Saw a mother with a kid today in the store, kid is maybe 4ish? Getting a toy because she didn't have a cavity...dentist visit...Yeah, I got toys for being good at the dentist: a tiny rubber animal that cost maybe 25 cents....(I do still have those and cherish them, bought many more later on) but seriously...you can hardly get a decent toy for under 10 bucks these days! 

back on track though.

I think we have painted ourselves into a corner with all the expectations on how we need to raise our children.
I was expected to behave when I was a kid, maybe I never got more spankings because I saw my older sister get her butt popped when she was being a jerk - all while the parents had company!
There were few occasions when we got stuff, hardly ever anything out of turn. But really never because we did something that was expected to come naturally.

Now as a parent I find myself really struggling, because there are so many thing you are not supposed to do. Your kid falls out of a tree and breaks something, CPS is knocking on your door (extreme thought, sure) 
We have become Nancy Graced: A friend lost her 9month old daughter this past may. Seemed to have been a case of SIDS....at least one detective took a notion hat they had killed her, putting them through all kinds of trouble....and while they were cleared, there are enough doubts left in the files for future reference...

The standard for our kids are now pathetically low in what is expected from them in terms of performance and behavior...
Spanking? just one more thing. Frankly I think there are some really skilled parents out there who never need to put a hand on their kids but screw them up nontheless, whit what one could only describe as mental abuse.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 30, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Maybe not, but do you think it was necessary?



I don't know, I have nothing else to compare it to.



> And if it was necessary, why didn't the spankings/beatings have the desired effect of changing your behavior?



But they did.  I did different bad things every day.  Not the same thing over and over.  I found new ways to be bad.



> If you (general you) need to be punished nearly every day for something, then clearly the lesson isn't internalizing, yes?



No, I was just a real problem child.


----------



## MA-Caver (Aug 30, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't know, I have nothing else to compare it to.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So now, as an adult with some experience under your belt... what DO you think would have worked? Or perhaps nothing was needed to be different because you turned out the way you are today.

For me I think if my dad was more strict about my studies and then at the same time allowed me a bit of breathing room after getting my GED (as opposed to sending me straight off to college) that I would've stayed in college (having the discipline to do the heavy studying that is required throughout) then perhaps things would be different. What killed me was the endlessly long lectures he gave thinking/hoping that I'll understand... instead I became bored as hell. 
But I wasn't much of a problem child as in getting in trouble with the law. With school yes but nothing illegal where the cops had to have a "sit-down" with my dad.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 30, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> But they did.  I did different bad things every day.  Not the same thing over and over.  I found new ways to be bad.
> 
> No, I was just a real problem child.



That explains so much!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 30, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> So now, as an adult with some experience under your belt... what DO you think would have worked? Or perhaps nothing was needed to be different because you turned out the way you are today.
> 
> For me I think if my dad was more strict about my studies and then at the same time allowed me a bit of breathing room after getting my GED (as opposed to sending me straight off to college) that I would've stayed in college (having the discipline to do the heavy studying that is required throughout) then perhaps things would be different. What killed me was the endlessly long lectures he gave thinking/hoping that I'll understand... instead I became bored as hell.
> But I wasn't much of a problem child as in getting in trouble with the law. With school yes but nothing illegal where the cops had to have a "sit-down" with my dad.



The only thing I think my parents could have done differently or better would have been to not try to teach me 'the value of a dollar' by forcing me to save every penny I earned and not allowed me to spend a portion of it as I saw fit.  I have a lifetime of poor spending habits that basically involved spending money as soon as I get my hands on it.  I won't blame them for my poor choices today, but I believe it started me down that path.

As far as the spanking goes, I have no idea, even in retrospect, of anything else would have been a better choice or resulted in a different outcome.


----------



## MA-Caver (Aug 30, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The only thing I think my parents could have done differently or better would have been to not try to teach me 'the value of a dollar' by forcing me to save every penny I earned and not allowed me to spend a portion of it as I saw fit.  I have a lifetime of poor spending habits that basically involved spending money as soon as I get my hands on it.  I won't blame them for my poor choices today, but I believe it started me down that path.
> 
> As far as the spanking goes, I have no idea, even in retrospect, of anything else would have been a better choice or resulted in a different outcome.



Yeah same here with $$ but I've had to learn the hard way on saving it and spending it wisely. Looking for discounts or waiting... that is really hard... waiting to buy when have extra money to spend, denying the impulsiveness of it. But it pays off. When I set my mind to it I can save a tidy sum. 

Who knows how different we would be had our parents taken different routes in raising each of us.  We try not to think so but they DO have a major influence on how we live our lives today. ... hmm, seems like a new thread is starting... :uhyeah:


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 31, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> What I mean by it is that it is the methodology that has worked for hundreds of thousands of years to give us reasonably stable and enduring societies - that's why there still is a human race (stable-ish societies).



OTOH, the advancement of the cause of human rights has been achieved through the extension of personhood to more and more people.  Individual tribes have words for people that include themselves and everyone else is viewed as an other.  For example, in Hawaiian, the word _Ha_, means breath or life and when you have _Aloha_, you are infused with this and become human.  Outsiders are called _Haole _in Hawaiian, which means without breath, or without life, you aren't human.  

Historically, when we extend the perception of personhood to others, it has led to a greater amount of peace and happiness.  When we roll the perception of personhood back, it leads to tragedy and despair.  Western society ended slavery and extended personhood to different races of men.  Then, society broadened its definition again and extended the same perception of women.  We are currently struggling to extend the same perception to homosexuals and eventually, I think, we will include children in this venture.  

The core of perceiving someone as a person is to limit aggression against that person.  When we limit aggression against a person, they experience liberty and flourish.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 31, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> It is best used among younger children BECAUSE they don't understand the consequences of their actions.  Developmental psychology has shown that young children are no better at understanding you talking to them as your dog does.  It will understand tone, but not the true meaning.  They are limited to stimulus/response actions, thus if you do that, and you get a swat on the butt you correlate the pain that goes with the action and learn not to do it.
> 
> Children are NOT just "young adults" and can't understand logic the way people portray that.  As they get older and understand more, then you can have other options.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget's_theory_of_cognitive_development

Children are capable of using symbolic reasoning from very early ages, they can pick up a limited form of logic by four, they develop a concrete form of logic by 7, and children are capable of adult thought by puberty.  Aggression against children is shown to retard this development.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 31, 2011)

Big Don said:


> I'm not going to add much to this. However, it somewhat amuses me to see martial artists decry the use of violence, and to use such hackneyed phrases as "violence never works." We KNOW damn well that in certain situations, violence is the ONLY thing that works, to pretend otherwise, is silly.



That's taken out of context.  Self defense is one thing.  Corporal punishment is another.  

Here's the wiki on spanking to provide a little more definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanking


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 31, 2011)

Lastly, here's a summary of the research I've read.  Spanking is responsible for stress related biologic changes to the structure of the brain, resulting in...

1.  Loss of IQ
2.  Loss of EQ
3.  Increased aggression
4.  Lowered self esteem
5.  Retarded development of adult cognitive abilities

It is strongly correlated with criminality, drug use, and adult violent behavior as well as anxiety, depression and other forms of mental illness.

That's just what I can remember from the top of my head from the original sources that were posted.  This isn't sociology, exactly, it's brain science.


----------



## msmitht (Aug 31, 2011)

Dunno about science but I was a little pain in the butt. I talked back at an early age and was extremely rude. When I was 7 my mom spanked me after a really bad day. I had used bad language in public and screamed at my mom and her friends. She explained to me that she loved me and then tanned my hide blue. Never before or again did she do that. I never disrespected her again. Lesson learned.Did she need to spank me? No. Did it work? Yes. I agree that in 99% of cases spanking will not help or goes too far.Nuff said.


----------



## granfire (Aug 31, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Lastly, here's a summary of the research I've read.  Spanking is responsible for stress related biologic changes to the structure of the brain, resulting in...
> 
> 1.  Loss of IQ
> 2.  Loss of EQ
> ...



I'd like to see follow up studies on that. I find it hard to believe that 'spanking' causes that.
Beating? mybe.

But you also know that low selfesteem is not a problem of prison inmates, right?


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 31, 2011)

granfire said:


> I'd like to see follow up studies on that. I find it hard to believe that 'spanking' causes that.
> Beating? mybe.
> 
> *But you also know that low selfesteem is not a problem of prison inmates, right*?



Funnily enough it is very common for inmates to have low self esteem, not the gang members types but the majority of prisoners who are in prison most often have problems other than just being criminals. 
http://www.gimmeshelter.org.au/Allpages/prison.htm


----------



## granfire (Aug 31, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Funnily enough it is very common for inmates to have low self esteem, not the gang members types but the majority of prisoners who are in prison most often have problems other than just being criminals.
> http://www.gimmeshelter.org.au/Allpages/prison.htm



I wish I had actually listened to the source of it, but I had no idea that it would come in handy some ten years or so later 
The study had compared self esteem levels between prisoners and college students...they noted that college students had a lot less than prisoners.


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 31, 2011)

lets see, people spanked the hell out of thier kids in my time, the 70's and no one took a gun to school.

now, no one spanks, and the schools are free fire zones

i believe your research is a collection of crap.




Makalakumu said:


> Lastly, here's a summary of the research I've read.  Spanking is responsible for stress related biologic changes to the structure of the brain, resulting in...
> 
> 1.  Loss of IQ
> 2.  Loss of EQ
> ...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 31, 2011)

If my IQ is lower as a result of being spanked as a child, I shudder to think how bloody brilliant I would have been otherwise.
And my lowered self-esteem?  Anyone care to hazard a guess on how poorly I think of myself?

And let's see...criminality.  Hmmm.  A decade in law enforcement, never been arrested, only contact with police has been speeding tickets and lately, a neighbor complaining about my dog.  Very criminal.  Drug use.  Hmm, anyone here ever hear me say how great I think drugs are?  I'm guessing not, since I generally advocate that drug pushers be put to death.  Depression.  Hmmm.  Well, my financial situation is about as bad as it can get, I'm getting older and have lots of non-fun diseases now, and my hair fell out and I'm fat and my job is nearly always in jeopardy; if I'm depressed it seems only logical to be so, but nonetheless, I think I'm not depressed.

Violence?  Well, yes.  I loves me some violence.  In the dojo.  In the sparring ring.  Otherwise, I don't indulge and you might have noted that I generally counsel that one good self-defense tactic is to run away if possible.  Yes, there's a violent man talking.

So tell me, in what way have I been destroyed, torn down, and consigned to a life of crime due to having been spanked?  To heck with the studies, I'm right here, right now.  Explain how it is that I turned out well.


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 31, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget's_theory_of_cognitive_development
> 
> Children are capable of using symbolic reasoning from very early ages, they can pick up a limited form of logic by four, they develop a concrete form of logic by 7, and children are capable of adult thought by puberty. Aggression against children is shown to retard this development.



Misapplying what "symbolic reasoning means".  Here is another website putting it into easier term


> Right from wrong requires a conscious decision. A knowledge of the consequences of ones&#8217; actions. *2-7 year olds really do not have that ability, yet*. that is why we spend endless hours, days, months explaining&#8230;you do not hit your brother, it will hurt him and he will cry, etc. Ask before you take&#8230;all the lessons parents teach their children endlessly.



Taken from:  http://mandela-children.org/childre...dren-start-to-learn-right-from-wrong.children


----------



## granfire (Aug 31, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget's_theory_of_cognitive_development
> 
> Children are capable of using symbolic reasoning from very early ages, they can pick up a limited form of logic by four, they develop a concrete form of logic by 7, and children are capable of adult thought by puberty.  Aggression against children is shown to retard this development.



I don't see the posibility for a double blind study here.
You can't really prove that a kid is retarded in it's development because it got _spanked_.
(now, beating, abuse, I think we do agree that that is no good)

As a theory, it needs to be proven or disproven but I don't see either working to the fullest satisfaction of a scientific standard.


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 31, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Lastly, here's a summary of the research I've read. Spanking is responsible for stress related biologic changes to the structure of the brain, resulting in...
> 
> 1. Loss of IQ
> 2. Loss of EQ
> ...



I would say that it's poor sociology using "brain science" to support a position.  How was the study done?  Was there a group of healthy families that used appropriate spanking to raise their children vs. unhealthy families that just always spank inappropriately?  What was the rest of the family life/background?  There are a host of other variables that can't be accounted for to say that spanking CAUSES those things.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 31, 2011)

> lets see, people spanked the hell out of thier kids in my time, the 70's and no one took a gun to school.
> 
> now, no one spanks, and the schools are free fire zones
> 
> i believe your research is a collection of crap.



And this is causation instead of mere correlation why, exactly? 

Incidentally, I did do a quick google on "school shooting statistics"--nothing really fancy--and came upon this page. While the website does describe a rise in school violence, it also mentions that said violence peaked in the 1990s, rather than current day. But, with specifics to school shootings, see here.



> There is no single profile that describes the attackers. They come from a variety of ethnic groups, family situations, social groups at school, and levels of academic achievement. Many were part of the mainstream social group and had excellent grades. Most had never been in trouble at school or with the law or acted violently before. A small percentage had previously been diagnosed with mental health problems. The attackers did have some things in common:
> 
> The attackers were males, 11 to 21, most between 13 and 18
> Almost all, 98 percent, suffered a loss of some sort before the attack and failed to cope with it well, becoming depressed or suicidal, and thinking of retaliation. The loss could be one of status, relationship, job, or health of the attacker or a loved one.
> ...



"Lack of domestic discipline" is noticeably absent from the list. However, the page does note that most school shooting perpetrators come from a variety of backgrounds and family environments, leading one to believe that whether Pa's kicking your *** every day doesn't predict that Junior is or isn't going to bring a gun to school. 

It's okay, I'm sure this study was crap too. :boing1:


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 31, 2011)

granfire said:


> I'd like to see follow up studies on that. I find it hard to believe that 'spanking' causes that.
> Beating? maybe.



The original studies are located in the original links.  If anyone wants to read them and see the methodology, by all means go for it.  As part of my profession, I end up reading a lot of this research anyway.  So, I've seen some of this before.  That said, if you get one spanking in your life, that's probably not going to cause stress related trauma to the brain.  If you get spanked repeatedly for misbehaving, that different.  If spanking is the #1 behavior correction tool used by parents, that's different again.

I want to clarify, we aren't talking about what people would normally consider abuse.  This thread is about spanking and that it has been scientifically shown to cause stress related damage to the brain.  The more its done, the more damage.


----------



## granfire (Aug 31, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> The original studies are located in the original links.  If anyone wants to read them and see the methodology, by all means go for it.  As part of my profession, I end up reading a lot of this research anyway.  So, I've seen some of this before.  That said, if you get one spanking in your life, that's probably not going to cause stress related trauma to the brain.  If you get spanked repeatedly for misbehaving, that different.  If spanking is the #1 behavior correction tool used by parents, that's different again.
> 
> I want to clarify, we aren't talking about what people would normally consider abuse.  This thread is about spanking and that it has been scientifically shown to cause stress related damage to the brain.  The more its done, the more damage.



well, considering that habitually 'spanking' is often equalled with 'beating' 

Like I said, I have difficulty seeing the proof since the tests are somewhat not reversable and repeatable


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 31, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> lets see, people spanked the hell out of thier kids in my time, the 70's and no one took a gun to school.
> 
> now, no one spanks, and the schools are free fire zones
> 
> i believe your research is a collection of crap.



It's not my research.  I read some studies, found some collections of studies, and posted them.  You can check the original sources if you wish.

That said, think about this for a moment.  In warrior cultures, spanking (or pain compliance) is often a common way of disciplining children.  For example, it is extremely common to see kids get their hands slapped, their bottom whacked, and their faces slapped, in certain places in Polynesia where the traditional warrior culture is still strong.  In fact, we have a Lua technique that we practice in our dojo that was designed for tutu (grandmother) to control kolohe keiki (mischievous kids) with one hand via a fingerlock.  When sensei taught us this technique and told us what to look for, I suddenly saw tutus everywhere holding the hand close to their mu'umu'u (dress) and struggling kids calming down miraculously.  They try to hide it because Haoles (white people/outsiders) don't understand.  They might say something, or worse, call the police.  But, this is how you make your children tough.  This is how you teach them to be warriors, how to endure pain.  They KNOW it makes the kid more aggressive and are proud because that makes better warriors.

I'm predicting that you probably don't really have a problem with this.  Am I right?  The flip side of this practice within the family and in society is a reduction of peace and liberty.  These aren't gifts that you can earn or something that you can take.  These are qualities that are experienced in the *absence of aggression*.  You cannot have peace in an aggressive society and you cannot be free either.  Aggression is never limited to your enemies.  It turns inward and gnaws the society out like a cancer until it destroys itself.  Aggression stratifies a society and creates parasitic classes that reduce everyone underneath them to servants.  You have no property rights and no human rights if the people in the parasitic class above you say that you don't.  A moment of reflection shows that our society fits this bill well.

The price of aggression is Peace and Liberty.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 31, 2011)

granfire said:


> Like I said, I have difficulty seeing the proof since the tests are somewhat not reversable and repeatable



How do you know if you haven't looked at the original research?  I have a dozen books on my shelf on the topic of qualitative and quantitative research and these have helped me judge what I've *read*.  How would you know even if you've read the research?


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 31, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> It's not my research. I read some studies, found some collections of studies, and posted them. You can check the original sources if you wish.
> 
> That said, think about this for a moment. In warrior cultures, spanking (or pain compliance) is often a common way of disciplining children. For example, it is extremely common to see kids get their hands slapped, their bottom whacked, and their faces slapped, in certain places in Polynesia where the traditional warrior culture is still strong. In fact, we have a Lua technique that we practice in our dojo that was designed for tutu (grandmother) to control kolohe keiki (mischievous kids) with one hand via a fingerlock. When sensei taught us this technique and told us what to look for, I suddenly saw tutus everywhere holding the hand close to their mu'umu'u (dress) and struggling kids calming down miraculously. They try to hide it because Haoles (white people/outsiders) don't understand. They might say something, or worse, call the police. But, this is how you make your children tough. This is how you teach them to be warriors, how to endure pain. They KNOW it makes the kid more aggressive and are proud because that makes better warriors.
> 
> ...



One of the biggest problems we have here with the Fijian soldiers is the violence towards women and their wives in particular. In fact their violence is a problem full stop. It's fine having aggression as a soldier but when it is regarded as normal to 'discipline' the wife and to smack any women who they feel disrespects them it is a huge problem. In Afghan the Fijians are as brave as they come but here, they are something we have come to dread when called out.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 31, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If my IQ is lower as a result of being spanked as a child, I shudder to think how bloody brilliant I would have been otherwise.
> And my lowered self-esteem?  Anyone care to hazard a guess on how poorly I think of myself?
> 
> And let's see...criminality.  Hmmm.  A decade in law enforcement, never been arrested, only contact with police has been speeding tickets and lately, a neighbor complaining about my dog.  Very criminal.  Drug use.  Hmm, anyone here ever hear me say how great I think drugs are?  I'm guessing not, since I generally advocate that drug pushers be put to death.  Depression.  Hmmm.  Well, my financial situation is about as bad as it can get, I'm getting older and have lots of non-fun diseases now, and my hair fell out and I'm fat and my job is nearly always in jeopardy; if I'm depressed it seems only logical to be so, but nonetheless, I think I'm not depressed.
> ...



An ounce of self knowledge is a pound of gold. 

 From my perspective, you fit the bill.  Look at the results of your life, your health, your finances, the aggressive (state sanctioned) professions you've chosen.  You've abused chemicals in the past and are extremely critical of yourself.  I don't care what you say about yourself, the results of your life tell the story.  How don't you fit this profile?

Bill, when you want to put people to death for non-violent crimes, when you support killing people thousands of miles away who did NOTHING to you, you are acting out an extremely aggressive set of mental programs.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 31, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> I would say that it's poor sociology using "brain science" to support a position.  How was the study done?  Was there a group of healthy families that used appropriate spanking to raise their children vs. unhealthy families that just always spank inappropriately?  What was the rest of the family life/background?  There are a host of other variables that can't be accounted for to say that spanking CAUSES those things.



The original studies can be found with the original links.  Look at them.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 31, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> An ounce of self knowledge is a pound of gold.  From my perspective, you fit the bill.



Interesting perspective you have.



> Look at the results of your life, your health, your finances, the aggressive (state sanctioned) professions you've chosen.



I did.  Never been in trouble with the law.  That kind of flies in the face of 'criminal background'.  You said nothing about finances, only depression, and frankly, losing your job will affect your finances, and being spanked as a child had nothing to do with my employer deciding to let me go; but I could call them and ask.

As to my aggressive professions; that was a long time ago.  I work in IT now, as I have since about 1991.  Very violent.



> You've abused chemicals in the past



Uh, no.  I haven't.



> and are extremely critical of yourself.



I am realistic about the things I suck at, honest about the things I'm OK at, and without shame about the things I am very good at.  Critical?  Yes, in a good way.



> I don't care what you say about yourself, the results of your life tell the story.  How don't you fit this profile?



The parts I've just described.  Which would be all of it.



> Bill, when you want to put people to death for non-violent crimes, when you support killing people thousands of miles away who did NOTHING to you, you are acting out an extremely aggressive set of mental programs.



Yes, my father spanked me, so I want to see drug pushers put to death.  It has nothing to do with what happened to a family member with regard to her use of illegal drugs and what it did to our family.  Just the spanking.  Sure.  I understand it all now.  Not.


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 31, 2011)

its ok, i dont really think there is a correlation between spanking and violence.

I do know this, my generation was beaten to within an inch of our lives on a regular basis, when we deserved it
and we are all ok


kids today are pretty much never spanked and they are the most spoiled entitled, arrogant little pieces of crap i have ever seen






RandomPhantom700 said:


> And this is causation instead of mere correlation why, exactly?
> 
> Incidentally, I did do a quick google on "school shooting statistics"--nothing really fancy--and came upon this page. While the website does describe a rise in school violence, it also mentions that said violence peaked in the 1990s, rather than current day. But, with specifics to school shootings, see here.
> 
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 31, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Interesting perspective you have.



You asked for my opinion and I gave it.  I don't know you except for some postings on an internet message board...so that should give you a measure of the worth of my opinion on you...which isn't much.  

Open a self reflection journal, try life coaching, try a year of regular talk therapy and see if you still feel the same way about yourself.  

Regarding chemical abuse, if you've ever used alcohol, lost control of yourself, and regretted what you did, that's abuse...and it's really common.  

Also, then tendency to jump toward violent solutions when peaceful solutions could solve the problem ARE predictable results of the things we're discussing.


----------



## granfire (Aug 31, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> How do you know if you haven't looked at the original research?  I have a dozen books on my shelf on the topic of qualitative and quantitative research and these have helped me judge what I've *read*.  How would you know even if you've read the research?



the more points you post the less inclined I am.

According to your study most all my in-laws ought to be in jail or dead....crack hos and murderers...

I actually don't seem to need to actually read it. Anecdotal evidence contradicts the theory. 

I got spanked. 
I am not depressed because of it (I was depressed when my sister got sick and died)
I am not a crack head, I actually don't care to be drunk or otherwise incapacitated.
My aggressive tendencies are actually linked to hormonal imbalance, reoccuring every month  but generally under control, I have not harmed anybody - yet.

This is kind of like the German study that linked juvenile marijuana use to mental disorders later on.

Same as the study you refer to:
How can you get a decent test group with control groups?
How do you measure 'spanking' vs 'beating'? Yes, I find that anti spankers tend to escalate the language. (Yes, I have been exposed to the matter, via my mother, who, incidentally, was the person who spanked me and my sister, now she is the Grandmother, disciplinary actions required are vastly different now. But I am the mother, maybe when I am the grandmother I will see things different, too) 


The thing about child rearing: What else is going on in the child's life? 
Are other things going on to enrich the mind or are the parents parking the kid in front of the tube after they whipped his/her butt.
I try to provide other stimulation, made the kid join band, buy books I think he likes, supply different styles of music CDs and signed him up for scouts.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 31, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> I do know this, my generation was beaten to within an inch of our lives on a regular basis, when we deserved it
> and we are all ok



Our generations spazzed out and killed over a million people in seven separate wars after 9/11.  Our generation is locking more people per capita then any other nation on Earth.  Our generation simulates murder for fun.  Our generation wants the government's guns to deliver cheaper and cheaper crap to our shores so it can make us happy again.

Yeah, we're okay.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 31, 2011)

granfire said:


> I actually don't seem to need to actually read it. Anecdotal evidence contradicts the theory.



You don't need to read it = my mind isn't open to it.

Consider the Allegory of the Cave.  That seems to fit what we're talking about now.

Lastly, statistics are what they are.  Does everyone die from the same thing because of smoking?  No, it plays out differently for different people, depending on different circumstances.  Every time you are hit, it increases the chances that some of these things happen.  Maybe you got lucky dice?


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 31, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Our generations spazzed out and killed over a million people in seven separate wars after 9/11.



spazzed out?

nuking medina, that might have been spazzing out


you need to gain some perspective, IMO


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 31, 2011)

That "Open Minded" blade cuts both ways, *Maka*.  

I don't gainsay your right to your opinion in the least, tho' I think you place too much faith in the work of smartly dressed, slick talking con-men who can't get a proper job i.e. social scientists {two words that should never go together!}.  

I know that sounds mean spirited but, honestly, as I noted earlier in this thread, there is a reason why people who study for degrees in such subjects get short shrift from the rest of their peers.  I am also besemirched as I had to take Sociology as one of the threads of my Economics degree ... I feel sullied ;lol:.

A friend of mine has his doctorate in Psychology and even he will not dispute that it's mostly good sounding supposition shrouded in a patina of respectability because they use a bit of 'maffs'.  The 'talking cure' and all it's associated ancillaries is largely no better than what can be done by anyone with a modicum of empathy and a decent vocabulary.  Whyso?  Because all this 'high fallutin' research (and I use that word with advisement) is polluted by the very fact that the experiment affects the subjects - it's just like quantum mechanics but with people .


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 31, 2011)

Oh and what should really make you pause for thought is that John and I agree on this ... 

... did you feel that?  

... what do you mean, "Feel what?".  That! ...

... I think the earth just shifted on it's axis a little bit :lol:.


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 31, 2011)

quit spazzing out.......



lol


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 31, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> That "Open Minded" blade cuts both ways, *Maka*.
> 
> I don't gainsay your right to your opinion in the least, tho' I think you place too much faith in the work of smartly dressed, slick talking con-men who can't get a proper job i.e. social scientists {two words that should never go together!}.
> 
> ...



So if it isn't measurable in a test tube or involves the slightest degree of subjectivity, it's not real science? The whole study of human behavior is just ******** in your mind?  I realize that the "softer sciences" (psychology, political science, anthropology, etc.) are more prone to error due to their content, but that doesn't mean one can't properly conduct experiments.


----------



## Nomad (Aug 31, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> So if it isn't measurable in a test tube or involves the slightest degree of subjectivity, it's not real science? The whole study of human behavior is just ******** in your mind?  I realize that the "softer sciences" (psychology, political science, anthropology, etc.) are more prone to error due to their content, but that doesn't mean one can't properly conduct experiments.



Actually, it kind of does.  It means that drawing conclusions from these types of studies is at best, a dangerous proposition.  There is a huge difference between correlation and causation, which is really what we're talking about here, especially when some of the more unlikely "statistics" are brought into things.  

Hmmm... a study (obviously not real!) shows that kids who eat broccoli are 50% more likely to commit homicide later in their lives.  The conclusion then becomes broccoli causes homicidal rages and leads to violent behavior.  

Um, no... sorry.  It might be a correlation, if the sample size is big enough to ensure we're not seeing an anomaly, and if the rates are really significant across that population.  

Whether or not the kids eat broccoli is an isolated factoid that may or may not reflect on a million other factors in these children's lives.  Perhaps their parents were extreme disciplinarians who severely beat their kids for not eating their broccoli (to come dangerously close to the threat at hand).  Maybe they were from families of vegans, and the lack of protein in their diets changed hormone levels in the brain.  Perhaps they were from a lower socio-economic bracket that could only afford broccoli and more of them were forced by extreme poverty into a life of crime.

It is very difficult to properly define a study of this nature that is able to rule out other possible correlations or causes that may lead to the same observations.  It is also very easy to look at potentially subtle data changes and read into it something which may be no more than a reflection of the bias of the people/organizations running the study.  This is one reason why these so-called "soft sciences" are not accorded the same respect as those which provide more concrete results which can be rigorously tested for accuracy.


----------



## granfire (Aug 31, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> You don't need to read it = my mind isn't open to it.
> 
> Consider the Allegory of the Cave.  That seems to fit what we're talking about now.
> 
> Lastly, statistics are what they are.  Does everyone die from the same thing because of smoking?  No, it plays out differently for different people, depending on different circumstances.  Every time you are hit, it increases the chances that some of these things happen.  Maybe you got lucky dice?



My mind is very open.
But I had dinner table psychology most of my life as my mom worked in the field for over 30 years. 
I know how much BS there is to be had.

I am probably the first to seek out a reason, if not excuse for a person's behavior, but even I can't buy that line of reasoning.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 31, 2011)

What's your background, Phantom?

I enquire because asking the very question of whether it is science or not is quite fundamental.  

Economics (which my first Honours Degree is in) suffers from the same thing.  We use an awful lot of pretty complicated mathematics in our modelling ( I remember using a three page equation to describe a simple consumption function in my econometrics final) but there are even more value judgements involved that mean that it's not really 'mechanistic' or scientific in the end.  Any subject where you constantly resort to the phrase 'ceteris paribus' {all other things being equal} shouldn't get too proud of itself .

Likewise, my Masters is in Museum Curation, a mix of history, conservation techniques, archaeology et al.  Again, a 'soft' subject and, altho' some of it uses 'real' science, by no means a discipline devoid of interpretation and 'creative' thinking (there's a standing joke that whenever someone in the profession doesn't know what something is for it is labelled 'ritualistic' ROFL).

Admittedly what I do for a living now is much more grounded in verifiable facts (my third profession is a mix of software and electrical engineering as I design control systems for the National Grid) but, as you can see, I hope, from the above, my educational and career 'roots' are in similar soil to the Sociologists and Psychologists and I know an awful lot of people whose jobs are in these areas (including, as I noted, a practising psychologist).  So I'm not being dismissive or 'evil' about these disciplines, I just know to be careful about what 'weight' I assign to any assertions that come out of them.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 31, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> I know that sounds mean spirited but, honestly, as I noted earlier in this thread, there is a reason why people who study for degrees in such subjects get short shrift from the rest of their peers.  I am also besemirched as I had to take Sociology as one of the threads of my Economics degree ... I feel sullied ;lol:.



Well my friend, you'd hate to see what us "real scientists" call economists...

This whole debate becomes a purity pissing match.  Plenty of scientists think that biology (my field) isn't a "real science."  Studies show what they show, the data is the data.  The errors creep in from interpretation.  There are plenty of methods, statistical and otherwise, to account for a difficulty to control variables, and good social science can be done.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 31, 2011)

Exactly :applause:.  I didn't say that good social science couldn't be done ... just that you really have to be careful about what psycho-babble ... sorry, astute theorem  ... you listen to .

All hail the mathematician ...

... oh and I love the squid the biologist is holding .


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 31, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> ... oh and I love the squid the biologist is holding .



I couldn't accomplish a thing without my Lab Helper Squid. Plus, we have trained cuttlefish minions for security.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 31, 2011)

Ha!  We're IT.  You think you have data; you do not.  You have numbers.  We have data.  If you're nice to us, we'll let you have access to it.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 31, 2011)

Thing is...this sort of "science" is applied where? If anything it will only influence the "thoughtful" parent who actually considers HOW and WHEN to discipline their children for THEIR (the child's) benefit. These types of people will be successful regardless of if they spank or not IMO. The "WHERES MY BELT!!!!" type of parent wont care one whit for what this study says and won't change their ways.

This is "science for social change" stuff IMO...this is the sort of stuff some "socially aware scientists" hope to push to the forefront in the hopes that it will be used to influence LEGISLATION. That way this "science" can be forced on all of us when our children call 911 for a swat on the ***. Or when some busybody calls CPS because she saw me give my daughter a smack on the behind for yanking her hand out of mine and taking a run into the street.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 1, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Thing is...this sort of "science" is applied where? If anything it will only influence the "thoughtful" parent who actually considers HOW and WHEN to discipline their children for THEIR (the child's) benefit. These types of people will be successful regardless of if they spank or not IMO. The "WHERES MY BELT!!!!" type of parent wont care one whit for what this study says and won't change their ways.
> 
> This is "science for social change" stuff IMO...this is the sort of stuff some "socially aware scientists" hope to push to the forefront in the hopes that it will be used to influence LEGISLATION. That way this "science" can be forced on all of us when our children call 911 for a swat on the ***. Or when some busybody calls CPS because she saw me give my daughter a smack on the behind for yanking her hand out of mine and taking a run into the street.



Great point.  We don't need anymore no tolerance policies.  

All the control freaks out there need to let rational people talk about this stuff and take it in.  From a scientific point of view, I most people could all agree that the more we strike a kids, the more likely it becomes that they will suffer some negative effects from it.  One swat every once in a great while probably isn't going to make much of a difference.

My argument against spanking is a moral one and it's separate from the science actually.  I reserve violence for self defense, therefore the application of force for corrective behavior purposes is out.  I don't believe in forcing others to accept my argument.  Reject or accept it if you wish.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 1, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> All the control freaks out there need to let rational people talk about this stuff and take it in. From a scientific point of view, I most people could all agree that the more we strike a kids, the more likely it becomes that they will suffer some negative effects from it. One swat every once in a great while probably isn't going to make much of a difference.
> 
> My argument against spanking is a moral one and it's separate from the science actually. I reserve violence for self defense, therefore the application of force for corrective behavior purposes is out. I don't believe in forcing others to accept my argument. Reject or accept it if you wish.



Oh, okay then:


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 1, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Oh, okay then:



That's surprising considering this is the 108th post.


----------



## Buka (Sep 1, 2011)

Hell of an interesting read, this thread.

The first post, that radio vid, said this -

"Spanking remains one of the most common strategies to reduce undesired behaviors"
"More than half of thirteen and fourteen year olds are still being hit an average of eight times a year."
"Ninety percent of parents spank their toddlers at least three times a week; two thirds spank them once a day."
"One of four parents begin to spank when their child is 6 months old."
"20 percent of high school seniors get spanked."

Every one of those stats is SO full of crap I can't believe they were said, or anyone would believe them.

I think I should do a study on these studies. Maybe I can get a grant.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 1, 2011)

I guess a stupid question at this point would be 

Define spanking...

Seriously, are they (you know....THEM lol) considering giving a child one swat on the butt a spanking?  How many swats is considered spanking?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 2, 2011)

See, that's what happens when you ignore a thread for a few days, awesome xkcd comics get posted and then you're all johnny-come-lately. Glad to see the trend of quoting comics is picking up though, starting a revolution!! 

Anyway...



Sukerkin said:


> What's your background, Phantom?
> 
> I enquire because asking the very question of whether it is science or not is quite fundamental.



My background consists of a Bachelor's degree in Liberal Arts which involved some psychology courses, a law degree that involves indirect references to human studies (eyewitness reliability and the like), and numerous discussions with a friend who's got a specific degree in some form of developmental psych. In short, I'm an admitted amateur, and know just enough to be dangerous. 

That being said, the same concerns that you and Nomad cite regarding the softer sciences are equally plausible in _any_ scientific inquiry. Take cancer studies, for example; "x" behavior has "y" risk of causing cancer is riddled with a correlative risks. Just ask xkcd: http://xkcd.com/925/






So filtering out outliers, researcher bias, placebo effects, guiding questions, and all that other stuff you learn about in Statistics class (which I successfully avoided, thank the gods) is just as important for hard science topics as soft sciences. So my question remains: what about the human sciences is so fundamentally different? Is it just that it's wishy-washy topics? Is it a fear of having the human condition become quantifiable? A worry about seeking justifications? What?


----------



## Nomad (Sep 2, 2011)

Actually, it's amazing just how many of the comics at xkcd are relevant to the topic at hand.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 2, 2011)

Nomad said:


> Actually, it's amazing just how many of the comics at xkcd are relevant to the topic at hand.



I was actually trying to find that individual comic once for a response to....it was either billicihak or TF, I can't recall which...in another thread.  Had trouble locating it in the archive though.  :rofl:


----------



## Blade96 (Sep 3, 2011)

I'd be a perfect example of them studies. I was born to punitive parents and never bonded to either of them. (I loved my cat and that was it.)  I was abused in school and took out my anger at home. I got beaten with big leather belts and when i was too old my parents switched that to taking all of my stuff and ripping it up even tearing clothes off my back. They are abusive and controlling. It didn't change my behavior. I got worse to the point of if they had pressed charge, or someone else, I would have a criminal record by now. I grew up hating and being afraid of my dad. They much better now,  but even to this day I don't feel any love for them, and my dad has no idea of the harm he has caused. I once asked him if he could go back would he do anything diffrent. He said nope cause he did what he thought was right at the time. Yeah, its really right to make your child hate you and scared of you and not respecting you at all. Yeah that's really right! He also was abusive to my mother and to this day thinks he did nothing wrong. and whenever we bring something up its 'that didn't happen.' Whatever, dad.  Funny how he spanked my bro once and didnt like doing it so didnt do it again. He settled on breaking my bro's stuff and other punitive things. But he didnt mind using the belt on me and blaming me for it 'you had atrocious behavior' Needless to say, I don't believe in spanking. I still have problems and anger issues.


----------



## granfire (Sep 3, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> I'd be a perfect example of them studies. I was born to punitive parents and never bonded to either of them. (I loved my cat and that was it.)  I was abused in school and took out my anger at home. I got beaten with big leather belts and when i was too old my parents switched that to taking all of my stuff and ripping it up even tearing clothes off my back. They are abusive and controlling. It didn't change my behavior. I got worse to the point of if they had pressed charge, or someone else, I would have a criminal record by now. I grew up hating and being afraid of my dad. They much better now,  but even to this day I don't feel any love for them, and my dad has no idea of the harm he has caused. I once asked him if he could go back would he do anything diffrent. He said nope cause he did what he thought was right at the time. Yeah, its really right to make your child hate you and scared of you and not respecting you at all. Yeah that's really right! He also was abusive to my mother and to this day thinks he did nothing wrong. and whenever we bring something up its 'that didn't happen.' Whatever, dad.  Funny how he spanked my bro once and didnt like doing it so didnt do it again. He settled on breaking my bro's stuff and other punitive things. But he didnt mind using the belt on me and blaming me for it 'you had atrocious behavior' Needless to say, I don't believe in spanking. I still have problems and anger issues.



But that's not 'spanking'
That's _beating!


_


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 3, 2011)

granfire said:


> But that's not 'spanking'
> That's _beating!
> 
> 
> _



The research suggests that spanking causes a milder version of those effects.  It's beating-lite, essentially.


----------



## granfire (Sep 3, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> The research suggests that spanking causes a milder version of those effects.  It's beating-lite, essentially.



Like I said. My mom spanked me. I don't hate her. I don't think I ever did, past the adolescent attempts to separate my person from hers.
My dad - whom I love dearly, too, had a more subtle and more effective measure of punishment: Silent treatment. And I swear, to this day, it hits me more than physical punishment. 

Like I said, I grew up around the psycho-stuff. I am skeptical. 
I also understand that in families with severe physical punishment the psychological nourishment is all but non-existent.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 3, 2011)

The research, I would suggest, is flawed, Maka.  

It flies in the face of what almost everyone elses experiences have been.  That doesn't necessarily make it wrong (tho' it *is* in my not at all humble opinion) but it essentially shines a light more on what the researchers wanted to 'prove' than what the true state of affairs really is.

For one last time, we know how badly undisciplined children turn out because we see it with our own eyes every day.  That very necessary discipline does not have to be physical for _all_ of them because every individual responds to different stimuli.  But by far the simplest and most effective stimuli is straightforward spanking, done without rage and with explanation.  If you (non-specific "You"), as an individual parent, don't want to do that, then fine.  Just as long as you accept the consequences of that choice.  

If it were left in my hands, then people who did not effectively discipline their children would serve the 'time' for the 'crimes' they commit, whatever they are (from playing music too loud all the way up to murder).  That is of course hideously fraught with trips and hazards and probably isn't at all realistic but it gets across my feelings when the 'bleeding hearts' start spouting off.

In the end, the 'mathematics' of the situation are very simple.  Society comes first, individuals second.  Play by the rules or get excluded from the game.  Those rules have to be enforced or society collapses and then we all lose.  Removing the tools of enforcement makes the corruption of the game all the more likely.

I was going to make one last point how, to me, it is far more damaging to 'game' and 'torment' children into behaving by withdrawing love and bar-less confinement ('naughty step' kind of thing) but Gran covered it already.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 3, 2011)

Well put *Sukerkin*.  One last point I'd like to make is that a lot of violent behavior, aggression, depression and anxiety often seems normal when one is surrounded by that kind of behavior.  We don't recognize the behaviors until we are faced with people who don't have them (and they seem weird to us) or we undertake a detailed examination of our lives for personal growth reasons.  Perhaps the reason why this seems to fly in the face of common experience is because our common behavior is actually quite destructive and we are well adjusted to it.

When I consider research like this, I think of it as an important tool to reflect on and ask some tough questions.  I was spanked.  What kind of violent, aggressive, depressive and anxious behaviors do I have?  What can I do to curb this in the future?  How can I raise my own children to have less of these behaviors?  In this small way, we can make the future a little better for everyone.  

As far as alternatives to the raised hand go, I know they exist and I know they work for all kids if the parent is *consistent *and *just *in their application.  Before reading a lot of this research, I thought that it almost didn't matter what a parent chose to do as long as they were duly diligent.  Afterward, I feel like my opposition to corporal punishment with children has two major pillars.  I didn't do it before because I didn't feel like it was consistent with what I was teaching in the dojo.  Violence was a last resort and as long as alternatives existed, I would chose those.  It was personal and that's where it stopped. 

Ultimately, this research makes me wonder about the costs of spanking on a society as a whole.  Do we shape our society to a nature of aggression and anxiety through our practice of child rearing?  If so, what would our society look like without that aggression and anxiety?

Did these scientists engage in a project to socially engineer our society, or did they point out a practice that might be socially engineering our society?


----------



## Blade96 (Sep 3, 2011)

I don't hate my parents now. They are nowhere near anything like punitive anymore now. We're friends and we get along. 

I just haven'treally forgiven for them being like that when i was a kid. Maybe my past would have been better. as would my behavior. I respond to kindness, always have. 

and i appreciate it that they stood up for me when my bro treated me like crap (still is btw, I'm completely banned from their house and his life)


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 4, 2011)

I think there's an assumption made by some that not smacking means not discplining either which is far from the case. Smacking a child isn't the only way to discipline, I have run Cubs and Brownie groups as well as martial arts classes for children for over thirty years, in these places you can't smack children to make them behave but I have always along with a great many other people always managed to discpline and keep control of children without smacking them. It actually isn't that hard even with your own children. 
There are a great many children out there who are well behaved and understand what good behaviour means without them ever having been smacked. 
We should try to get away from the idea that only smacked children are well behaved children and that children who aren't smacked aren't disciplined by their parents.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 4, 2011)

For my part, I am not making that assumption, Tez.  I've said it a few times in this thread and I agree with you that not all adults-in-training need or respond well to smacking as the means of applying discipline.  What I have been saying is not to throw the tool away or stop others from using it when it is still needed.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 4, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> For my part, I am not making that assumption, Tez. I've said it a few times in this thread and I agree with you that not all adults-in-training need or respond well to smacking as the means of applying discipline. What I have been saying is not to throw the tool away or stop others from using it when it is still needed.



Ah but I don't believe it's a tool, I believe it's not necessary and will actually only makes things worse. I don't believe pain teaches children to be good children or grow up to be good adults.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 4, 2011)

:grins:  Then we have an insoluble impasse when it comes to our opinions on this matter.  For I believe that it is a less cruel and more effective (and more efficient) tool than the other, 'softer' but more insidious methods.

It's okay not to agree.  At the end of the day, after all, I am unlikely to ever have to discipline any children in your care, or tell you how to go about it, so what I think doesn't really come into it.


----------



## fangjian (Sep 4, 2011)

Restricting a human being from escaping or defending them-self, and hitting them, isn't exactly a great form of communication.  But I will admit, I have whacked my son in the leg, while in the car. The consequences of him not shutting the f up, would be a possible car crash from distraction. 
Many parents do it on a regular basis though. Seems like a bad form of communication, as I outlined above.


----------



## Cyriacus (Sep 4, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Restricting a human being from escaping or defending them-self, and hitting them, isn't exactly a great form of communication.  But I will admit, I have whacked my son in the leg, while in the car. The consequences of him not shutting the f up, would be a possible car crash from distraction.
> Many parents do it on a regular basis though. Seems like a bad form of communication, as I outlined above.



Distraction can also cause Irritation, however Tolerant you are. And Irritation tends to overrule your Concentration more so than Distraction.

So Yes, this is certainly True.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 4, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> :grins: Then we have an insoluble impasse when it comes to our opinions on this matter. For I believe that it is a less cruel and more effective (and more efficient) tool than the other, 'softer' but more insidious methods.
> 
> It's okay not to agree. At the end of the day, after all, I am unlikely to ever have to discipline any children in your care, or tell you how to go about it, so what I think doesn't really come into it.



The thing is you have to have The Look and The Voice! We all remember teachers who never needed to say or do anything to make you want to behave, they didn't smack or even raise their voice but when they walked into the classroom it went quiet due to their presence, you wanted to behave for them. Other teachers could walk into the classroom and no-one noticed them! 

You actually bring up another aspect for discussion as well you know! How far would people here who believe in smacking ( I'm sorry I really cannot bring myself to write spanking!) allow others to smack their children? if you believe in the 'small smack on the backside' would you allow another adult to really wallop your child as in caning, using a belt etc as was common in schools a while back?


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 4, 2011)

Interesting last couple of questions, Tez.  The answers to them depend on context I reckon.

I also agree with your observation about the teachers who were able to parley their personality into a tool encouraging good behaviour.  I do wonder if they would have been as effective if the cane had not been available as an option?  The deterrent effect should not be underestimated.


----------



## Cyriacus (Sep 4, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Interesting last couple of questions, Tez.  The answers to them depend on context I reckon.
> 
> I also agree with your observation about the teachers who were able to parley their personality into a tool encouraging good behaviour.  I do wonder if they would have been as effective if the cane had not been available as an option?  The deterrent effect should not be underestimated.



To Expand somewhat, the School System of the Past was Orderly, for the most Part.
Nowadays, almost every Classroom ive seen has been a Breeding Ground for Malcontent.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 4, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Interesting last couple of questions, Tez. The answers to them depend on context I reckon.
> 
> I also agree with your observation about the teachers who were able to parley their personality into a tool encouraging good behaviour. I do wonder if they would have been as effective if the cane had not been available as an option? The deterrent effect should not be underestimated.



At the schools I went to there was no caning so it wasn't a back up for the teachers. My brother went to a school however that did and it was considered a mark of honour by the boys to be caned, they laughed it off and certainly didn't stop them getting into trouble. In Scottish schools they had the 'hawse' a leather strap that was applied to the hands, it was quite brutal and again did nothing to deter children from misbehaving. Pain doesn't do the trick, it encourages bravado and defiance rather than good behaviour. It's shrugged off as is most smacking, fear of a beating may make children behave, smacking won't, it's more the parents displeasure that makes children behave.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 4, 2011)

I can't say that my school experiences match those that you describe, Tez.  No teacher that I know has done anything other than acknowledge that the removal of corporal punishment from schools and the home is a large contributing factor to the decline in general discipline that they have observed over the past thirty years.  

You're about my age group so it can't be period that is marking that difference - maybe it's regional?


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 4, 2011)

Comparing "paddling" in school to a parent disciplining a child is not necessarily the same thing. I don't think I EVER had to spank one of my children once they reached school age. Spanking (IMO) works best at the toddler age where reasoned discussion isn't something that works.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 4, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> I can't say that my school experiences match those that you describe, Tez. No teacher that I know has done anything other than acknowledge that the removal of corporal punishment from schools and the home is a large contributing factor to the decline in general discipline that they have observed over the past thirty years.
> 
> You're about my age group so it can't be period that is marking that difference - maybe it's regional?





Corporal punishment in schools wasn't what made for discipline, good teachers did. You can't rule by fear, that teaches nothing. The decline of good teachers is what is making schools so poor these days. Teaches have only to have a uni degree in anything and a few weeks teacher training now to go into schools, successive government initiatives to change how English reading, writing etc is taught have made the schools what they are today. The threat of being caned wasn't what made schools good, committed teachers proud of their profession who believed it was a calling to teach children made good schools. Teaching is now what people do if they can't get any other job, there's no respect for teachers because they rarely deserve any.  We don't have those teachers now who wholeheartedly believed in children, who spent all their lives inspiring them to learn, who had enthuisasm and pushed the students to do their best, that's all gone, we are left with mediocre people in the classrooms who may regret not being to cane to make up for their own lack of teaching ability. I haven't seen a teacher yet in thirty years yet since my son started school to when my daughter left that is what I'd call a proper teacher who is in teaching because they believe it's a vocation rather than just a job.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 4, 2011)

This is an interesting turn the discussion has taken.  

Both the family environment and the school environment has changed a lot in the last forty years.  As far as families go, both parents work and children get FAR less attention from parents now.  Children get mixed messages about discipline because they change hands so many times from caregiver to caregiver.  They key to any form of discipline is to apply it consistently and fairly, but how can parents do this in this kind of environment?  It's very easy for children to get confused.

Now, put these kids into school.

At school, the change of environment has become even more radical.  Forty years ago, there were more options for children.  If you weren't academic, you could leave and go work.  If you were a hands on learner, you could go to vocational school and perhaps apprentice yourself.  If you wanted to just get by and get a diploma, you could do that and find some opportunity.  If you wanted to go to college, that option was available as well.  Now, schools are forcing students to be pretty much the same.  They focus on standardized exams above all else.  Everyone gets the same thing no matter who they are, how they learn, or what they want to do with their lives.  Imagine a classroom of 30 students where 10 would rather be anywhere else, 10 are bored out of their minds and want to be challenged, and another 10 will sit and do what they are told minimally in order to get by.  Most adults can't imagine how difficult it is to get that class to behave, everything about the current situation is stilted toward chaos and apathy.  

IMO, if you were to reintroduce corporal punishment into this environment the result would be a prison riot.


----------



## granfire (Sep 4, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> This is an interesting turn the discussion has taken.
> 
> Both the family environment and the school environment has changed a lot in the last forty years.  As far as families go, both parents work and children get FAR less attention from parents now.  Children get mixed messages about discipline because they change hands so many times from caregiver to caregiver.  They key to any form of discipline is to apply it consistently and fairly, but how can parents do this in this kind of environment?  It's very easy for children to get confused.
> 
> ...



well, there are still schools that have the option (or did a few years ago), but parental consent has to be given....guess what: the kids who really could profit from the paddeling have parents who oppose it. 
I suppose the biggest change is that parents no longer support school. I mean, 'back then' school called home or send a letter, you were in TROUBLE. Or like my husband said, you got paddled in school then went home and got your 2nd whipping for getting in trouble in the first place.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 4, 2011)

granfire said:


> I suppose the biggest change is that parents no longer support school.



This is larger then not supporting the school's discipline policies at home.  Schools and families work at cross purposes all over the field of life.  IMO, it traces back to the idea that one type of schooling will work for all kids.  Our society has some major issues with how it views the family and how it's educating children.  Spanking (smacking/Corporal Punishment) will not solve these issues.


----------



## granfire (Sep 4, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> This is larger then not supporting the school's discipline policies at home.  Schools and families work at cross purposes all over the field of life.  IMO, it traces back to the idea that one type of schooling will work for all kids.  Our society has some major issues with how it views the family and how it's educating children.  Spanking (smacking/Corporal Punishment) will not solve these issues.



well, yes, and no. It might depend a bit on what school district you are looking at, but from what I can tell it is literally that patents do no longer support the schools their kids go to. 
Of course it is a bit more complex than that, but the essence of it is that.


(and I have to say that I can't 100% agree with Tez that teachers are no longer doing it for the calling. I have been - in the old school before we moved a bit more than the current one - blessed with dedicated teachers who battled with the desintrest of the parents that rubbed off on the kids. Friday night one lady remarked she recognized me...she was a teacher in that first school and my kid was not even in her class!! and it's been 4 years at least since I set foot in that building!)


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 4, 2011)

Very good points indeed on the direction that 'schooling' has taken in general over the past few decades, Maka :tup:.  

That is indeed a serious issue and can, in itself, lead to discipline problems - in line with the OP topic, I would argue that, when the discipline options available are not a deterrent, then that problem is exacerbated but I have to agree that strong punishment alone will not fix things.


----------



## granfire (Sep 4, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Very good points indeed on the direction that 'schooling' has taken in general over the past few decades, Maka :tup:.
> 
> That is indeed a serious issue and can, in itself, lead to discipline problems - in line with the OP topic, I would argue that, when the discipline options available are not a deterrent, then that problem is exacerbated but I have to agree that strong punishment alone will not fix things.



I think much of it coincides with the Barney Syndrome (AKA precious syndrome)
One of these days I will wear a T-shirt: Barney lied to you! You are not THAT special!


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 4, 2011)

granfire said:


> Barney lied to you! You are not THAT special!





Makalakumu said:


> Ultimately, this research makes me wonder about the costs of spanking on a society as a whole.  Do we shape our society to a nature of aggression and anxiety through our practice of child rearing?  If so, what would our society look like without that aggression and anxiety?
> 
> Did these scientists engage in a project to socially engineer our society, or did they point out a practice that might be socially engineering our society?



What if everyone really was special?  Wouldn't it be harder to hurt them or kill them or lock them up in a rape cage?  What if the collective effect of violence toward the young was to devalue us in our own eyes?  Would you notice this if everyone around you felt the same?


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 5, 2011)

To be a teacher here you had to go to teacher training college for about four years and really learn how to teach, now you go to university, study any subject then do a few weeks teacher training. Often teaching is seen as a last resort job for graduates who don't get any other job.

One thing I notice at work and in manyother workplaces is the role of consultants and experts who are brought in to tell people who have been doing the job for years how to do their job, this has also spilled out into health and parenting. There are a myriad of experts out there telling you how to raise your children and they are very good at inducing guilt in parents so that the latest fads in child rearing and education are followed. Parents feel they can no longer follow their instincts on how to raise their children because the experts are telling them they know nothing while they themselves are making a fortune! Parents want to do their best for their children but there is so much advice coming at them, it is really difficult to know what to do for the best and with the threat of social workers interfering and the thought of losing your children it's all becoming too much.


----------



## granfire (Sep 5, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> What if everyone really was special?  Wouldn't it be harder to hurt them or kill them or lock them up in a rape cage?  What if the collective effect of violence toward the young was to devalue us in our own eyes?  Would you notice this if everyone around you felt the same?



what?
If everybody was special they would be _not special_.....

I am kinda not seeing the violence spin...


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 5, 2011)

granfire said:


> what?
> If everybody was special they would be _not special_.....
> 
> I am kinda not seeing the violence spin...



LOL!  I think I hit Terminal-Hippie with that question.

Still, ever wonder what society would look like if people not only believed that they mattered?  That's what I mean by special.  How many people look the other way because they think that it (that they) don't matter?  Maybe THAT is the price of violence?


----------



## elder999 (Sep 5, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> This video shows some of the most recent scientific studies regarding spanking. As martial artists many of us teach to use force as an absolute last resort, yet children are regularly beaten without any other options being explored. Think about how spanking affects our lives and our society based on this research. Is it worth it?



Science proves that climate triggers wars.

Science proves this is the saddest movie scene ever. (I dunno-this was pretty sad, but I'd still go with Ol' Yeller. :lfao: )

Science proves that men lie more than women.

Science proves that a hot car can get men dates. (Duh!)

Science proves God;and Creationism is nonsense. :lfao:

Science proves chicken came first

Seriously, John. This is correlation, not causation, in almost every study cited by the video. I mean, 10 pages, and I don't think anyone else has said it, so I will:_Of course more aggressive, socially maladjusted, poorly performing children were spanked-*because they were more aggressive, socially maladjusted poor performers.*_

It's kind of a "I see trees of blue," what a wonderful world kind of thought, but I'll just refer back to my original post to this thread. :lfao:


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 5, 2011)

And yet your post is the 12^2 posts into this trainwreck.  



elder999 said:


> _Of course more aggressive, socially maladjusted, poorly performing children were spanked-*because they were more aggressive, socially maladjusted poor performers.*_





*I DON'T CARE, I REALLY DON'T, I MEAN IT, I DON'T.

*:uhyeah:


----------



## elder999 (Sep 5, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> And yet your post is the 12^2 posts into this trainwreck.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



With a clear divide between those who support "spanking," and those who don't. 

Disclaimer: _No minds were changed by the content of this thread.

_:lfao:


----------



## granfire (Sep 5, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> LOL!  I think I hit Terminal-Hippie with that question.
> 
> Still, ever wonder what society would look like if people not only believed that they mattered?  That's what I mean by special.  How many people look the other way because they think that it (that they) don't matter?  Maybe THAT is the price of violence?



Interesting...

Seems that the society as a whole runs smoother without the precious syndrome. Though on the down side it seems that the willingness to take life is then greater, too...

I am just getting more of the 'I am special and you suck' vibe.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 5, 2011)

elder999 said:


> With a clear divide between those who support "spanking," and those who don't.
> 
> Disclaimer: _No minds were changed by the content of this thread.
> 
> _:lfao:



They usually aren't.  Speaking for myself, it usually takes time for me to change my mind.  Time and discussions like these.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 5, 2011)

granfire said:


> Interesting...
> 
> Seems that the society as a whole runs smoother without the precious syndrome. Though on the down side it seems that the willingness to take life is then greater, too...
> 
> I am just getting more of the 'I am special and you suck' vibe.



I hope I'm not giving that off.  I hope that in the future, people can find more value in themselves and what they do.  I think it will lead to a more peaceful society, but we will have to negotiate more.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 5, 2011)

elder999 said:


> This is correlation, not causation, in almost every study cited by the video.



Correlation does not equal causation...until it does.  When does this happen?  How would a person know it?  How can you show this to other people?

Does research incorrectly tie these two together?  Yes, a lot of it does.  Do these two things ever truly belong together?  Yes, much of the time.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 5, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Correlation does not equal causation...until it does. When does this happen? How would a person know it? How can you show this to other people?
> 
> Does research incorrectly tie these two together? Yes, a lot of it does. Do these two things ever truly belong together? Yes, much of the time.



Well, I'm gonna stick with the obvious. The maladjusted, socially inept, aggressive, less-intelligent, adults were spanked as children *because* they were maladjusted, socially inept, aggressive and less intelligent-not the other way around. 

They were spanked because they were rotten. They didn't become rotten because they were spanked. Can you prove otherwise? :lfao:


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 5, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Well, I'm gonna stick with the obvious. The maladjusted, socially inept, aggressive, less-intelligent, adults were spanked as children *because* they were maladjusted, socially inept, aggressive and less intelligent-not the other way around.
> 
> They were spanked because they were rotten. They didn't become rotten because they were spanked. Can you prove otherwise? :lfao:



Actually, some of the research originally cited shows that spanking makes rotten behavior worse!

But back to my questions.  How do you know when correlation = causation?  How do you tell other people about this?


----------



## elder999 (Sep 5, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> But back to my questions. How do you know when correlation = causation? How do you tell other people about this?



Well, that's one of the fundamental issues of the scientific method, isn't it. I mean, bottom line, you *don't* know. _Causation_ itself cannot be determined, and therefore there is no determinant for anything but correlation, other than the counterfactual. What you're asking, then, is that everyone make a counterfactual experiment of their child-rearing, and not spank, and prove that it makes their children "better." This is ludicrous on several levels, the least of which being that we usually wind up parenting as we were parented, some for better, some for worse. That cycle will not be broken, unless, like my wife, you elect not to have children.

As a small kid, I'd often ask my dad where we were going, and he'd reply "_You'll find out when we get there_." Playfully, looking back on it-he wanted me to be able to figure out where we were going, and would be delighted when I knew from landmarks and signs. I didn't really enjoy it, though-I was something of an anxious child-and promised myself I'd never respond to my children that way.

Imagine my surprise when my three year old son asked where we were going, and I replied, almost in my father's voice:_You'll find out when we get there._


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 5, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Well, that's one of the fundamental issues of the scientific method, isn't it. I mean, bottom line, you *don't* know. _Causation_ itself cannot be determined, and therefore there is no determinant for anything but correlation, other than the counterfactual. What you're asking, then, is that everyone make a counterfactual experiment of their child-rearing, and not spank, and prove that it makes their children "better." This is ludicrous on several levels, the least of which being that we usually wind up parenting as we were parented, some for better, some for worse. That cycle will not be broken, unless, like my wife, you elect not to have children.
> 
> As a small kid, I'd often ask my dad where we were going, and he'd reply "_You'll find out when we get there_." Playfully, looking back on it-he wanted me to be able to figure out where we were going, and would be delighted when I knew from landmarks and signs. I didn't really enjoy it, though-I was something of an anxious child-and promised myself I'd never respond to my children that way.
> 
> Imagine my surprise when my three year old son asked where we were going, and I replied, almost in my father's voice:_You'll find out when we get there._



My wife and I are currently engaged in research methods classes for doctoral level graduate work, so I get the chance to read lots of research.  Are we wasting our time?  Can correlation ever be shown to "possibly" link with causation?   As I understand the subject, the answer is affirmative, however this linkage will never be proven 100%.  There is always some question.

That said when a body of research begins to show a connection can you dismiss that research on the premise that correlation does not equal causation?  Does not that also dismiss most research altogether?

When do you decide that there might be a connection between the two?


----------



## elder999 (Sep 5, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> When do you decide that there might be a connection between the two?



When you've experimented and demonstrated the counterfactual-in this case, have two groups of kids-one gets spanked, the other gets "Barneyed," and track the results throught adulthood.  While there can be a linkage between correlation and causation, in the case of these studies, there is no way of determining such. While correlation is necessary-it *will* be present when there is causation, naturally-it is a hint of sorts, that we're on the right track, and further research is necessary to determine causation. 

An example: obesity rates are at an all time high in the U.S. Atmospheric CO2 is also at an all time high. High CO2 causes obesity.

I'm sticking with the more logical conclusion from all those studies: rotten kids get spanked. Rotten kids become _more_ rotten kids. " Spanking" doesn't make rotten kids-*rotten kids get spanked*. Prove otherwise.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 5, 2011)

elder999 said:


> When you've experimented and demonstrated the counterfactual-in this case, have two groups of kids-one gets spanked, the other gets "Barneyed," and track the results throught adulthood.  While there can be a linkage between correlation and causation, in the case of these studies, there is no way of determining such. While correlation is necessary-it *will* be present when there is causation, naturally-it is a hint of sorts, that we're on the right track, and further research is necessary to determine causation.
> 
> An example: obesity rates are at an all time high in the U.S. Atmospheric CO2 is also at an all time high. High CO2 causes obesity.
> 
> I'm sticking with the more logical conclusion from all those studies: rotten kids get spanked. Rotten kids become _more_ rotten kids. " Spanking" doesn't make rotten kids-*rotten kids get spanked*. Prove otherwise.



It goes back to the original research, which I'm reading at this moment.  Can you analyze the methodology and explain how it is unsound?  The methodologies used are being used in other forms of social sciences and have apparently been used to draw conclusions in the past.  When does one throw up their hands and rely on opinions of people who are so deep into the details of a field that you can't really even peer into it from the outside?  On a personal level, I am totally *GUILTY *of commenting strongly on things in which I probably don't understand very well.  It's an area of personal growth for me.  I need to check my ego sometimes...big time.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 5, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> On a personal level, I am totally *GUILTY *of commenting strongly on things in which I probably don't understand very well.  It's an area of personal growth for me.  I need to check my ego sometimes...big time.



We'll all stand in line with you on that one as we all do that on occasion, good sir - as long as we know it and try to rein ourselves in when we can then that's the best we can do :bows:.  

Sometimes we can't constrain our 'rampantly passionate fingers' {that sounds *so* wrong :lol:} but one of the great things about the circle of people we have here at MT is that if you own up to it when you've gotten a bit too hot under the collar then that soothes an awful lot of ruffled feathers.  That's been my experience at least.  More than one poster here has earned great respect from me for forgiving my transgressions :nods:.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 5, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> It goes back to the original research, which I'm reading at this moment. Can you analyze the methodology and explain how it is unsound? The methodologies used are being used in other forms of social sciences and have apparently been used to draw conclusions in the past. When does one throw up their hands and rely on opinions of people who are so deep into the details of a field that you can't really even peer into it from the outside? On a personal level, I am totally *GUILTY *of commenting strongly on things in which I probably don't understand very well. It's an area of personal growth for me. I need to check my ego sometimes...big time.



Well, a look at some of the sources, like this one , reveals them to be more than a little agenda driven. Problem #1 in science: letting a foregone conclusion drive your data. I worked with a physicist who'll remain nameless, but one of the nicknames I gave him was "badscience." On more than one occasion he wasted days of time at the accelerator because he refused to investigate a particular avenue,(_I just can't see that_) that later proved to be the correct course of action. This is particular pitfall is more prevalent in sociological and so-called _soft_ sciences than anywhere else. There was 

Then, look at possible methodologies: you can't always get day to day observation of developing children (were they spanked, how many times per quarter, for what) so you go to prisons, and interview criminals:_Were you spanked? How much? What for? Did it make you stop?_. 1st off, of course, your pool consists of criminals: we already know they didn't turn out well, and we also have no reason to rely upon their veracity. Correlation, again, but a faulty conclusion of causation. Likwewise, when you interview non-criminals, there would be a broad spectrum of responses, none of which we could necessarily trust the veracity of. And so on.....

For the record, I didn't have much occasion to spank either of my kids. I got spanked myself, but not often enough that I'm mentally scarred by it or anything.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 5, 2011)

That's what tools like meta-analysis are for. They look for broad trends rather than a select group of studies. 

Regarding agenda driven science, well, if we don't consider this, there isn't much to talk about. Agendas are subjective and ubiquitous and I have no clue how they will ever all be rooted out. 

Social science is tough to do. It usually takes and an unusually large consensus to claim anything. In regards to spanking, this consensus is a good forty years in the making. Like I said before, my mother learned about this in her classes 25 years ago.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## granfire (Sep 5, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> That's what tools like meta-analysis are for. They look for broad trends rather than a select group of studies.
> 
> Regarding agenda driven science, well, if we don't consider this, there isn't much to talk about. Agendas are subjective and ubiquitous and I have no clue how they will ever all be rooted out.
> 
> ...



Then again, 25 years ago the children subjected to the experiment of anti- authoritarian rearing came of age and noted on many occasions how hard it was for them to accept boundaries as an adult....consensus of psychologists at the time: Fail.


----------



## Nomad (Sep 6, 2011)

granfire said:


> what?
> If everybody was special they would be _not special_.....
> 
> I am kinda not seeing the violence spin...



Am I the only one who heard granfire's statement in Syndrome's voice from the Incredibles?







I'll give them heroics. I'll give them the most spectacular heroics they've ever seen! And when I'm old and I've had my fun, I'll sell my inventions so _everyone_ can be superheroes! _Everyone_ can be super! And when everyone's super, *no-one will be.*


----------



## granfire (Sep 6, 2011)

Nomad said:


> Am I the only one who heard granfire's statement in Syndrome's voice from the Incredibles?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Seems like I am busted....


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 7, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Well, a look at some of the sources, like this one , reveals them to be more than a little agenda driven.



After some thought, I'm wondering what people think "the agenda" is?

Also, when does one admit that *they *might be biased?  If it can be reasoned one way, it can be reasoned another way.  The research is supposed to separate the wheat from the chaff.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 7, 2011)

granfire said:


> Then again, 25 years ago the children subjected to the experiment of anti- authoritarian rearing came of age and noted on many occasions how hard it was for them to accept boundaries as an adult....consensus of psychologists at the time: Fail.



That may not mean that it was "wrong" maybe society just wasn't ready for it.  If we raise individuals in an authoritarian society, perhaps we should expect problems.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 7, 2011)

i set the yard on fire when i was like 11

ONCE

momma came home, saw the blackened yard and the ash and the mess, and i awoke to her going upside myhead with a stick

i never set the backyard on fire again.

the beating worked.

and I am as straight and narrow obeying the law as it gets


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 7, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> After some thought, I'm wondering what people think "the agenda" is?
> 
> Also, when does one admit that *they *might be biased? If it can be reasoned one way, it can be reasoned another way. The research is supposed to separate the wheat from the chaff.



Pretty much in the "soft sciences" the agenda is what the researcher thinks it should be.  First off, the "experiment" was set up to show that spanking lead to all these bad things.  They found data that supported their hypothesis.  BUT, and this is key.  There are too many other factors to take into account to show any causation period.  What was the parents IQ, social adjustment etc.  What was the home life like where the children come from?  Was education supported in the home and other good values reinforced?  Was spanking the ONLY discipline used or was it used in certain circumstances only?  How often was the child spanked?  What was the aftermath of the spanking, did the parents reinforced that they were loved and why they were spanked or was it just out of anger and the kid sent away to their room?

I'm sure that you can come up with even more variables that play a FAR more important role in the child rearing the the 10 seconds it took to spank the child.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 7, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> i set the yard on fire when i was like 11
> 
> ONCE
> 
> ...



Well since you opened the door by using yourself as an example, you also display sharply dualistic thinking, are quick to attack other forumites and label others as "the enemy", constantly try to shout other ideas down (to the extent one can shout on a text-forum, anyway), and just generally display levels of aggression that others have commented on before.

I do not mean this as any type of ad-hominem, but if your'e going to use yourself as an example of how "beatings work", it's only fair to point out some of the other undesired consequences.  I'm no psychologist by any stretch of the imagination, but if you were constantly beaten (not spanked, but beaten) as a child, it sheds some light on things.


----------



## granfire (Sep 7, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> That may not mean that it was "wrong" maybe society just wasn't ready for it.  If we raise individuals in an authoritarian society, perhaps we should expect problems.



Every society has rules. And while some societies chose to let the little kids do as they please, once they get older rules apply.
Every where. You can't have a functioning society without it, where everybody does what pleases him.

It was an experiment that did not turn out well. And unlike lab rats we were dealing with people. It came from those people themselves that they found it hard to adjust to a set of rules that their peers had learned as they grew up.
I am not sure if there was a study made about that....


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 7, 2011)

it is impossible to "know" someone based on an internet chat board, so you dont know me.

but let me fill in the blanks for you son.

I was a quiet shy, reserved kid till two things happened

1)i joined the service
2) i got my BB

THAT is what changed me.

I didnt even curse before i was in ther military. Or smoke, or watch porn, or be mean or rude, i was a polite, quiet, respectfull guy.

I was spanked, and even beaten. BUT I have not broken the law, gone to jail, abused sheep, no history of violence  etc etc etc which is the sort of anti social behavior is being claimed is a result of spankings

sure, i am a JERK, hell i am an ***

but that isnt what people are claiming is the fault of spanking.

i was spanked OFTEN, but i am not a social malajust

so you would be off base, not only about me (as usual) but just in general as well.


PS I dont shout down dissenting opinions, i refuse to listen to stupid **** that isnt true, and when faced with people in complete denial of reality, i am not above rasiing my "voice"

i do not suffer fools well.



RandomPhantom700 said:


> Well since you opened the door by using yourself as an example, you also display sharply dualistic thinking, are quick to attack other forumites and label others as "the enemy", constantly try to shout other ideas down (to the extent one can shout on a text-forum, anyway), and just generally display levels of aggression that others have commented on before.
> 
> I do not mean this as any type of ad-hominem, but if your'e going to use yourself as an example of how "beatings work", it's only fair to point out some of the other undesired consequences.  I'm no psychologist by any stretch of the imagination, but if you were constantly beaten (not spanked, but beaten) as a child, it sheds some light on things.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 7, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> it is impossible to "know" someone based on an internet chat board, so you dont know me.
> 
> but let me fill in the blanks for you son.
> 
> ...i do not suffer fools well.



Of course I don't know you, didn't claim to, and you don't know me either. Give you a hint though, I'm not your son. I was basing that on forum history, nothing more.

And I"m really not trying to pick a fight. But if you're going to sit here claiming how you're a shining example of how beatings (is it beatings or spankings? you're going back and forth) don't cause problems growing up, well, there's a flip-side to that coin.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 7, 2011)

sorry, i am older than dog meat, i was simply assuming you are younger, no slight intended.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 7, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> (is it beatings or spankings? you're going back and forth)




the way my mother did it, there wasnt much difference


----------



## aedrasteia (Sep 7, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> the way my mother did it, there wasnt much difference



thank you for that information. It helps explain alot.
No sarcasm or insult intended. again, thank you.


----------



## Blade96 (Sep 15, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Well since you opened the door by using yourself as an example, you also display sharply dualistic thinking, are quick to attack other forumites and label others as "the enemy", constantly try to shout other ideas down (to the extent one can shout on a text-forum, anyway), and just generally display levels of aggression that others have commented on before.
> 
> I do not mean this as any type of ad-hominem, but if your'e going to use yourself as an example of how "beatings work", it's only fair to point out some of the other undesired consequences.  I'm no psychologist by any stretch of the imagination, but if you were constantly beaten (not spanked, but beaten) as a child, it sheds some light on things.



and he's a bit of a bigot (the muslims for example) Thought I'd bring that up too.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 15, 2011)

and thats a reportable post. Nothign but an ad hom from a thread untouched for over a week and not related to the discussion at all.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 16, 2011)

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the discussion polite and respectful.

jks9199
Super Moderator


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 19, 2011)

it's all Bush's fault


----------



## aedrasteia (Nov 5, 2011)

This thread consists of comments about 'discipline'.  Here we *see* what
this person describes as 'discipline'.

Be advised - this is *extremely* disturbing.

But it deserves to be seen. FYI - for me, the verbal rage, the threats and the words...
 disturb even more than the beating.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl9y3SIPt7o

your thoughts?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 5, 2011)

aedrasteia said:


> This thread consists of comments about 'discipline'. Here we *see* what
> this person describes as 'discipline'.
> 
> Be advised - this is *extremely* disturbing.
> ...



I saw that yesterday and like you thought of this thread.To me it's disgusting and totally unacceptable beating any person like that let alone a disabled child. The 'crime' of downloading music hardly warrents a beating with a belt yet the judge tries to defend it saying that 'we don't understand the issues'. What I see is an assault, something he should have been arrested and charged for. 
It's a shame the daughter felt she had to wait so long before she could say anything because I'm betting that it wasn't an isolated incident.

If anyone thinks that what is done to a child when smacking it or beating it is acceptable, think about that situation being in the street and one adult smacking or beating another, then you'll see how unacceptable it is. if you see another adult about to step off the kerb in front of the car do you stop then then smack them? If an adult reaches to an open fire do you smack them to stop them? If an adult gives you cheek on the street do you beat them? If an adult starts arguing with you do you hit them. If an adult is caught stealing do you thump them? Then why do it to a child?


----------



## Carol (Nov 5, 2011)

Yet again, adults pounding out their frustrations on a child.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 5, 2011)

I heard about this on the news but had not seen it yet.  That dude is wacked in the head.Im not reading thru 12 pages to really comment on this topic but I cant see ANYONE condoning that type of behavior.  Thats criminal in my book.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 5, 2011)

I made it about four licks before I stopped the video.  I can't watch children get beaten like that.  That "girl" is not a child either.  That is essentially the beating of another adult.

The emotional trauma from beatings change the brain.  When that "child" has children, how will she release her frustrations?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 5, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> I made it about four licks before I stopped the video. I can't watch children get beaten like that. That "girl" is not a child either. That is essentially the beating of another adult.
> 
> The emotional trauma from beatings change the brain. When that "child" has children, how will she release her frustrations?



She may not have children, she has cerebral palsy, just gets worse doesn't it?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 5, 2011)

I didn't realize that. Wow.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## Em MacIntosh (Nov 5, 2011)

My dad spanked me because he promised me he would if I did a particular thing.  I did that, I got what he promised me.  I've been spanked 3 times in my life and each one was under those circumstances.  He'd tell me to go to my room and think about what I'd done.  He ask me first if I knew why I was being punished.  He used his bare hand so he knew how hard he was hitting me.  I'd get about four or five swats.

Was my dad right?  Well, he certainly tried to make it serve it's purpose.  He certainly wasn't taking out his aggression on me.  Did it screw me up?  Meh.  Nothing like being bullied, harassed, teased and beat at school to put that in contrast.

I think the video is sick.  Very disturbing.  It's very disturbing to see an adult telling their adolescent child to bend over.  You can F888ing well hit my legs instead then, you pervert.  I think that dad deserves a lynching.  I think he's a sick person that knows he's sick and that his sickness hurts others but he hides it by keeping it in the family.  These kind of people need to be removed from a position of parenthood.  I'm no psychologist, I'm no parent and I'm no trauma councillor but her mother sounds to me like she's abused and suffers stockholm syndrome.  

Even if she was dramatizing, it was extremely disturbing to see her being forced to bend over.  That kind of thing flies me into a hulk-rage.  Sick.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 5, 2011)

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8370540/texas-judge-defends-his-abuse-of-daughter

He says he did nothing wrong and his daughter only posted it because he threatened to take away her car.


----------



## aedrasteia (Nov 10, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> I made it about four licks before I stopped the video.  I can't watch children get beaten like that.  That "girl" is not a child either.  That is essentially the beating of another adult.
> 
> The emotional trauma from beatings change the brain.  When that "child" has children, how will she release her frustrations?



Thanks M 

Does your school/dojo offer programs related to self defense for children? Do instructors-teachers discuss 
or have continuing education about child abuse? or abuse of women?

Yes. Its hard to watch. very hard. But she and her mother had to live through it. I believe
the least we can do is watch, think, talk to each other and learn.

When MA teachers talk about 'attacks' this is what I think of, based on my experience working with children
and adults. I often wonder what they are thinking really happens.
That's why I posted this. I hope you can watch it all eventually and will share your comments
with us all.

with respect and many thanks


----------



## granfire (Nov 10, 2011)

aedrasteia said:


> Thanks M
> 
> Does your school/dojo offer programs related to self defense for children? Do instructors-teachers discuss
> or have continuing education about child abuse? or abuse of women?
> ...



Most self defense techniques we teach to children are based around 'Stranger Danger' even though most kids are not at risk from the Boogie Man, but from their own family.
The Boy Scouts have a more thorough approach, but they, too, do not address the domestic aspect.


I did not watch the video, but judging from the comments, the beating was paired with verbal abuse as well. 
I still think one can do a lot more damage with a well placed word, without ever having to lay a hand on a person.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 11, 2011)

aedrasteia said:


> Thanks M
> 
> Does your school/dojo offer programs related to self defense for children? Do instructors-teachers discuss
> or have continuing education about child abuse? or abuse of women?
> ...



You make a good point.  I'll check out the video and post my comments from a martial arts perspective.  I used to work with kids who would show up to school with cigarette burns on their faces.  This sort of thing enrages me.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 11, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> I used to work with kids who would show up to school with cigarette burns on their faces.



Good lord!  Not a lot more to say than that.


----------



## aedrasteia (Nov 11, 2011)

Thanks G



granfire said:


> Most self defense techniques we teach to children are based around 'Stranger Danger' even though most kids are not at risk from the Boogie Man, but from their own family.



So why do instructors continue to do this??

Do you do this?  What do you do?


"I did not watch the video, but judging from the comments, the beating was paired with verbal abuse as well. 
I still think one can do a lot more damage with a well placed word, without ever having to lay a hand on a person"

Agreed. Please watch the video if you can. It reflects the reality of child abuse better than my words can describe.
This information is very well known. Its not obscure or hidden.

Why do instructors and teachers continue to organize and present their programs as though they have never heard 
of the reality - or can't find the information?

I appreciate your thoughts about this. with respect.


----------



## granfire (Nov 11, 2011)

aedrasteia said:


> Thanks G
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I honestly don't have an answer.
people think the good uncle can't hurt a fly, if the parents are the evil ones, they would not teach oteherwise anyhow....

As instructor you provide a service.
But pulling the rose colored glasses of the clients, is that included?

We love to shelter our kids. Some people like to bubble wrap them.
Like if they don't teach them about drinking, smoking, sex, they won't know about it or learn from other sources.

We love to adhere to presumptions. 
The people in church are good people, they won't harm children....

How can an instructor deal with that?

I do agree that 'stop stranger, don't touch me' is a farce. 

Like I said, the BSA gets close but still misses the mark. 
Thin line to toe, between arming our children and scaring the bejesus out of them.


----------

