The Facts about Spanking - Science shows...

[Makalakumu]

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.

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]

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.



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.

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]

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


-Rob

People yes, people in training yes yes.

 

[Makalakumu]

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.

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.

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

That is certainly true - Albeit, what if it is purely self imposed condition?

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.

My Contribution

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

 

[Sukerkin]

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.

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]

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]

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)!

Which leads to one issue - What if nothing else works? What if they refuse to listen?

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.

The way i see it, as long as you dont slap them or hurt them. Otherwise, free choice. To each their own. So yes.

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.

Which may be the Childs stubbornness.

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.

Well, if a Workmate had an issue with me, id try and sort it out with them by finding a Compromise we can both live with, that wont interfere with out ability to work in Proximity. Or talk to HR.

Sorry.. I am rambling.

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

 

[Tez3]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.