Spanking: a reality check

Kids go through devellopment stages long before they can reason things out. You would not explain why to a chicken or to a cat. Why do it to a child who has no capacity to reason?
Dumber than a dog in training.
No! and a mad glare is not going to stop them walking in front of a car or off a cliff either.
Kids also go through a "find the borders" stage.
If you ban spanking, the borders will be that little bit further out for years to come.
Are you willing to accept a higher level of infant mortality as a consequence?
Animals bite and bully their kids way more than we do. They would not survive othewise.
I totally agree with the physical versus emotional stuff. A stinging slap on the bottom is way preferable to 10 minutes of being humiliated and a day of trying to get over it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timebandit:
[b]I also have to wonder: if you believe you deserved to be hit by your parents, what're the chances you're going to rationalize being hit by your partner later in life the same way?[/b]

---

...or sending your partner to his room if you don’t like the way he is behaving.

I mean, really. Children are not “miniature adults”. Just because children are treated a certain way (and made to do certain things they absolutely don’t want to do and made to stop doing certain things they absolutely want to do) doesn’t mean it’s “wrong” simply because you wouldn’t expect to treat an adult the same way.

That’s a poor argument.

[ 24 June 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
[b]

In my case, 0.[/b]

---

Good for you, you'd be the negative instance. As am I.

[url=http://vaw.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/7/790]Not everyone else is.[/url]

[ 24 June 2008: Message edited by: Timebandit ]

Okay, try [url=http://www.naspweb.org/publications/cq/mocq366spanking_ho.aspx]this one[/url] instead.

quote:

---

Research has identified a number of negative outcomes of physical discipline, including higher rates of antisocial behavior, aggression toward peers and family members (including child and spousal abuse as adults), and psychological disturbances.

---

ETA: Grabbed the wrong link, one of the pitfalls of babbling and working at the same time. Here is [url=http://euc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/3/3/293]the correct one.[/url]

[ 24 June 2008: Message edited by: Timebandit ]

Okay, even with your revised link, we are given nothing but a conclusion.

Even if we were to assume that there is a link between corporal punishment and future violent tendencies, there is no differentiation between corporate punishment that is composed of [b][i]violent beatings[/b][/i], on the one hand, and corporal punishment that is composed of [b][i]a rare swat on the behind[/b][/i], on the other hand. If you fail to make that differentiation, you have zero support for a conclusion that: “Even a rare swat on the behind leads to increased violent tendencies by those children after they become adults,” which is essentially what you are arguing.

[ 24 June 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]The reason I don't want to see a simple spank become illegal isn't because I believe in spanking kids. I definitely don't. But I think the practice is so widespread (even a lot of parents who don't believe in it lose it once in a while and do it either out of anger or because they feel like they've tried everything else) that making it illegal will criminalize everyone instead of teaching them better child-rearing techniques.
[/b]

---

Great post Michelle. You can bet that a "law" like this will be used disproportionately against immigrants with more "old-fashioned" and less of the modern, fashionable child rearing techniques. One of the reasons why a light bum-swat is so common in so many cultures is that it is a time-tested truth that the bum is able to take a smack without sustaining physical damage. The practice is not even in the same league as caning, shaking and belting which are already prohibited by our laws.

I don't spank either. Still I believe that emotional damage, IMO, most often comes from what comes out of a parent's mouth.

This long lasting damage has only half to do with what the parent does and half to do with how the child interprets the punishment. If the child believes that it is not just her behavior that is being punished, but that she is a failure, or in any way unloved, or unvalued, then that punishment is likely to stick with the child for the worse, no matter what method a parent chooses.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]I trust the research more than your personal views. [/b]

---

Of course you do. It “supports” your preconceptions and biases.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]You have shown no research that shows there is any benefit to hitting children but you want the right to hit children because you aren't convinced it does enough harm to be banned.[/b]

---

I’m not arguing about the benefits of spanking a kid (it may or may not have long-term benefits). I’m questioning the dire, end-of-the-world claims that anti-spanking advocates are asserting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]I think we should allow a little lead in our toys because most children don't get harmed by the toys that contain low levels of lead. I'll bet not even 19% of the children who come in contact with those kinds of substances will have nay adverse effects. [/b]

---

This statement exposes your misunderstanding of the elementary point I’m making about statistics. So, let me explain it another way...

If you say X action causes 20% of those acted upon to exhibit antisocial behavior Y, one of the most relevant questions is: What percentage of the average person exhibits that same antisocial behavior? If it’s about 20%, then the claim that X action causes 20% to exhibit antisocial behavior Y is false (unless, of course, X action is applied to every single person [b][i]and[/b][/i] there are no other variables that may cause antisocial behavior Y).

That is what I was saying.

Now, you turn around and say this:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]I think we should allow a little lead in our toys because most children don't get harmed by the toys that contain low levels of lead. I'll bet not even 19% of the children who come in contact with those kinds of substances will have nay adverse effects. [/b]

---

The point isn’t that “only” 19% suffer adverse effects of lead (or that only 20% exhibit antisocial behavior Y) and, therefore, it is okay. The point is: What [b][i]causes[/b][/i] the adverse effects (or the antisocial behavior). It’s clear that eating paint with lead causes adverse effects (and it would be of concern whether we're talking about 5%, 19% or 80% of children). What I’m saying is that it is not clear that a rare swat on the behind [b][i]causes[/b][/i] negative antisocial behaviors.

[ 24 June 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
[b]

So, what would a parent who wishes to discipline a youth have to do? Get a court order granting permission to spank?

If the "default" position is no spanking, then presumably everyone doing it is committing an offence. So, apparently some legal procedure would be required for an exemption, or for exoneration?[/b]

---

No, they need to learn how to use their heads instead of their hands.

Discipline means teach, not punish. Punishment is largely ineffective.

I think there’s a legitimate debate about spanking. But, fundamentally, what I have a problem with are those anti-spanking advocates who are willing to jump directly from [b][i]speculation[/b][/i] (that spanking is harmful) to [b][i]criminalization[/b][/i].

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]I think this is more about whether children have any independent rights or whether their parents are the only ones with rights including the right to hit children at the parents discretion.[/b]

---

Talking about blue herrings...

I don't see anyone advocating spanking. Just people questioning why it should be criminalized.

What are your feelings about solitary confinement (timeouts), verbal assaults and public humiliation. Shouldn't they first have to prove their legitimacy before becoming legal?

As Pogo touches on, there is a long list of things that parents do to their children that adults cannot, legally, do to another adult.

Like I said before, children are not “miniature adults” with all of the rights of adults.

If a five year old is playing inappropriately with other kids, a parent may say, “I’ve told you already that you can’t throw sand at the other kids! So, you’re going to sit here [away from the other children] until you learn to behave!”

Now, I think the state should require that parent to (1) prove that the positive effects of such action outweigh the humiliation that child will likely feel (and the negative psychological damage that humiliation will likely cause that child to suffer well into adulthood) and (2) fully justify the fact that the child’s right to freedom of moment—and right to freedom of association—has been severely restricted, because he may want to unlawfully confine other adults when he becomes an adult, too.

Better yet, I think that children should—at the moment of birth—be removed from parents entirely and raised by perfect, government-operated institutions where they will grow up to be perfect adults.

Or, we could focus on real child abuse (physical and emotional) and leave spanking to the discretion of parents.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
[b]As Pogo touches on, there is a long list of things that parents do to their children that adults cannot, legally, do to another adult.

Like I said before, children are not “miniature adults” with all of the rights of adults.

If a five year old is playing inappropriately with other kids, a parent may say, “I’ve told you already that you can’t throw sand at the other kids! So, you’re going to sit here [away from the other children] until you learn to behave!”

Now, I think the state should require that parent to (1) prove that the positive effects of such action outweigh the humiliation that child will likely feel (and the negative psychological damage that humiliation will likely cause that child to suffer well into adulthood) and (2) fully justify the fact that the child’s right to freedom of moment—and right to freedom of association—has been severely restricted, because he may want to unlawfully confine other adults when he becomes an adult, too.

Better yet, I think that children should—at the moment of birth—be removed from parents entirely and raised by perfect, government-operated institutions where they will grow up to be perfect adults.

Or, we could focus on real child abuse (physical and emotional) and leave spanking to the discretion of parents.[/b]

---

LOL

Do you have any argument left or is it merely parents should have the right to hit. You say that society should have no say in the raising of children, I disagree. Your view leads me to believe that you would agree with repealing the laws that require children be schooled. I don't accept the view that all parental decisions need to be taken away from society. After all when those children commit crimes its not like society has to deal with them.

No you use sarcasm and half statements that are like trying to pin jelly on a wall. You could write speeches for the trained seals on Harpo's back benches.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
[b]

The word “hitting” is broad. It includes an occasional swat on the bum and a fist in the face. Show me research that proves that an occasional swat on the bum is negative.[/b]

---

Ah, the goal posts moved once again...

It's extremely difficult to "prove" such a thing in a scientific sense. However, numerous people have posted links that provide a great deal of evidence that corporal punishment is indeed destructive. And all you've done is lashed out at strawmen, because the facts are simply not on your side.

Double checking my fallacies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pogo:
[b]Double checking my fallacies.[/b]

---

It's good to check those. In this case, Kevin Laddle's reference to a strawman (or strawhomosapien, if you prefer) is incorrect.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]No evidence worth mentioning has been posted to that regard.[/b]

---

You know, I've taken some statistics and have a passing knowledge of the subject but I'm tempted to undertake a more rigorous study of the subject. There's so much bullshit passed on as "evidence" for this or that that it would be nice to be able to clearly identify that bullshit as such.

In this case, the references to "evidence", and the use of statistics to "prove" that a swat in the bum is highly detrimental, in this thread have been easy to debunk, even by me.

I think there are a lot of sociology "studies" that fall into the total bullshit category. To a serious student of a question or a line of inquiry, those studies completely undermine the credibility of the arguments they are attempting to cobble together.

I mean a statement like: "19% of those who have received corporal punishment suffer from depression or anxiety" means [b][i]nothing[/b][/i]. Yet, many people look at something like that and excitedly exclaim: "See, spanking is bad!!!"

In fact, it's total and complete bullshit.

That's an interesting article (and incredibly balanced).

I've not had the time to read it thoroughly but several things jumped out at me, one of which was the author's admission that no one has proven a causal link between corporal punishment and any negative or positive behavioral changes or emotional impacts from corporal punishment, with one (unsurprising) exception. That one exception is that spanking is shown to provide the positive result of "immediate compliance" with a desired behavioral change in a child.

Another thing that I found interesting was her use of the word "association", as in "there is an association between corporal punishment and result X". I don't know how "association" is qualitatively different than "correlation".

Critically, and this is something I've been beating on (pun intended) in this thread, is her differentiation between corporal punishment and physical abuse. She basically said that in evaluating any positive or negative effects of corporal punishment, one must necessarily isolate acts of corporal punishment from acts of physical abuse before drawing any meaningful conclusions about corporate punishment.

Finally (and this is a real "duh" moment), she noted: "[I]n the study of parents’ use of corporal punishment, much research has been biased toward finding negative child outcomes associated with corporal punishment."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
[b]Again, the reasoning here is that corporal punishment should be the default position, and that those against spanking should prove why I [i]shouldn't[/i] be allowed to hit my kids. That is poor logic. Prove to me why you should be able to use physical violence as a disciplinary measure. If you can't, it's off the table.[/b]

---

Again, the reasoning here is that involuntary confinement should be the default position, and that those against involuntary confinement should prove why I [i]shouldn't[/i] be allowed to involuntarily confine my kids. That is poor logic. Prove to me why you should be able to use involuntary confinement as a disciplinary measure. If you can't, it's off the table.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
[b]Are you capable of making simple distinctions between "violence" and "non-violence"?[/b]

---

A swat on the behind is "violence" only in a kumbaiya sort of way.

I mean, really. If all of the energy that was spent by anti-spanking folks was spent, instead, on helping to stop physical and emotional abuse of children, abuse everyone here would like to see stopped, then perhaps something of value would be accomplished.

Well, presumably, if spanking didn't provide compliance, it wouldn't be up for debate, would it? So I'm not sure why that's significant at all.

The opposition to spanking (which is an act of violence necessarily, despite your dismissal) comes from the idea that there is another way to procure compliance that doesn't instill in the mind that violence is a way to solve conflicts (even 'friendly' violence).

Honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about the spanking law. I don't have kids, but I was spanked as a kid, sometimes with what bordered on abuse, and I know what effect it had on me. All I can say is I hope I never resort to violence to discipline my children.

But I would like to see an opposition to violence become instilled in our culture and in our social mores. If violence is normalized in our country, as it surely is with you saying a "friendly tap" not being violent (Oy! We was just playing, officer!), then I question the ability of studies to show whether or not getting spanked has a "negative" effect on development, since the logic behind spanking is still a dominant cultural force. I don't think it's far fetched to say that our justification of corporal punishment at home is linked to our justification of the death penalty, of foreign wars, of torture, etc. etc. I'm not a sociologist, and I certainly don't expect you to agree with me (although I do wonder, often, why you are here at all) but I do think there is evidence to support what I believe.

Are you asking for sociology articles? I think you misunderstood. Read again, this time for comprehension.

Like I said, read again for comprehension. The paragraph that ends with the sentence you quoted is about violence being normalized in our society, not about spanking having a long list of negative effects. You made that up.

As you do. There's not much point in continuing because a) you don't read or try to think about things and b) this thread is about to get closed.