Do you think spanking is OK? Lawmakers voted against banning parents from spanking

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by ConfusedInOC

Why is it irrelevant? They are both forms of discipline. One involves physical pain, the other emotional pain. There are parents out there that think they are GREAT parents because they don't abuse their kids by spanking them.

My point was that they're BOTH not the kinds of discipline that are healthy, and it's irrelevant to say that mental abuse is worse than physical abuse, simply because here's my brilliant plan: Don't abuse your child at all!

The pain of mental abuse lasts for years....sometimes entire lifetimes.

It's no different with physical abuse--The long-term effects do not subside with the pain.

It's NOT using violence to solve a problem. That is where you are wrong. You are using pain to drive a point home when all other means of discipline have failed.

Using pain to drive home a point is an act of violence. Your semantics won't work here.

I am not talking about abusing them. A spanking, IMHO, is on the butt and it's something that doesn't leave a mark.

It's on a continuum of abuse--It's teaching the child that the way to solve problems is to act out violently, and that the way you control people is by hitting them.

If you think I "pulled it out of my arrz" you're the one in need a of a head check. You are under the dillusion that all children respond in the same method. Anyone with half a brain cell knows that people are as different as there are stars in the sky.

 

To assume all children will respond to the same form of discipline is to assume they are all drones of some sort with the same CPU.

 

And it's the reason why kids are killing kids today and running around with guns at the age of 12. It's not the video games alone that do it. It's bad parenting PERIOD.

 

Excuse me, but do all kids learn at the same level?

Do they read at the same level all the time?

Do they grow at the same level?

 

What on EARTH gives you the silly idea they'd all respond to the same form of discipline?! The notion alone screams ignorance.

Really? Screams of ignorance, I renew my challenge, because you seem to ignore it:

 

If you can find a single accredited child psychologist who advocates that some children "need" violent consequences, I'll leave this thread forever.

 

You're saying that some kids respond only to spanking, and it's the only solution to discipline them.

 

That's something you made up, and I hope no one takes it seriously.

 

Once again, if you can find a single accredited child psychologist who advocates that some children "need" violent consequences, I'll leave this thread forever.

[ConfusedInOC]

Originally posted by dyermaker

My point was that they're BOTH not the kinds of discipline that are healthy, and it's irrelevant to say that mental abuse is worse than physical abuse, simply because here's my brilliant plan: Don't abuse your child at all!

 

You're assuming spanking them is abuse. It is if you're leaving a mark or going overboard.

You can yell at your kid without abusing them as well. I prefer to raise my point, not my voice, but that's not always effective.

 

You're assuming I advocate beating the crap out of your kid to drive a point home and nothing could be further from the truth. I always exhaust all methods before resorting to corporal punishment.

 

It's no different with physical abuse--The long-term effects do not subside with the pain.

 

Depends of if it's used on a child that does not respond to it. If you use it the wrong way with the wrong child this would ring true.

 

Using pain to drive home a point is an act of violence. Your semantics won't work here.

 

Sometimes it's necessary. If it works, is it abuse? If you're spanking the kid one time for the third time the kid did it and they don't do it anymore, problem solved.

 

If the kid is still doing it after being spanked then there is a major problem.

 

You're assuming that I am saying spanking should be the first option. I am saying spanking should be the last option when all other means of discipline have failed.

 

Parents who refuse to spank when it's necessary show kids they can get away with anything and are immune from the consequences of their actions.

 

It's on a continuum of abuse--It's teaching the child that the way to solve problems is to act out violently, and that the way you control people is by hitting them.

 

No it's not. It's teaching the kid that I've tried everything I can to teach you and you still aren't getting it...

 

Really? Screams of ignorance, I renew my challenge, because you seem to ignore it:

 

If you can find a single accredited child psychologist who advocates that some children "need" violent consequences, I'll leave this thread forever.

 

See below.

 

You're saying that some kids respond only to spanking, and it's the only solution to discipline them.

 

No, it's not. It's the FINAL form when all other forms have failed.

 

That's something you made up, and I hope no one takes it seriously.

 

You're ignoring several things.

1. I don't think all kids need spankings to learn.

2. I don't think spanking should be the first form of discipline. It should always be the last when ALL OTHER MEANS HAVE FAILED.

 

Once again, if you can find a single accredited child psychologist who advocates that some children "need" violent consequences, I'll leave this thread forever.

 

Most won't because they're being paid to say that you can talk through everything. It'd be like asking the Chairman of Ford if hydrogen vehicles are possible. Of course not, he'll say. They make their money on fossil fuel and Psychologist make it telling you that everything can be solved by a simple "talk."

[dyermaker]

Your ignorance overwhelms me--though it was kind of a loaded challenge, I knew you'd come up empty-handed.

They make their money on fossil fuel and Psychologist make it telling you that everything can be solved by a simple "talk."

Er.. No--I'm not talking about clinical psychologists, I'm talking about child development researchers, who make their money dispelling myths by people who pull stuff out of their ass.

 

Your assertion is this: All kids are different, Some kids will only respond to violence, and therefore they need spanking as a last resort.

 

My point is this: You totally made that up, and people who actually research child development would know that.

 

My challenge is this: Find research to back your methods up.

 

Here's ten more reasons not to spank: http://www.naturalchild.com/jan_hunt/tenreasons.html

[MomPerson]

Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family is an accredited psychologist.

 

In all of his books he advocates spanking in certain circumstances.

[RowanRavyn]

Here is a couple of webbies that are pro-spanking.

 

And for the record....you really DON'T want to do a Google search on "Pro-Spanking". Well, you might....

 

http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/public/articles/change46.htm

 

http://www.fotf.ca/familyfacts/analysis/100196.html

[ConfusedInOC]

Originally posted by MomPerson

Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family is an accredited psychologist.

 

In all of his books he advocates spanking in certain circumstances.

 

There you have it.

 

I just want to add one thing. Since WHEN are psychologist the experts at raising YOUR kids??? Psychology, at best is, is guesswork. You can not truly KNOW how every mind works.

 

To say that one thing works perfect for every person in this world is ludicrous. Each one of us is different. We're each wired differently. We share some commonalities but in the end, we each respond to stimuli in a different way.

 

Again:

 

Not all kids need to be spanked.

Spanking should be a last resort.

 

Passive parents who don't spank when it's necessary are the reason there are kids running around in gangs, killing each other. They didn't discipline their children. You didn't see kids turning into hoodlums until the 60s when America lost it morality...and the will to discipline their kids.

 

 

Dyermaker, I hope you stay true to your word.

[blind_otter]

Originally posted by ConfusedInOC

There you have it.

 

I just want to add one thing. Since WHEN are psychologist the experts at raising YOUR kids??? Psychology, at best is, is guesswork. You can not truly KNOW how every mind works.

 

To say that one thing works perfect for every person in this world is ludicrous. Each one of us is different. We're each wired differently. We share some commonalities but in the end, we each respond to stimuli in a different way.

 

Psychology works pretty well at determining, with enough accurate information, the consequences of certain behavioral commonalities. It's a numbers game - basic statistics - the greater the population from which you draw information, the more likely the conclusions you draw will be accurate or applicable.

 

I assume you've never had to be treated by a therapist. Please do correct me if I'm wrong. Some of us have, and have benefitted greatly from the works of a good therapist. Any mental healthcare professional worth his salt will not attempt to apply the same techniques to all of his patients. We are different, that is why the client-therapist relationship is so crucial.

 

There are other therapists that do not advocate spanking.

 

There were hoodlums long before the 1960s!!! The birth of organized crime happened long before this. Organized crime has, historically, fed off the impoverished people of the locale - and harvested their violent capos from the same populations. It's not a chicken-egg relationship whatsoever.

 

In fact, statistically, poverty is perhaps the biggest contributor to violence in societies. This has been evident throughout history. Ignorance and poverty are the main culprits of violent crime.

 

I worked in a forensic mental hospital. It is kind of strange, I think, to implicate the entire profession of psychology and say that it is completely useless. I have seen many success stories, and taken part in the therapeutic process for many individuals.

 

In the end, corporal punishment is a matter of personal, private morality. It can't be governed with any specificity or accuracy. Personally, because I was so severely abused as a child, I find all manner of violence abhorent. I would never raise a hand to a person smaller than me, or use the threat of physical violence to try to control a child's behavior. There are a multitude of non-violent techniques used to curb undesireable behavior. We employed quite a few tactics at the forensic mental hospital - we dealt with violent criminals who were so hardened to violence because they were exposed to it so much, that corporal punishment did nothing to affect them.

 

But I still believe that parenting classes are essential, all expectant parents should take them. Parenting is not an innate skill, it is a learned behavior. Just like violent acting out is a learned behavior. Although genetics refute the old "tabla rasa" concept, behaviorally speaking we are shaped very much by what we are exposed to.

[RowanRavyn]

Originally posted by blind_otter

But I still believe that parenting classes are essential, all expectant parents should take them. Parenting is not an innate skill, it is a learned behavior. Just like violent acting out is a learned behavior. Although genetics refute the old "tabla rasa" concept, behaviorally speaking we are shaped very much by what we are exposed to.

 

I agree with this entirely in theory.

 

The delima comes with the cost of the classes, and if the government intervenes with funding, then they must take a stance for or against spanking.

 

I have seen spanking used appropriately and inappropriately. If you don't trust yourself to know the difference, by all means DON'T DO IT!! If you fear your temper will get the best of you...DON'T DO IT. Do yourself and your child a favor get involved in a parents group a parenting class (your local Y probably has one), and educate yourself on other methods.

 

Not all parents who spank or have spanked are horrid child abusers, and by the same token not every parent who spanks SHOULD be spanking. I think more often than not its mindless wailing away fueled by an adult temper tantrum. The key is having a plan in place for misbehavior no matter what your preference is. Have clear boundaries, especially if you are spanking.

 

Parenting is hard. Babies don't come with an instruction manual, and if you have more than one child, you know that what works on one of them, won't even phase the other.

[ConfusedInOC]

Originally posted by blind_otter

Psychology works pretty well at determining, with enough accurate information, the consequences of certain behavioral commonalities. It's a numbers game - basic statistics - the greater the population from which you draw information, the more likely the conclusions you draw will be accurate or applicable.

 

I agree, but only in the sense of generalizations. Psychology is not an exact science.

 

I assume you've never had to be treated by a therapist. Please do correct me if I'm wrong. Some of us have, and have benefitted greatly from the works of a good therapist. Any mental healthcare professional worth his salt will not attempt to apply the same techniques to all of his patients. We are different, that is why the client-therapist relationship is so crucial.

 

I've been to a few and what I have found is they're pretty bad "guessers." Granted I can only speak on behalf of my experience, but look at it this way. If you're not truthful with yourself, there's nothing a psychologist can do to help you. And one of the biggest problems we have as a society is being truthful to ourselves.

 

There are other therapists that do not advocate spanking.

 

Much like anything in life, there's a large group of pro and con people. I never doubted that.

 

There were hoodlums long before the 1960s!!! The birth of organized crime happened long before this. Organized crime has, historically, fed off the impoverished people of the locale - and harvested their violent capos from the same populations. It's not a chicken-egg relationship whatsoever.

 

There have always been problem children, but there were never kids running around in gangs doing the kind of things they are doing today back before the 60s. At least not the degree they are now. Society was much less tolerate to beligerant kids.

 

In fact, statistically, poverty is perhaps the biggest contributor to violence in societies. This has been evident throughout history. Ignorance and poverty are the main culprits of violent crime.

 

I agree. But impoverished people aren't really working on being great parents so I think that sort of goes hand in hand. If you don't know where your next meal is coming from, how can you concentrate on being the best parent you can be?!

 

I worked in a forensic mental hospital. It is kind of strange, I think, to implicate the entire profession of psychology and say that it is completely useless.

 

It's not entirely useless. I think that talking about your problems helps you clear your head and think things through. I just don't believe that Psychologist are always correct in their opinions of what is best for all of humanity. It's a lot of guesstimates.

 

I have seen many success stories, and taken part in the therapeutic process for many individuals.

 

Just merely talking about a problem is where the healing starts.

 

In the end, corporal punishment is a matter of personal, private morality. It can't be governed with any specificity or accuracy. Personally, because I was so severely abused as a child, I find all manner of violence abhorent. I would never raise a hand to a person smaller than me, or use the threat of physical violence to try to control a child's behavior. There are a multitude of non-violent techniques used to curb undesireable behavior. We employed quite a few tactics at the forensic mental hospital - we dealt with violent criminals who were so hardened to violence because they were exposed to it so much, that corporal punishment did nothing to affect them.

 

I need to get this point across because I don't think it's being heard.

 

Corporal Punishment should always be the LAST resort when ALL OTHER MEANS HAVE FAILED. I understand some people just don't believe in it. So be it. I understand you were abused and while I emphathize I also agree. If you were abused you probably don't want that same kind of treatment on your kids.

 

However, I am not advocating ABUSE. I am merely saying use is sparingly and only when necessary. Screaming and yelling at your kids is just as abusive as spanking them, if not worse (imho).

 

But I still believe that parenting classes are essential, all expectant parents should take them. Parenting is not an innate skill, it is a learned behavior. Just like violent acting out is a learned behavior. Although genetics refute the old "tabla rasa" concept, behaviorally speaking we are shaped very much by what we are exposed to.

 

If I had it my way, you would need a license get married that required attending classes. The same before you had kids.

 

Too many people are having kids that aren't prepared for them...and some people just flat aren't cut out to be parents.

[RowanRavyn]

Originally posted by ConfusedInOC

I agree. But impoverished people aren't really working on being great parents so I think that sort of goes hand in hand. If you don't know where your next meal is coming from, how can you concentrate on being the best parent you can be?!

 

OC, I agreed with much of what you put here, though my personal experience with therapists and counselors was much different. It was valuable to have someone as a sounding board who had nothing at stake in my mistakes. Also, its why I want to BE a counselor when I am well enough to get back in school.

 

However, I think the above quote is very general and very untrue. (I know it was related to another quote.) I grew up poor, but well loved and unabused. I actually remember times when there was nothing but flour, lard, and sugar in the house, and we had biscuits forever. I remember being excited because I earned a bit of money raking a neighbors yard (at about 8 years old) and going to buy dried beans and milk and being so proud of myself and watching my parents cry over it. (My father was disabled and needed my mother at home to care for him.)

 

I also remember living on an acre of land in a three bedroom house with hardwood floors, and pretty cherry paneling. I remember myself and my children being abused. We had plenty of food, were well above poverty level, but it wasn't worth it. I left.

 

Now, here I am again. Poor as sin. Sometimes without enough food, but I am a good parent. Do you know what without enough food means? It means that my kids have learned to eat things they don't' really enjoy, but is nutritious. It means that my fiance and I eat a little less so they have enough. It means that powdered milk tastes like crap but still gives them what they need and its not so bad when its cold.

 

Thank goodness I have Medi-CAL for my medication because if I didn't have coverage for my illness, I simply wouldn't get treated, because my kids would still come first. Thank goodness for free lunch at school.

 

Sorry, I know I am off subject, but that hit a nerve.

[dyermaker]

Why do people keep asking that?

 

I answered the same question in my previous post, there's no such thing as a psychological study that proves something is true in every case. It is, from a research standpoint, impossible. Asking for the impossible is of course going to yield nothing. Have you ever heard of a study that proves something is true in every case? I'lll say it again, if you smoke, you can get lung cancer. The fact that some people smoke and don't get lung cancer in no way proves that cigarettes are safe.

 

I, on the other hand, am asking for research that proves ANY kid can only learn from spanking. Surely if it's so common, there would be one study that backs it up? However, there won't be such a study, because it's a conclusion that came from your imaginations.

[Bronzepen]

Originally posted by dyermaker

I'm sorry you don't understand how psychology works.

 

I am sorry you think research is absolute and final as proof.

 

Can you find data to "suggest" the opposite is possible? Your imagination is not an academic resource.

 

Don't need to. It's still possible. Can you deny it's not possible?

 

I'm not challenging parent's rights, I'm not sure where you're going with that.

 

Merely stating that parents can choose either to restrict or spank a child according to what they know is best.

 

Notice the difference between "Exercise in power" and "abuse of power"?

 

Exactly!

 

Spanking is an exercise in power. Restriction is an exercise in power.

 

When both become severities then it's abuse.

 

Restriction is a safe form of discipline.

 

Can you find any research that suggests it's not?

 

No, of course you can't.

 

Yes I have. We're going in circles.

 

Children who have control freaks as parents. Plenty of studies done on domineering parents.

 

You're talking in circles. You're just too embarrassed to admit that the only thing that supports your conclusion (Restriction is unsafe, Some children need spanking) is your own imagination.

 

 

It's not about support. It's about common sense. If it's possible that some children can have long term effects from spanking. Isn't it also possible that some children DON"T have long term effects from spanking??

 

Of course it is!

 

You haven't shown anything to prove your conclusion that providing consistent consequences and dishing them out consistently is how you discipline children.

 

You keep saying it's not possible for restriction to cause long term effects to children because there is no research on it. Why is it not possible?

 

Why is it so hard for you to admit that the research can be wrong? Remember research is not absolute.

 

 

No, that's not what it's "meaning" at all.

 

I'd like to spank your science teacher, if you've ever had one.

 

You don't say that the "opposite is possible", and leave it at that. You do research inductively, and if you conclude that it's a possiblity, so be it. Seeing as how there's no research that backs up your claims at all, you can't claim it's a viable outcome.

 

whut?

 

"...if you conclude that it's a possiblity, so be it." That's it?? So after all the $$$$$ spent on the research and studies, the end result is. "Well, we're not sure but this could be the reason." In other words, anything is possible.

 

That's why research is not taken too seriously and used only as guides.

 

Anyone remember lobotomies??

 

 

Once again, psychology doesn't work like that.

 

I have showed that spanking can have detrimental long-term effects to children, with research.

 

You have claimed the following:

 

1. Some children can only be disciplined with spanking.

 

2. Restriction is just as unsafe as spanking.

 

But you've offered ZERO research to support either of those claims. How on Earth are we supposed to take you seriously when the only resource you're relying on is collective imagination?

 

Isn't psychology a form of collective imagination?

 

You offered ZERO research (not that it's important) to support that Restriction is the ONLY form to disclipine a child.

 

 

 

This is the sum of my entire point:

 

1. Providing consistent consequences and dishing them out consistently is how you discipline children.

2. Spanking falls under that category, as do other alternatives such as restriction.

3. There is no data to suggest that some children can only learn from spanking.

4. There is data to suggest that children can be harmed, in the long-term, from spanking.

5. There is no data to suggest that children can be harmed, in the long-term, from restriction.

6. Parents should choose the course of action that is less likely to harm their child.

 

Hmm, you seem to have dropped the who violent act thing with spanking and now accept it as an alternative.

 

Finally we agree on something.

 

Number 1 Is entirely fabricated by you. There is no research or proof that restriction is the ONLY way to discipline children.

 

Number 2 Agree on that.

 

Disagree on 3 and 4. We've talked about that already.

 

Number 5, Neither is there any data to suggest that if a chicken crosses a busy highway it won't get run over. If we follow your train of thinking then it's OK for the chicken to cross the highway.

 

Number 6 I couldn't agree more.

 

That's pretty solid unless:

1. You can find data to support the claim that some children can only learn from spanking.

2. You can find data to suggest that restriction causes long-term detriments to children.

 

I'm pretty confident you cannot do either of those things.

 

See my whole point is, don't take research as absolute.

 

Maybe your right and maybe I'm right. We don't know but we accept every possibility.

 

Incorrect thing to say "This is the ONLY way to do this because of research provided."

 

The correct way to say it is "Based on research, this is one way to do it but I could be wrong."

[Beth]

I deleted over half of the posts at the end of this thread. The entire thread devolved into an argument between a few people and was neither productive nor engaging. I am closing the thread because there are a variety of opinions already stated and enough information available for any new readers to ponder and/or look up information themselves.

 

For any of you who had non-argumentative posts relating to the original post, I’m sorry that yours was deleted. However, it is very time consuming for moderators to go through a thread with over 220 posts and delete some and edit others. If this had been a relationship problem or a personal parenting question I would have gone post-by-post to ensure the greatest number of posts remained and edited out only what was against the guidelines, or referenced deleted posts. Since this was a general question I chose a point about half way through and cut the thread.