But you did say that it too often leads to physical abuse.
I don't need to re-post my objection.
When are parents justified in hitting children?
- Thread starter Satya
- Start date
But you did say that it too often leads to physical abuse.
I don't need to re-post my objection.
Since you seem to need clarification, let me restate it another way.
I think people who use spanking are ignorant, not abusive.
It's fairly ineffective, potentially traumatizing, and potentially can lead to physical abuse due to conditioning the parent. There are cases where spanking can be used effectively and justifiably with children under 8. That is when the child is endangering themselves or others, and only when the parent does it calmly, not as just an emotive reaction to the child's actions.
Trying to use an act of physical force to shape "pro social' behavior is ridiculous.
Having been spanked; and having had friends who were spanked - I cannot accept the assertion that it is ineffective. Experientially it is.
Spanking is not about physical force. Violence is about physical force. Physically forcing someone to be quiet would involve holding a hand over their mouth.
Spanking is about value reinforcement (re-inforce-ment) - reinforcing the mentum/mind/judgement - and employs unpleasant mild physical stimuli.
Age of Spanking
In young children spanking is necessary because communication is not adequate and helps them learn about dangers.
In children up until the teenager years spanking curbs anti-social rejection of communication and rejection of the parent's authority - it helps them to learn to balance their ego/pride with the reality of social life.
Beyond about 14yrs I think spanking should only ever be used when a teen insists on acting like an irrational child - ie when communication is rejected in favour of tantrums. This is very rare in children who have been disciplined and it is more the embarrassment of being spanked than the spanking itself which opens the teen's eyes to the reality of their behaviour.
I was spanked once after I was 14 - and I am still in awe of how childish I was behaving at the time.
If you wish to present any study which demonstrates that spanking is effective for children over the age of 8, then I welcome you to do so. You know that I don't give a crap about personal experience.
Spanking is taking the hand and physically striking the bottom of a child. That is an act of physical force. No matter how much you want to make it into some sort of abstract argument, that is what it is and that is how a child will understand it. You can justify it for yourself however you want, it doesn't change what it is.
This is ridiculous. Using an act of physical force at this age only teaches a child that physical force is appropriate for getting what you want. If a parent has to stoop to using physical force on a child who is capable of reasoning, then the parent hasn't been doing a very good job of parenting.
Yes, humiliating a child is certainly what a reasonable adult would do. I can't believe that you think this is a legitimate way to treat a teenager.
Nothing you have said here has changed my impression that people who use spanking to socialize their children are ignorant. You raise your children the way you want to and I'll raise mine the way I want to and we can see how they turn out. I'm pretty sure I don't have to needlessly use physical force and humiliation to end up with great kids.
This. /\ /\
It seems like corporal punishment is one of those topics that usually downward spirals into all or nothing; neither of which do I agree with. It is nice to see that this thread is touching on balance. I do not believe in sparing the rod, but very rarely have I ever used it. It accomplished what it was meant to accomplish.
I see a lot of spoiled children everywhere I go. A lot of them. Seeing parents who try to reason with a mouthy brat that is playing them to the umpteenth degree makes me feel physically ill. I think to myself "let me have little Johnny for a day and see if he ever starts screeming and crawling all over the floor because you didn't buy him another $80 toy ever again." My kids do not do that, and they know it won't be tolerated for one single second. But I can count on one hand, the number of times corporal punishment was ever used.
I respectfully disagree. I'm not saying that would never be the takeaway that a child gets from it; but it is hardly the only takeaway, nor would I think it is the most significant one that is reinforced in their mind. Lots of spanked children do not become violent adults.
Not physical force and humiliation - but discipline. It is impossible to physically force someone to speak to their mother or father respectfully, unless you somehow open and close their mouth for them in a kind of lip-synch bizare activity.
Discipline re-establishes a right order in any society. In the family, it mildly punishes children who fail to relate to their parents in a fitting manner. To think that order can be maintained without some form of punishment reserved for unacceptable behaviour is beyond fantasy.
It is also mere assertion to say that verbal, psychological, or social punishments/exclusion are healthier or more effective (effectiveness is a bad utiliterian term anyhow) than a quick spank, which everyone can get over and forget in minutes.
True. But most adults who were spanked grow up to be adults who spank their own children. It's a cycle of violence in its own respect.
Do you honestly think that spanking is the only form of punishment that is effective in disciplining children?
You are here preaching how you remember getting spanked when you were 14, and you are telling me that children just "forget". Furthermore, I know for a fact based on evidence that non physical forms of discipline can be used more effectively than spanking. You forget what line of work I am in.
Yeah, probably if by most you mean a majority which means any number greater than 50.1%. For this topic to really get any traction, it seems like spanking needs to be operationally defined. One person's definition of it could qualify as another person's defininition of torture. Another person's definition of it may pale in comparison. So without really defining spanking or categorizing it by type or severity, the term "cycle of violence" is pretty hard to quantify.
Are you serious?
violence: the expression of physical or verbal force against self or other, compelling action against one's will on pain of being hurt.
spanking: a form of corporal punishment commonly used to discipline a child.
corporal punishment: the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offense, or for the purpose of disciplining or reforming a wrongdoer, or to deter attitudes or behavior deemed unacceptable.
Yes I am serious. Your definitions are vague and broad. My grandfathers' definition of spanking my mother when she was young was holding her aganist a wall by her neck so that her feet dangled off the floor while he smacked her face back and forth repeatedly. My fathers definition of it was a not so gentle prod or tap, not so painful that the pain lasted more than a second or two, but definitely enough to get my attention.
By your definitions, both would be treated equally. My mother was treated violently. I was not.
Also, my mother is the exception to your statistics. She vowed never to spank her children because of what was done to her, and kept that promise.
I believe that spanking can be beneficial, provided it is used for the right circumstances and a appropriate amount of force is used. But these things can also depend on the child, some children do not need to be spanked to stop them from doing what ever wrong thing they have done. However, there are also some children who will respond to nothing other than spanking. That was the case for me when I was still a child.
Read again. By those definitions, both of those acts were acts of violence.
You should probably tell FA how undisciplined you are as a result.
Is it possible that this is because they have a genetic predisposition toward being accepting behavior modification in the form of spanking than other forms? Perhaps children who learn best by certain methods become adults who have children who share their preferences?
Agreed. The issue with spanking is whether or not the parent is using it as a tool to correct and modify their child's behavior, or if they're just pissed off and taking it out on the kid.
I rarely needed spanked as a child to change my behavior, and spankings never changed my behaviors. I modified best from rational explanation of how my behaviors affected others, or bring about negative consequences. My brothers on the other hand responded to nothing but physical discipline, and could not be talked into anything. Interestingly enough, I take after my father in this regard, and my brothers took after their mother.
I don't feel I was treated in a violent way. But even if I did for the sake of argument, your definition would not only say they were both violent acts, but that there was no distinction between them. That is why it is too broad. When the concept is only broadly defined, there will not be common ground among the people discussing the issue except among those who already competely agree.