Is spanking wrong?

[mormont]

And I have, so our anecdotes cancel each other out.

All respect, but no, you haven't.

You may have seen situations where a smack was used, and it worked. You may have seen situations where other methods failed. But I guarantee you that someone, somewhere - likely even on this board - saw a similar situation with a similar child that was solved by another method.

The mere existence of a large number of parents that don't smack at all proves, to any reasonable level, that the idea that there are situations where literally no other solutions work is so unlikely as to be rationally untenable. The best you can suggest is that there are situations so extraordinarily rare that they haven't been experienced by any of the hundreds of millions of parents worldwide who don't smack: and in that case, those situations are so rare that the average parent who does smack will never encounter them either. They would have to be so incredibly rare that they are basically irrelevant to the whole discussion.

In all other situations, there is, somewhere, a parent who dealt with it without smacking. So these are not situations where a smack was literally the only solution.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So, yeah, anecdotally, spanking worked great for in that case. And it has continued to work ever sincee - without actually having to resort to using it.

I think in most cases when it is used effectively, it ends up being used rarely because the consequences of future misbehavior are stark. But it's got to be applied fairly in the sense that it is being applied for something the child itself will clearly understand, at some point, was wrong. Corporal punishment applied to a child who really hasn't done anything wrong, but the parent is just pissed, is very bad.

And I agree with everything that Glaurung says.

It's kind of a cliche, but I remember that my biggest concern if I got in trouble at school wasn't what the school would do to me, but what my dad would do. And yes, that was fear. But I behaved better as a result.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

All respect, but no, you haven't.

You may have seen situations where a smack was used, and it worked. You may have seen situations where other methods failed. But I guarantee you that someone, somewhere - likely even on this board - saw a similar situation with a similar child that was solved by another method.

The mere existence of a large number of parents that don't smack at all proves, to any reasonable level, that the idea that there are situations that literally no other solutions is so unlikely as to be rationally untenable. The best you can suggest is that there are situations so extraordinarily rare that they haven't been experienced by any of the hundreds of millions of parents worldwide who don't smack: and in that case, those situations are so rare that the average parent who does smack will never encounter them either. They would have to be so incredibly rare that they are basically irrelevant to the whole discussion.

In all other situations, there is, somewhere, a parent who dealt with it without smacking. So these are not situations where a smack was literally the only solution.

But aren't there tons of poorly-behaved kids, misbehaving kids, who may well grow up into punkish asults, who weren't spanked, and whose parents tried other methods of discipline?

The fact that some parents, in some environments, are able to raise a child without corporal punishment does not mean that every other parent has that same ability. You can flout educational superiority, moral superiority, intellectual superiority, or whatever else you want, but the fact remains that there are plenty of parents who have avoided corporal punishment and failed. Clearly, they're not doing it "right" (or perhaps the culture/environment are different) but parents are not perfect.

On the flip side, if some parents are able to use corporal punishment sparingly but effectively, without abusing their children, and raise well-adjusted, well-behaved kids, what exactly is the problem? There seems to be an assumption that there is something inherently superior to standing in the corner for 15 minutes versus a swat on the ass, but nobody has explained why a punishment of greater internsity but shorter duration is inherently worse -- or more "cruel" -- than a punishment of lower intensity but longer duration.

[The Progressive]

Spanking children is wrong for exactly the same reasons spanking adults is wrong. Think about the reasons why it would be wrong for your boss to spank you if you broke a rule at work. The exact same reasons apply when your kid breaks a rule at home.

(Am father of three, have never spanked.)

I think you make a great point here by comparing spanking your kids to being spanked by your boss at work. I agree that spanking anyone at work is a bad idea, so therefore companies/parents should only apply the 3 time-outs/write-up methods, and then if no improvement were made after the final warning, the obvious thing to do is fire the employee/kid and kick them out of the company/house.

[MisterOJ]

I think you make a great point here by comparing spanking your kids to being spanked by your boss at work. I agree that spanking anyone at work is a bad idea, so therefore companies/parents should only apply the 3 time-outs/write-up methods, and then if no improvement were made after the final warning, the obvious thing to do is fire the employee/kid and kick them out of the company/house.

Oh, for the "like" button...

Well done.

[Galactus]

But aren't there tons of poorly-behaved kids, misbehaving kids, who may well grow up into punkish asults, who weren't spanked, and whose parents tried other methods of discipline?

But they are just as likely (if not more so) to HAVE been spanked.

This is a loopsided debate really, you have to prove that corporeal punishment is actually effective, Mormont has no such burden. (since if the two methods are equally effective he wins by default)

On the flip side, if some parents are able to use corporal punishment sparingly but effectively, without abusing their children, and raise well-adjusted, well-behaved kids, what exactly is the problem? There seems to be an assumption that there is something inherently superior to standing in the corner for 15 minutes versus a swat on the ass, but nobody has explained why a punishment of greater internsity but shorter duration is inherently worse -- or more "cruel" -- than a punishment of lower intensity but longer duration.

Why is murder wrong? Why is torturing small animals wrong? Why is going up and punching your wife in the face wrong?

Physical violence is wrong, unless there is a sufficiently good reason for it to be used. (like self-defence, for instance) but you need to prove the need and efficacy of physical violence. Otherwise it's unjustified by default.

[MisterOJ]

Why is murder wrong? Why is torturing small animals wrong? Why is going up and punching your wife in the face wrong?

Physical violence is wrong, unless there is a sufficiently good reason for it to be used. (like self-defence, for instance) but you need to prove the need and efficacy of physical violence. Otherwise it's unjustified by default.

So in your mind, using a spanking as a last resort is not a sufficiently good reason?

[Galactus]

So you're making an argument that all physical violence is wrong - no matter what? Even if it serves a legitimate purpose?

No, I'm making the argument that if you're going to use physical violence the A) Objective for using it must be worth it. (Torturing a man to death to find your car keys is not OK) and B) it must be actually effective. (finding a nuclear bomb might warrant beating someone up, but randomly doing so is not an effective method, and thus not justified) If none of these can be demonstrated than physical violence is not OK by default.

Spanking has not been conclusively shown to be any more effective than not-spanking, thus it is obviously unjustifiable.

[IheartTesla]

Spanking probably does put the 'fear of god' in many children.

'Fear of god' is also one of the things organized religion do well that has made many of us leave it.

[mormont]

But aren't there tons of poorly-behaved kids, misbehaving kids, who may well grow up into punkish asults, who weren't spanked, and whose parents tried other methods of discipline?

And there are tons of poorly-behaved kids who were smacked and it did nothing or made them worse. So what?

If your argument is that not smacking under any circumstances is a bad parenting strategy, please show me some evidence.

The fact that some parents, in some environments, are able to raise a child without corporal punishment does not mean that every other parent has that same ability.

I truly think they do, actually. Again, there are countries and states that have removed this option for parents, and the evidence is that they cope just as well without it. Anecdotally, and not implying anything about any parent here that does smack, I would suggest that a lot of the families who you're suggesting might struggle without corporal punishment, probably use corporal punishment in a harmful and ineffective way when given the option: they're the ones who will tend to struggle whatever options are available. The answer is to help those parents, not let them smack.

[The Progressive]

I disagree mormont, I think the more appropriate way to help those families would be providing them with guidance when and how corporal punishment should be applied.

For example, never use your hand to smack a child, that is so barbaric. Use a wand or a small cane instead. Do not hit the child in the face or head or anywhere with sensitive bone structures; instead direct the force to areas of the body where it would leave a sharp stingy pain but will fade quickly such as their palms or buttocks. Apply the force evenly and never apply more force than you would normally swing a flyswatter. Also to remember to document each time corporal punishment was enforced and to remind the child calmly why they're being punished and what they did wrong; do not yell at them because this is a perfect opportunity to teach them what is right or wrong. Remember to remind them that further infractions will means increasing number of canings the next time.

The key here is to apply corporal punishment methodically and in a civilized manner, and to use it as a bonding experience.

[Alarich]

My grandmother smacked my sister because she was playing lion with her other sister and got a little bit to much into the whole "lion eats man" thing and bit my grandmother in the calf real hard and got an immediate smack for that (her protest "But I'm a little lion!" mollified my grandmother a bit). I wouldn't say that this kind of reaction is problematic.

Problematic is any kind of punishment - mental and corporal - that has no other purpose than showing who's stronger or to take "revenge".

I can't really imagine hitting my son in "cold blood", although he's not old enough to give any real trouble. However, I don't think that corporal punishment is inherently wrong. I find other forms of punishment ("psycho-punishment" as I like to call it) worse; for example confinement to the room for prolonged time (days, weeks), yelling at the kid or not speaking to the kid or threatening to give it away and other stuff can be just as damaging or even worse than corporal punishment.

I think people get a little to hung up on the "physical" aspect of corporal punishment while not recognizing that the damaging aspect is not the physical side of punishment but the psychological reaction of the child to the punishment. And that the damaging effect can just as easily be dealt out by other forms of punishment.

[~ZombieWife~]

Eesh, this debate. I've seen every incarnation under the sun. On one end of the spectrum:

That swat on the butt is ABUSE. CHILD-ABUSER. You are violently beating your child.

On the other end . . .

Well, I was spanked as a kid and look at me! I turned out just fine.

Most parents land somewhere in the middle, though (in my area/community) I estimate that folks are going to be more on the non-spanking side of things. The spare the rod/spoil the child mentality seems to be weeding itself out.

The sad thing is, these types of threads never turn out constructive in the end. There is no middle ground for conversation. There is no objective debate. It all comes down to judgment. YOU do THIS. YOU do THAT. US vs THEM. Period. No questions asked.

And baiting. "So, you abuse your child then? How nice. Tell me how you abuse your child. Let me define abuse for you. That's abuse. That's abuse." (point point to definition)

Regardless of what side you are on, this conversation always brings out the worst in people. It sure would be nice to see this topic go somewhere without people trying to get their personal jabs in and trying to "win at internet rhetoric."

The bottom line is, every child and parent dynamic is different. To suggest that there is one perfect, gold, kitten-filled way to raise every single child on the planet is insanity. Most parents are doing pretty dang good. All are making mistakes. All feel defeated and conquered by parenthood at one time or another. For me, the biggest motivation is being a role-model for my kid. How do I want THEM to behave in high-stress, physical situations. Do I want them to fly off the handle and start wailing on people? Or, do I want to model a more diplomatic way? (Knowing full well that there will be times when all of my bullshit theories and parenting skills will go straight the EFF out the window.)

[naz]

What I have the greatest issue with, though, is this notion that physical pain is some unimaginable evil that children need to be protected from at all cost.

I don't have a problem with children experiencing physical (or emotional) pain and I cringe when I see over-protective parents who worry over the slightest cut and fall and try to childproof their entire lives. I'm also ok with encouraging children toward martial arts and contact sports, where they can learn valuable lessons about defending one's self and others, enduring pain and recovery, competition, justice, fair play, and all of that. I don't, however, think that these lessons are very effective when they're administered at the hand of an angry adult parent or guardian. To me, the message conveyed is that an adult cannot moderate his/her anger and couples it with violence as a means of enforcing power and authority over a weaker and more ignorant adversary. This is not a lesson that I think a child should have to learn. Say what you will about choosing the right moment, or gauging the situation... what it comes down to is an adult coupling anger with violence on a weaker person, which to me is one of the most wrong of all the wrong things there are in this world.

Again, I don't advocate coddling or spoiling children. I advocate discipline through setting a good example, maintaining a sense of calm, and conditioning through positive and negative reinforcement. Take away something a child values greatly, for a significant length of time, and this is a more effective and longer-lasting way of teaching a lesson. Rewarding them equally for good behavior also works more effectively as a preventative measure. The problem parents have with this is that children respond to having something taken away with shouting and screaming, and thus spanking becomes a quick and easy solution to make the child simply shut up, which is what the parent wants at that moment. Forbearance and patience go a long way, in this case.

Re: anecdotal evidence. Yes, yes, we can all provide stories about how we did or did not experience corporal punishment, or we do or do not administer corporal punishment to our children, and we did or did not turn out ok. But to me, it's an ideological and epistemological problem: children should simply not be taught that violence in anger is a suitable way to assert authority and control.They just shouldn't. Because adults shouldn't either. Those of you who think they should - that violence in anger is appropriate even when one is an adult - well, I can't reconcile that thinking, and we'll forever be on a different page, and there's no point trying to convince you otherwise.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

But they are just as likely (if not more so) to HAVE been spanked.

Even if that is true, so what? That's correlation, not causation, and you're assuming that the parents who were ineffective when spanking their children would have been successful with something else. There's no evidence to support that because parents are not fungible. Saying "this worked for me, therefore it will work for everyone else" is something that hasn't been proven here. Nobody has even attempted to prove it.

This is a loopsided debate really, you have to prove that corporeal punishment is actually effective, Mormont has no such burden.

Eh? I"m not even sure what your point is here. I have to prove that corporal punishment is effective...in what sense? That it works in every case? That it works in some cases, or what? And Mormont has no burden to prove...what exactly? That non-corporal punishment is always effective? That it is effective sometimes, or what?

There are times when corporal punishment is effective, and times when it is not. There are times when non-corporal punishment is effective, and times when it is not. Do you dispute any of that? If not, I have no idea what you're talking about with respect to burden of proof.

I would add, again, that not every parent has equal ability/competency at disciplining their children. Some aren't as good verbally as others. Others don't have the time, or the ability to be perfectly consistent. The error in your whole argument is "it worked for me, it can work for everyone", which is completely unproven.

since if the two methods are equally effective he wins by default.

Again, that's just a subjective preference. Children can be emotionally abused just as easily as they can be physically abused, and it's probably a lot more common.

Anyway, as I see it, you have the much higher burden. You're the one making the absolute statement -- that corporal punishment is always wrong, and should never be done. That means you have the same problem as everyone else making absolute statements -- your thesis can be disproven anectodally. If someone has tried non-corporal punishment, failed, and then used corporal punishment to succeed, you lose. In those cases, most parents have tried everything else in their particular arsenal and failed before using corporal punishment. So the choice for them is either 1) corporal punishment, or 2) ineffective discipline, kids misbehaving and even engaging in activities dangerous to themselves, etc.. Your thesis says that 2) is better than 1), which is clearly not objectively true.

Why is murder wrong? Why is torturing small animals wrong? Why is going up and punching your wife in the face wrong?

Physical violence is wrong, unless there is a sufficiently good reason for it to be used (like self-defence, for instance) but you need to prove the need and efficacy of physical violence.

This is a completely circular argument. Physical incarceration, sensory deprivation, and isolation are wrong as well, aren't they? Locking someone up in jail is wrong, putting someone in solitary confinement is wrong. Forcing some kid to stand in a corner for 15 minutes (or however long) is wrong, unlesss there is a sufficiently good reason to do it. You don't need to do that either, because there are other punishments you can impose, including corporal punishment.

As I've said, there are people here who have said that their parents imposed corporal punishment on them, it incentived them to obeying their parents and doing the right thing, and that it did not damage them. You have yet to explain why there is something wrong with that, other than the ipse dixit of "it's wrong". And whatever you may think, that is not self-evidently true.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

No, I'm making the argument that if you're going to use physical violence the A) Objective for using it must be worth it. (Torturing a man to death to find your car keys is not OK) and B) it must be actually effective. (finding a nuclear bomb might warrant beating someone up, but randomly doing so is not an effective method, and thus not justified) If none of these can be demonstrated than physical violence is not OK by default.

Spanking has not been conclusively shown to be any more effective than not-spanking, thus it is obviously unjustifiable.

You moved the goalposts within that post. You first said spanking must be "effective", but then said it must be "more effective" than non-spanking. Those are two different standards. I agree with the first, but I think it is so obviously true that spanking is sometimes effective that it's not really worth arguing.

I've stated already the problems with the second standard. Namely, 1) that every parent, every child, every circumstance, and every environment are different, and 2) that there isn't any evidence that physical spanking is always more damaging than non-physical punishment.

[Lady Winter Rose]

My Grandma babysits a little girl that I often find myself having to watch over. She's a relatively disobedient little girl, being 5 and all. Usually, making her stand in a corner for 10 minutes is sufficient punishment. She's way too young for a belt or a switch, but sometimes, the only way she ever understands not to do something is if my Grandma smacks her on the butt two or three times. I have had to warn my Grandma though because she always had a hard time distinguishing between little kids just playing and little kids doing wrong, because she is kind of impatient and want peace 24/7.

That, citing religious doctrine, and talking back are not something I would even complain, let alone spank child. WHAT FUCKI.. BELT are you talking?

[Lady Winter Rose]

You moved the goalposts within that post. You first said spanking must be "effective", but then said it must be "more effective" than non-spanking. Those are two different standards. I agree with the first, but I think it is so obviously true that spanking is sometimes effective that it's not really worth arguing.

I've stated already the problems with the second standard. Namely, 1) that every parent, every child, every circumstance, and every environment are different, and 2) that there isn't any evidence that physical spanking is always more damaging than non-physical punishment.

Spanking is quick, easy, and short-lasting solution.

[Galactus]

I agree with the first, but I think it is so obviously true that spanking is sometimes effective that it's not really worth arguing.

Effective in what sense?

I've stated already the problems with the second standard. Namely, 1) that every parent, every child, every circumstance, and every environment are different, and 2) that there isn't any evidence that physical spanking is always more damaging than non-physical punishment.

I should probably note that I've never endorsed every kind of non-violent punishment.

My objection is simple: If two methods are equally effective why would you choose the one that inflicts pain? So corporeal punishment would have to be more effective in order to justify their use.

[MisterOJ]

Spanking is quick, easy, and short-lasting solution.

Nope. Not in every case. I haven't spanked my daughter in two years. And yet, if she's doing something she should be "like arguing with her sister" and I tell her to stop she may or may not do what I tell her. If she continues and I remind her that I am not afraid to spank her if she doesn't do what I tell her, that always ends the bad behavior right there.