Is spanking wrong?

[Mya Stone]

And should parents not be allowed to take away a kid's toys? If someone takes away my toys, it's generally classified as a crime.

The "if it's not acceptable for adults, then it's not acceptable for kids" argument is patently absurd.

Holy shit. Tempra, mark this day down...I actually agree with you.

I'm sure tomorrow we'll be back to the status quo.

[Tempra]

Holy shit. Tempra, mark this day down...I actually agree with you.

I'm sure tomorrow we'll be back to the status quo.

*hums Amazing Grace*

:)

[Galactus]

And should parents not be allowed to take away a kid's toys? If someone takes away my toys, it's generally classified as a crime.

Children don't their own property. (and even if they do, parents have the legal right to dispose of it, under most circumstances)

[Earth 1 Andrew]

Not giving children proper discipline is wrong, spanking is more of a pride thing than a hurtful thing.

[Tempra]

Children don't their own property. (and even if they do, parents have the legal right to dispose of it, under most circumstances)

And ...?

Spanking is generally allowed in my country and most countries around the world. Thus, while I cannot legally hit another human that isn't my kin (barring self-defense or consent), I could spank my child if I so choose.

[Isalie]

Obviously it makes me the scum of the earth, but I love these threads, as a matter of fact, bring on the circumcision and religion threads as well!

Ps, I've dealt with the insane tantrums and the destruction for attention without ever spanking and eventually both issues were overcome.

[Lady Olenna]

Ah... yeah.

You know what would be humiliating and demeaning to me? Having to go in the women's restroom with my wife because I'm not coordinated enough to wipe my own ass.

So you saying I should not have done that for my daughters when they were like 2-3 years old?

:lmao:

I'm currently going through this with my son. I can't wait til he can really wipe his own butt :lol:

Edited cause I forgot the T in butt :P

[MisterOJ]

:lmao:

I'm currently going through this with my son. I can't wait til he can really wipe his own but :lol:

Do you take him into the women's room with you so that you can wipe his ass?

Well, if so STOP IT RIGHT NOW.

Do you know how demeaning that must be for him.

Damn, you are such a bad parent.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Reading this thread is making me a little bit depressed, both because we have had this exact discussion before, and because at the end of the day, it's just another entry in the parenting wars. I'm with ZombieWife here. I feel that reduced to its essence, the debate becomes something along the lines of "if you think that spanking is in the toolkit under any circumstances you have bad (or at least "not good enough") parenting skills" with the responses running to "nope, I'm a good parent and you don't know my circumstances." To be clear, I've never spanked my kids (though I did once dump water on a hysterical child who was hyperventilating - totally worked too). I was spanked precisely once as a child, when I ran out into the street into oncoming traffic after an icecream truck. My mother says she didn't even think it happened so fast - she grabbed me and popped me one on my behind. I don't think that makes her a bad parent. I don't think she should feel guilty about or second guess that reaction in the least. Most of the stories here on both sides of the "debate" such as it is, sound like they are coming from parents who are trying to be the best parents they can possibly be. I'm not seeing a lot of endorsement for wholesale physical abuse. And I understand where the anti-spankers are coming from; again, it's not a technique I have ever used. And I understand the vehemence that the positions are being held to - parenting is very, very personal. It's not my personal parenting hobbyhorse, but when I'm up on my horse, there's very little that will talk me down because I'm convinced that I am correct, reasonable and there is no true way other than mine (mine is vaccinations - I told colleagues (that I found out after I opened my big mouth are anti-vaxxers) that I thought failure to vaccinate should be a criminal offense unless there's a legitimate medical reason not to vaccinate (like immune deficiency)).

[Galactus]

And ...?

Spanking is generally allowed in my country and most countries around the world. Thus, while I cannot legally hit another human that isn't my kin (barring self-defense or consent), I could spank my child if I so choose.

And Saudi-Arabia allows witch-trials and stoning for adultery. Your point?

[Ser Greguh]

Spanking (and other forms of corporeal punishment) as a normal means of discipline is a horrible idea, reinforcing terrible notions of authority. It teaches children that the only reason they have to do what you say is because you can beat the shit out of them.

There are multiple problems that result from this, of course. First off, there comes a time when the child is grown enough that they can fight back, at which point, what's your fallback plan? Do you honestly think you're going to be able to keep your sixteen year old in line by spanking him or her? Second, there are studies that have shown that kids who are subjected to corporeal punishment show significant increases in their own aggression; to wit, spanking children is a big part of what makes a kid into a bully (and no wonder; they're just transferring what you're teaching them about physical authority to their own relationships with their peers).

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Um, I asked for some evidence that not smacking is a bad parenting strategy. You say 'sure', as if you are going to present some, and then... you don't. Instead you start talking about a situation where a parent tried some other strategies and finally resorted to a smack, and it worked. That is not in any way, shape or form evidence that not smacking is a bad parenting strategy.

Sure it is. You have offered a blanket rule, a flat out prohibition that smacking is always, always wrong. I gave you a factual situation where it was the only option left, other than letting the behavior continue. And in such circumstances, it would be bad parenting to let the behavior continue.

Do you think spanking is the first resort of every parent who does it? Do you think most of them don't try other things first to avoid it? It's really kind of odd -- you're taking the fact that not spanking works for some kids, and assuming that must be true for all kids, in all situations. But if that were true, all non-spanking kids would be perfectly behaved, and they're not.

(Maybe, maybe, you might have a point if it was at all realistic to believe that Mr OJ had literally tried every single other strategy. But, with absolutely no criticism of him intended, that is so unlikely as to be pure fantasy. There are dozens of other options in hundreds of variations.

You don't think they tried every other reasonable strategy they could think of? Sure, maybe some Ph.D. in child psychology might have done better, but most people aren't that. They just do the best they can. And let me see, dozens of options in hundreds of variations means thousands of different things they could have done, and insist that assuming they even knew all those options, they try every tiny permutation of every one. During which, of course, the child's misbehavior goes on and on and on -- before trying something truly different? One smack -- one -- worked immediately, when nothing else did.

I'd suggest that a kid who misbehaves that badly, and is essentially defying their parents's verbal entreaties over an extended period of time, is actually learning something bad. They are also disrupting the lives of the other people, including other children, around them. And apparently not suffering for it. Ending all that with one smack seems like a very good trade-off to me.

And we know that whatever other strategies he tried, he did not persist with them beyond a certain point, so there is by definition always one strategy he didn't try - ie persisting with alternative approaches beyond that point.)

Okay, so even if they do try everything, they have to keep repeating the same failed things over and over in case they might, after all that repetition, eventually sink in. Which they may or may not do. Yet, we know that the very first time they tried physical punishment, it succeeded.

Well, that was my point, yes. The absolute statement here is that there are situations where no other strategy works - only smacking works. That statement is clearly not true.

What I have said is that everything those parents could reasonably think of failed. All parents are different, and having different circumstances and parenting skills. If those parents can think of nothing else reasonably calculated to work, then whether there may be some other strategy of which they are aware that might work is irrelevant. Perhaps they tried the right strategies but implemented them poorly, and they didn't work. That too is irrelevant. Because there is a very real cost to letting misbehavior go on, and on, and on, while the parents continue what may be -- for them -- a fruitless effort to find something non-physical that works.

Now, people may want to argue that there are occasions on which smacking is merited, or the right strategy, or more effective than alternatives, or whatever. I disagree with those ideas, but that's not the point. The point is that claiming that there are times when there is literally no other option is just not true. There is always another option. Always.

Sure, you could paint your ass green and jam a carrot in your ear. Maybe that will work. The relevant real world issue is what the parents see, at the time, as the likelihood of success of the remaining alternatives. Meanwhile, the kid has just hit her little brother in the head with a book. Time to get that green paint and carrot ready....

If you smack, you should not fool yourself that there are 'no alternatives'. You are making a choice. You are taking a decision to smack. You don't have to do it. You choose to. I'm not saying that's automatically wrong....

Yes, that is exactly what you are saying.

It is. But in general, I think it's true to say that good parents don't have to rely on smacking, and bad parents use it badly. There may be people who can only parent well by using corporal punishment on occasion, but I am willing to bet they're vastly outnumbered by people who could learn to parent better without it. I count myself amongst the latter.

Good parents will very rarely rely on spanking as a common means of punishment. As to whether people "could learn to parent better", I assume you mean "could learn to discipline exclusively by non-physical punishment." I don't think that's necessarily better, though. If the physical punishment gets quicker results, has a more lasting impact, and doesn't need to be repeated often, I'd say that's probably better. As I said, I think there is plenty of opportunity for mental/emotional abuse from non-physical punisment.

And with respect, you were wrong, and I alluded to why above - because of the claim you're making. You're not saying that this was a situation where smacking worked, or where smacking was the best option: you're saying that it was a case where literally no other option would have worked.

This is semantics. It's where the parents saw no other option reasonably likely to bring about the desire result. Whether some child psychologist in Sveden thought that painting your ass green might have worked isn't relevant.

See, you think that if it takes hundreds of attempts to correct behavior with non-physical punishment, during which the bad behavior continues (and realizing that you may never stumble upon the right measure), that is preferable to one spanking early on that corrects the behavior and does not need to be repeated. I don't.

That's an extreme claim. It says to parents who've experienced the same situation....but dealt with it without a smack: "you failed to deal with this." Either that, or you're claiming the situation was not the same, that your situation was so unique it can't be compared to theirs. Are you claiming that your situation was so unique that literally no non-smacking parent on the planet has ever faced it and dealt with it?

Yes. Every child is diferrent, with a different personality. Every child has different experiences growing up, has an environment that may be signiifcantly different from others, and each parent is different as well. These are human beings, not tics on a survey.

That a smack was in this case a successful tactic does not show that no other tactic could have worked. That other tactics were tried and failed doesn't show that either. If you want to say 'this is an example of how smacking can work', I'd say 'sure'. If you want to claim it as an example of a situation where there was literally no other option? Sorry, no.

There is no evidence that any other tactic would have worked, and certainly no evidence that any other tactic would have worked as quickly and effectively. Your whole argument here is based on the absolute that any physical punishment, even if effective and limited, is worse than repeated, extended efforts to find some non-physical punishment that may work at some later point. Such an outlook completely ignores the importance of correcting bad behavior quickly, and assumes that any physical punishment is inherently more damaging to the child then 1) the child continuing to defy its parents and behaving badly, and 2) whatever non-physical punishment eventually works.

This really kind of amazes me. Months or even years of time outs, removal of privileges, lectures that go in one ear and out the other, are all better than one swat on the ass that gets the message across, and forestalls what might be years of battling.

I don't get it.

ETA: One point that should not be overlooked is that there are a great many kids, young adults, adults, etc. who 1) were not physically disciplined, and 2) ended up with significant behavior problems, a lack of respect of authority manifesting in criminal acts, etc.. Unless we assume that every single one of their parents just didn't try to do their best, the conclusion has to be that non-physical punishment did not work in those situations despite their parents' best efforts.

The point is that such problems will not inevitably be solved through the application of non-physical discipline. And in some of those cases, is it possible that physical punishment may have worked, if it would have been tried?

[Lady Olenna]

Do you take him into the women's room with you so that you can wipe his ass?

Well, if so STOP IT RIGHT NOW.

Do you know how demeaning that must be for him.

Damn, you are such a bad parent.

You know what's goofy? He will go in to a public restroom if there is a urinal but otherwise he refuses, so no, I don't take him into the women's room often. So I'm only a half bad parent cause my kid has some love for urinals. That's how the logic works?

But yah, kids need boundaries and limits that will work for them. They also need routine and consistency. Usually if you have all these things discipline is not needed as frequently, but as I said before all kids are different.

Perfect example: this morning my husband wasn't ready to go until almost noon. I am normally out of the house with our son by 9 or 10 am. So my son starts acting wild and crazy because I usually get his "wiggles" out early on. Husband yells at son. It's not my son's fault. Am I going to discipline my son for acting out his frustration? Nope. We went on a short walk with the dog and family while husband got ready. Son was fine after that. Do you think husband learned anything from that? Nope. Do I wish I could smack my husband around for awhile? Yep.

[Tempra]

And Saudi-Arabia allows witch-trials and stoning for adultery. Your point?

You've now compared spanking to rape, murder, and stoning women for the crime of adultery. Are there any other horrific practices you would like to compare with spanking? You're morally superior to us. We get it.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Spanking (and other forms of corporeal punishment) as a normal means of discipline is a horrible idea, reinforcing terrible notions of authority. It teaches children that the only reason they have to do what you say is because you can beat the shit out of them.

No, that's one reason they have to do it, even if they find all the others unconvincing at that moment, which they very well may if they are emotionally upset. But it's an important one.

There are multiple problems that result from this, of course. First off, there comes a time when the child is grown enough that they can fight back, at which point, what's your fallback plan?

You have completely missed the point and are attacking a strawman. Those of us who have mentioned either using corporal punishment, or having been subjected to it ourselves, are endorsing it as a limited tool that when used effectively, is used rarely, and generally to help establish the parent's authority when the child is younger. By the time the kid is 16, they will have had years of seeing the parent as the authority figure, and spanking is very rare once a kid even hits the teen years. After that point, spanking likely wouldn't help anyway.

If you've got parents who are physcially punishing their children frequently, and into their teens, then yes, that's a fucked-up situation that likely will make that kid more of a candidate to be an abuser himself/herself.

[Sci-2]

And ...?

Spanking is generally allowed in my country and most countries around the world. Thus, while I cannot legally hit another human that isn't my kin (barring self-defense or consent), I could spank my child if I so choose.

Heh, this thread is tarnishing my liberal cred....as sometimes I think we should bring corporal punishment back into schools.

:leaving:

[Ser Greguh]

You have completely missed the point and are attacking a strawman. Those of us who have mentioned either using corporal punishment, or having been subjected to it ourselves, are endorsing it as a limited tool that when used effectively, is used rarely, and generally to help establish the parent's authority when the child is younger. By the time the kid is 16, they will have had years of seeing the parent as the authority figure, and spanking is very rare once a kid even hits the teen years. After that point, spanking likely wouldn't help anyway.

I do have sympathy for parents who find that corporeal punishment is literally the only thing that works, but I also think that that's extraordinarily rare and almost always the result of previous parenting fuck-ups. In my experience the vast majority of people who beat their children do so for reasons that don't even begin to meet this criteria, and just use the "...but nothing else works!" line because it's easy and helps to assuage them of guilt, both in their own eyes and in that of their peers. Most parents spank because they're fucking lazy and/or incompetent, and most who resort to it as a means to punish minor misbehavior are digging themselves into a corner, since once you've crossed those streams, the kid's now going to think that any misbehavior that didn't warrant a spanking must not have been that bad. Unruly children are not just born (though some children are no doubt just straight-up born unruly), they're also made.

Spanking also reinforces a paradigm of discipline-free teenage years, since most parents don't continue beating their children past the point where they're old enough to fight back, and thus, like I said, don't have a fallback plan. Yes, the kid will have had years of reinforcement that the parents are in charge, but they've also had years of reinforcement that the parents were only in charge because of their ability to dominate a physical confrontation. Their mentality is that they're finally free of that, and in the years where they are most in need of guidance (because they're old enough to get into actual trouble), find it lacking.

If you've got parents who are physcially punishing their children frequently, and into their teens, then yes, that's a fucked-up situation that likely will make that kid more of a candidate to be an abuser himself/herself.

My point is that this is all too often the societal norm, blanketed under feeble protestations of special-snowflakehood.

[Lupigis]

Ah... yeah.

You know what would be humiliating and demeaning to me? Having to go in the women's restroom with my wife because I'm not coordinated enough to wipe my own ass.

So you saying I should not have done that for my daughters when they were like 2-3 years old?

Do you really mean that? Because as far as I'm concerned, the day I can't wipe my ass myself (because of old age or disease), I'm perfectly fine with letting someone else wipe it. There was nothing wrong with me cleaning up my kids when they were unable to do it, and there won't be anything wrong with someone cleaning my up when I can't do it anymore. I don't see your point here.

[The Progressive]

Heh, this thread is tarnishing my liberal cred....as sometimes I think we should bring corporal punishment back into schools.

:leaving:

It's actually not a bad idea at all. I also think that it's quite in alignment with the progressive agenda of giving teachers more free reins over their classroom and teaching methodologies.

It's sad to see teachers being so respected in many Asian countries (largely because they are capable of handing out corporal punishment), as opposed to the frustration and disrespect they get here from a few disruptive students which inevitably ruined the learning environment for all other students.

[Lupigis]

And should parents not be allowed to take away a kid's toys? If someone takes away my toys, it's generally classified as a crime.

The "if it's not acceptable for adults, then it's not acceptable for kids" argument is patently absurd.

Just to reiterate, I never made that argument.

I'm making the "physical punishment is so very demeaning and humiliating that it should not be used, and this is easy to see if you think about how it would feel if it was done to you" argument.