If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Old & busted: No spanking your children. New hotness: No yelling at your children. Coming soon: Why does mommy have a drinking problem?   (nytimes.com) divider line 447
    More: Obvious, drinking problem, parenting skills, aggressive behaviour, JACKIE KLEIN, Duke University, shouting, pop culture, Cub Scouts  
•       •       •

12649 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Oct 2009 at 3:51 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



447 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-10-22 06:20:45 PM
Hebalo: I've never needed to hit another person in the 38 years I've been alive. My son is learning about violence, in the sense that it's not an acceptable solution to a problem.

I guess your son is real lucky that there's lots of people, like police and military forces, who'll do violence in his name so he doesn't have to get his precious hands dirty.

Pacifism in a culture enforced through violence is an absolutely ridiculous ethos.

Feel free to ignore this if you actually practice full on pacifism, which would include never allowing anyone, including police, to engage in anything violent on your behalf, for any reason, ever, including to save your life. If you don't take it this far, however, then you're simply a hypocrite.
 
2009-10-22 06:23:30 PM
Thorak: Pacifism in a culture enforced through violence is an absolutely ridiculous ethos.

Feel free to ignore this if you actually practice full on pacifism, which would include never allowing anyone, including police, to engage in anything violent on your behalf, for any reason, ever, including to save your life. If you don't take it this far, however, then you're simply a hypocrite.


I know, I know. I suck, with my not hitting kids and trying to teach them that hitting, shooting, killing other people is not right.

Maybe it's because I'm Canadian, or maybe it's because my dad didn't beat me enough when I was a kid.
 
2009-10-22 06:23:43 PM
Children do not belong to their parents, they are an asset of the State. Parents are obsolete, it takes a village to raise a child.
 
2009-10-22 06:24:12 PM
dragonchild: morgantx: I don't plan on continuing to spank in 7-8 years. As children age, physical punishment becomes less "meaningful" to them and should be replaced with consequences that ARE meaningful to them.

That's not the issue; it's that this is all about "consequences" = "discipline". As you say, kids are smart. They will remember if you were ever a hypocrite, a liar, or merely abused your authority to get them to behave (treating them like nuisances). Even if you believe you were fair, if an incident goes unexplained and you've run the house with such an iron fist that any "defiance" or "disrespect" gets them more punishment, they will learn to bury the resentment where it will fester for years. I'm still bitter about disagreements my parents ended simply by asserting authority in middle school. When kids realize something's not fair, they won't forget it. You will become "the enemy" and they will wait for their chance for what they think will be salvation: namely, during adolescence when they stop listening to you and look up to all the wrong people who will accurately describe you as a parent that does nothing but shout orders. That's the impression I'm getting, but I hope that's not the case.


That's not the case. The older they get, the more explanation they receive. That said, I think a lot of parents make the mistake of trying to "explain" everything to a young child who's incapable of understanding. A 3-year-old gets a swat on the hand and a "NO! No hitting the kitty! Pet gently!" A 5-year-old gets, "NO! We do NOT hit the kitty! It hurts her! We pet the kitty gently, like this..." A 7-year-old gets a 10-minute lecture on how to pet the kitty nicely. A 9-year-old gets a 10-minute lecture and then has to write a letter to the kitty apologizing for being mean. An 11-year-old has to volunteer at the SPCA a few afternoons caring for animals. (Of course, none of my children were ever rough with the kitty after about 4, but you get the message.) You can't give a 4-year-old the same "talk" that you give to a 12-year-old--the 4YO won't understand it or have the attention span to follow you.

We also teach our children, "Convince me." For example, if my 8-yaer-old asks me for an extra cookie for dessert and I don't REALLY think he should have it but I don't have really strong feelings about it, I'll say, "Convince me." He will then have to explain to me why I should give him the cookie in a calm and rational manner (as much as is possible at his age). In that way, he learns to argue effectively and calmly, and he learns that by making a strong and logical point, he can be rewarded.

Finally, I don't believe in "because I said so." With my oldest (a sixth-grader), I explain every decision to her when she asks me politely and respectfully to explain. She doesn't always agree with my decision, but she always knows WHY I decide in a certain manner. Once a month, we do our "Family Meeting", and usually September's family meeting involves reviewing the house rules and making adjustments as needed. This year, we had a couple of new things we wanted to add. We presented the concerns to the children and asked them, "How do we want to discuss these new policies? Do you want us to just let you know what we decide, or do we want to schedule another meeting to discuss them?" All of our children told us to go ahead and decide them ourselves. My oldest said, "We trust you guys to make the rules. We know you're not going to make up a bunch of rules just to be difficult."

Yes, we can be very strict in our discipline at times, but we are never arbitrary.
 
2009-10-22 06:25:26 PM
5 and a 3 year old.

A flick of the hand works as good as a spanking if you catch them doing something.

Haven't had to flick a hand in 1.5 years for the 5 year old and about 6 months for the 3 year old.

Started right away for the 5 year old. We never child-proofed any doors or cupboards. When she was 6 months old and she put her hand on a cupboard she didn't belong in, we flicked her hand with our thumb and finger then said NO in a firm voice. She cried for 15 secondsish and then we picked her up and consoled her. It happened twice. She never did it again. EVER.

Timeouts work too usually. Spanked the 5 yeard old 3 times. The 3 once, I think.

Consequences. I teach my kids consequences. Because when they are teenagers and don't do what I say just because I tell them to, they BETTER understand everything they do has consequences for themselves and others.

/Some parents talk about their kids running them ragged. I am a grown ass man. I run my children and my wife runs me.
//That's the way America is supposed to work damnit.
///I have been a pain in the ass for 30 years, I have LOTS more experience at it then my kids will EVER have.
 
2009-10-22 06:25:27 PM
Hebalo: Nope, that's not all it teaches him. It also teaches him that it's okay to hit and be hit. It teaches him that someone who loves him also takes their hand to him. It teaches him that maybe one day, when his girlfriend or wife isn't listening, or pissing him off, that maybe, just maybe, it's okay to hit them too. It teaches him that if you're bigger and stronger, you can get what you want.

I've had several girlfriends who quite enjoyed their spankings, thank you very much.

About the rest, you're just flat-out wrong. If I'm bigger and stronger, can I make people go on time-out, too? No? Because that's exactly the same argument, and it's ridiculous.

jst3p: Yeah, I am sure that when he gets a spanking he thinks "gee, Dad was able to achieve positive results by spanking me. That is so great!"

There is a disconnect between your actions and what you profess your kid gets out of it.


When he gets spanked? Sure, he's not thinking that on a conscious level.

But it's definitely what I got out of the few spankings I earned as a child. And I've been surprisingly nonviolent as an adult for someone who was apparently beaten as a child and raised to be a vicious monster.

Or maybe your entire theory is a crock based on books written by "experts" who get their books talked about on Oprah.
 
2009-10-22 06:25:32 PM
jst3p: Thorak: jst3p: I found that interesting too. "I am going to teach him to stand up to bullies by beating him when he is too small to fight back!"

Spanking =/= beating.

And all spanking will do, with regards to this ridiculous argument, is educate him that physical force can achieve positive results. Which it can.

Yeah, I am sure that when he gets a spanking he thinks "gee, Dad was able to achieve positive results by spanking me. That is so great!"


There is a disconnect between your actions and what you profess your kid gets out of it.


Children who are spanked are also more likely than children who aren't spanked to experience adult depression, even if you think it's acceptable to teach them that physical violence is a value. You're increasing your child's susceptibility to a debilitating, life-threatening mental illness by spanking him.
 
2009-10-22 06:27:27 PM
I yell a lot.
I have no patience and I can honestly say that I hate being a parent. I never wanted to be one, and knew before my child was born that I would suck at it.

/would never tell him that
//full of guilt over thinking it too
 
2009-10-22 06:27:34 PM
Also, as soon as my kids understood words and could speak I ask them WHY they are in trouble. Use your brains kids.
 
2009-10-22 06:29:25 PM
Thorak: Hebalo: Nope, that's not all it teaches him. It also teaches him that it's okay to hit and be hit. It teaches him that someone who loves him also takes their hand to him. It teaches him that maybe one day, when his girlfriend or wife isn't listening, or pissing him off, that maybe, just maybe, it's okay to hit them too. It teaches him that if you're bigger and stronger, you can get what you want.

I've had several girlfriends who quite enjoyed their spankings, thank you very much.

About the rest, you're just flat-out wrong. If I'm bigger and stronger, can I make people go on time-out, too? No? Because that's exactly the same argument, and it's ridiculous.

jst3p: Yeah, I am sure that when he gets a spanking he thinks "gee, Dad was able to achieve positive results by spanking me. That is so great!"

There is a disconnect between your actions and what you profess your kid gets out of it.

When he gets spanked? Sure, he's not thinking that on a conscious level.

But it's definitely what I got out of the few spankings I earned as a child. And I've been surprisingly nonviolent as an adult for someone who was apparently beaten as a child and raised to be a vicious monster.

Or maybe your entire theory is a crock based on books written by "experts" who get their books talked about on Oprah.


Except, you know, when it comes to your kids.
 
2009-10-22 06:31:21 PM
Hebalo: I know, I know. I suck, with my not hitting kids and trying to teach them that hitting, shooting, killing other people is not right.

Maybe it's because I'm Canadian, or maybe it's because my dad didn't beat me enough when I was a kid.


I love how you jump from spanking = hitting, to including shooting and killing people.

Also, congrats on being Canadian. If you'd bothered to check my profile, you'd have seen that I'm Canadian too. This really doesn't make any difference, since Canada is not, and has never been, a pacifist country. Quite the opposite. We are peacekeepers, which involves a great deal of what I am talking about; using force to achieve a positive goal.
 
2009-10-22 06:31:43 PM
captain_heroic44: morgantx: captain_heroic44: Have you ever cuddled your children?

Lots. By maintaining discipline and order in my house, I am happier and more relaxed. I can spend lots and lots of time with my children WITHOUT being consistently frustrated and angry.


I guess if it works for you. You should know, though, that we're able to be happy, relaxed, and enjoy a loving relationship with our son without running our house like a boot camp, and without resorting to hitting him to get our way. He's just a little boy, after all.

Just saying.


First, different children have different personalities. We never needed to spank our middle child--I can count on one hand the number of times he's been spanked. He responded best to nothing more harsh than an expression of parental displeasure (i.e., "The Look" or "I'm very disappointed in you."). My daughter never cared about spankings but responded best to removal of toys or restriction of access to toys or possessions. So while you may not need to spank your child, that does not mean that all children respond to the same methods of correction.

Second, spanking =/= hitting. Reading comprehension--try it sometime. Spanking is a controlled and responsible form of physical punishment. Hitting is an act of violence brought about as a result of anger.

Third, when did I say I ran my house like a boot camp? I expect obedience, respect, and honesty, and that's what I receive. I spent a very, very small portion of my time involved in discipline. BECAUSE I have used effective disciplinary methods and techniques, I have no need to spend oodles of time engaging in punishment. In fact, because my punishments are effective, I have time and energy to actually TEACH and be proactive with my discipline (i.e., instruction on positive behavior through games, stories, songs, and other "fun" teaching methods).
 
2009-10-22 06:33:51 PM
Fano: Passive aggressive anger and guilt are much more effective methods of bringing your kids up right.

Mom?
 
2009-10-22 06:34:41 PM
jst3p: Except, you know, when it comes to your kids.

Seeing as I don't have kids, my raging wellspring of brutality and violence for considering the option of swatting my kid on the bum if they need it is entirely theoretical.

My nonexistent kids thank you, though, for poking in and voicing your unwanted opinions about my theoretical yet entirely legal and ethical disciplinary methods.
 
2009-10-22 06:35:30 PM
captain_heroic44: Children who are spanked are also more likely than children who aren't spanked to experience adult depression, even if you think it's acceptable to teach them that physical violence is a value. You're increasing your child's susceptibility to a debilitating, life-threatening mental illness by spanking him.

You do realize, don't you, that there have been only a small handful of legitimate studies on the long-term effects of spanking? The vast majority of studies that are cited lump together controlled spanking with violent hitting and abusive beating. Oddly enough, studies that make a distinction between "spanking" and "beating", find that children who are spanked are less likely to engage in anti-social or violent behavior, and that they have higher self-esteem and better mental health as adolescents.
 
2009-10-22 06:36:09 PM
Thorak: jst3p: Except, you know, when it comes to your kids.

Seeing as I don't have kids,


Damn,I wish I had known that in the beginning. That tells me exactly what your parenting advice is worth.
 
2009-10-22 06:37:26 PM
morgantx: You do realize, don't you, that there have been only a small handful of legitimate studies on the long-term effects of spanking? The vast majority of studies that are cited lump together controlled spanking with violent hitting and abusive beating. Oddly enough, studies that make a distinction between "spanking" and "beating", find that children who are spanked are less likely to engage in anti-social or violent behavior, and that they have higher self-esteem and better mental health as adolescents.

They don't like those studies, though, because they might indicate that one has to consider certain shades of grey as preferable to either white or black.
 
2009-10-22 06:37:37 PM
Thorak: There CAN be a difference. Many people seem to have the same problem distinguishing between the two as they do telling the difference between spanking and beating.

So let me get this straight, you responded to my post against yelling at your kids, arguing in favor of raised voices at kids, knowing full well that I never mentioned raised voices, but figured that some people confuse the two, and therefore you wanted to affirmatively and aggressively prove me wrong on the off chance that I was subconsciously confusing the two.

Got it.

Thorak: You've yet to attack my argument.

To be clear, my argument is that raising one's voice and occasionally spanking a child is in no way harmful to the child and quite possibly of great benefit.


If that's all your argument is, then why should I have to attack it, given that I haven't said anything different? We already seem to agree that raised voices wasn't an issue in the original post, and I explicitly said that occasional spanking was fine for parenting. Maybe you disagree on the exact frequency of spanking necessary to obtain a benefit, but that's a fairly minor issue that I frankly don't care that much about.

Thorak: You've complained that I insulted you, swore, claimed I used hyperbole, and suggested I am terrible around children. That's all style issues, wrapped around to direct an insult at me. Which apparently I was wrong to do to you. Is it because I came right out and said it? Should I have tried to work my way around to implying it, instead, like you passive-aggressively did?

Well, if you are looking for a lesson in decorum, I can probably help here. If you insult someone you never talked to before in the first sentence of talking to them, without them having said a single word to you or against you, that's kind of a jackass thing to do. On the other hand, insulting someone who insulted you first, well now that's just self defense.

Thorak: Also, I take personal and direct offense to your criticism of my use of a swear word. fark, in its unfiltered form, has been part of the English language for over 500 years. shiat has been in English since before English was English; it comes from Old Norse straight into Old English, straight through. Sorry, but it's censorship, and I find it offensive in any form.

This is the last thing I want to respond to, largely because I have taught two civil rights classes and volunteer for a non-profit dedicated to first amendment defense. I've worked with a lot of people who know from personal and professional experience what censorship is, and I'd be willing to bet that most of them wouldn't consider it censorship to call someone a jerk for dropping an F-bomb. But it is always good to have people maintain the spirit of the cause. So keep fightin' the good fight.
 
2009-10-22 06:38:03 PM
morgantx: captain_heroic44: morgantx: captain_heroic44: Have you ever cuddled your children?

Lots. By maintaining discipline and order in my house, I am happier and more relaxed. I can spend lots and lots of time with my children WITHOUT being consistently frustrated and angry.


I guess if it works for you. You should know, though, that we're able to be happy, relaxed, and enjoy a loving relationship with our son without running our house like a boot camp, and without resorting to hitting him to get our way. He's just a little boy, after all.

Just saying.

First, different children have different personalities. We never needed to spank our middle child--I can count on one hand the number of times he's been spanked. He responded best to nothing more harsh than an expression of parental displeasure (i.e., "The Look" or "I'm very disappointed in you."). My daughter never cared about spankings but responded best to removal of toys or restriction of access to toys or possessions. So while you may not need to spank your child, that does not mean that all children respond to the same methods of correction.

Second, spanking =/= hitting. Reading comprehension--try it sometime. Spanking is a controlled and responsible form of physical punishment. Hitting is an act of violence brought about as a result of anger.

Third, when did I say I ran my house like a boot camp? I expect obedience, respect, and honesty, and that's what I receive. I spent a very, very small portion of my time involved in discipline. BECAUSE I have used effective disciplinary methods and techniques, I have no need to spend oodles of time engaging in punishment. In fact, because my punishments are effective, I have time and energy to actually TEACH and be proactive with my discipline (i.e., instruction on positive behavior through games, stories, songs, and other "fun" teaching methods).


Spanking = hitting. It is a form of violent physical punishment. It isn't necessary for any child.
 
2009-10-22 06:40:57 PM
jst3p: Damn,I wish I had known that in the beginning. That tells me exactly what your parenting advice is worth.

Because the advice of someone who has no idea whether or not they're screwing up their kid is that much better?
 
2009-10-22 06:41:32 PM
morgantx: children who are spanked are less likely to engage in anti-social or violent behavior, and that they have higher self-esteem and better mental health as adolescents.

Do you mean children who are spanked compared to children who are beaten? Or children who are spanked compared to children who are not spanked (or beaten)? Because if you mean the later, then I really need to see a citation for that claim.
 
2009-10-22 06:41:36 PM
Links that require registration make baby Jebus cry.

/don't care enough to bugmenot it at this point
//some kids deserve to be both yelled at and spanked
///and their parents seem to bring them all to the grocery store whenever I need something there
////that's why I make the girl do the grocery shopping, I get food and birth control without having to lift a finger
 
2009-10-22 06:44:16 PM
captain_heroic44: Spanking = hitting. It is a form of violent physical punishment. It isn't necessary for any child.

Bullshiat. There is no violence involved in spanking a child. Dictionary defines violence as "rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment." I am not being "rough" when I spank my child, nor am I being "injurious". In fact, I am taking numerous precautions to ensure that he is NOT injured.

Are you really so farking stupid that you can't tell the difference between a highly-controlled and calm application of minor force to the clothed buttocks of a child and a violent attempt to injure a child?
 
2009-10-22 06:44:47 PM
morgantx: captain_heroic44: Children who are spanked are also more likely than children who aren't spanked to experience adult depression, even if you think it's acceptable to teach them that physical violence is a value. You're increasing your child's susceptibility to a debilitating, life-threatening mental illness by spanking him.

You do realize, don't you, that there have been only a small handful of legitimate studies on the long-term effects of spanking? The vast majority of studies that are cited lump together controlled spanking with violent hitting and abusive beating. Oddly enough, studies that make a distinction between "spanking" and "beating", find that children who are spanked are less likely to engage in anti-social or violent behavior, and that they have higher self-esteem and better mental health as adolescents.


Cite me the study which shows that children who are spanked are less likely to engage in anti-social or violent behavior, have higher self-esteem, and better mental health as adolescents.
 
2009-10-22 06:46:06 PM
captain_heroic44: Spanking = hitting. It is a form of violent physical punishment. It isn't necessary for any child.

Spanking may be "hitting", in a certain sense, but it isn't beating. And it's less violent than them losing their balance and falling down. Gravity, that violent bastard.
 
2009-10-22 06:47:44 PM
captain_heroic44:

Spanking = hitting. It is a form of violent physical punishment. It isn't necessary for any child.


Beef = helplessly slaughtered cow. It's a form of violent murder. Eating beef is never necessary.

Gasoline = Raping a finite natural resource. It's a form of killing the planet. Driving anywhere is never necessary.

See, this is FUN!
 
2009-10-22 06:48:17 PM
captain_heroic44: Cite me the study which shows that children who are spanked are less likely to engage in anti-social or violent behavior, have higher self-esteem, and better mental health as adolescents.

The fact is that, so far as I know, that study hasn't been done. There have been plenty that include "any physical force whatsoever, from a light swat to breaking bones" as a single measure.

And there are plenty of us who were spanked but not beaten who turned out just fine who think you can draw some finer distinctions in there.
 
2009-10-22 06:50:52 PM
Thorak: captain_heroic44: Cite me the study which shows that children who are spanked are less likely to engage in anti-social or violent behavior, have higher self-esteem, and better mental health as adolescents.

The fact is that, so far as I know, that study hasn't been done. There have been plenty that include "any physical force whatsoever, from a light swat to breaking bones" as a single measure.

And there are plenty of us who were spanked but not beaten who turned out just fine who think you can draw some finer distinctions in there.


Morgantx made the claim that that study has been done. I'm calling her on it. All the studies that I'm aware of--%100 of the ones I can find offhand--find a correlation between spanking and increased mental health problems and adulthood. She's made quite a glowing claim to the contrary. I want to find out if she can back it up at all.
 
2009-10-22 06:51:16 PM
erikike: morgantx: children who are spanked are less likely to engage in anti-social or violent behavior, and that they have higher self-esteem and better mental health as adolescents.

Do you mean children who are spanked compared to children who are beaten? Or children who are spanked compared to children who are not spanked (or beaten)? Because if you mean the later, then I really need to see a citation for that claim.


I'm still searching, but here's some of what I've found so far on the effects of spanking in studies where spanking was differentiated from abuse:

Link (new window)

"The authors conclude that spanking in any group is not a major risk factor for future behavior problems."

Link (new window)

This article kind of waffles on the issue, but this quote explains what I mean about differentiating between spanking and abuse:

"Furthermore, studying the true effects of corporal punishment requires drawing a boundary line between punishment and abuse. This is a difficult thing to do, especially when relying on parents' self-reports of their discipline tactics and interpretations of normative punishment."

Link (new window)

"Researchers John Lyons, Rachel Anderson and David Larson of the National Institute of Healthcare Research recently conducted a systematic review of the research literature on corporal punishment.[6] They found that 83 percent of the 132 identified articles published in clinical and psychosocial journals were merely opinion-driven editorials, reviews or commentaries, devoid of new empirical findings. Moreover, most of the empirical studies were methodologically flawed by grouping the impact of abuse with spanking. The best studies demonstrated beneficial, not detrimental, effects of spanking in certain situations. Clearly, there is insufficient evidence to condemn parental spanking and adequate evidence to justify its proper use."
 
2009-10-22 06:53:00 PM
Thorak: captain_heroic44: Cite me the study which shows that children who are spanked are less likely to engage in anti-social or violent behavior, have higher self-esteem, and better mental health as adolescents.

The fact is that, so far as I know, that study hasn't been done. There have been plenty that include "any physical force whatsoever, from a light swat to breaking bones" as a single measure.

And there are plenty of us who were spanked but not beaten who turned out just fine who think you can draw some finer distinctions in there.


I've never claimed that spanking has %100 negative outcomes. I've made exactly two claims, both of which I will stand by.

1) Spanking is never necessary, and
2) Spanking increases the risk of adult mental health problems.
 
2009-10-22 06:53:08 PM
morgantx: captain_heroic44: Spanking = hitting. It is a form of violent physical punishment. It isn't necessary for any child.

Bullshiat. There is no violence involved in spanking a child. Dictionary defines violence as "rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment." I am not being "rough" when I spank my child, nor am I being "injurious". In fact, I am taking numerous precautions to ensure that he is NOT injured.

Are you really so farking stupid that you can't tell the difference between a highly-controlled and calm application of minor force to the clothed buttocks of a child and a violent attempt to injure a child?


Based on the tone of your reply one might wonder just how calm you really are when you non-violently spank your children.
 
2009-10-22 06:53:11 PM
morgantx: erikike: morgantx: children who are spanked are less likely to engage in anti-social or violent behavior, and that they have higher self-esteem and better mental health as adolescents.

Do you mean children who are spanked compared to children who are beaten? Or children who are spanked compared to children who are not spanked (or beaten)? Because if you mean the later, then I really need to see a citation for that claim.

I'm still searching, but here's some of what I've found so far on the effects of spanking in studies where spanking was differentiated from abuse:

Link (new window)

"The authors conclude that spanking in any group is not a major risk factor for future behavior problems."

Link (new window)

This article kind of waffles on the issue, but this quote explains what I mean about differentiating between spanking and abuse:

"Furthermore, studying the true effects of corporal punishment requires drawing a boundary line between punishment and abuse. This is a difficult thing to do, especially when relying on parents' self-reports of their discipline tactics and interpretations of normative punishment."

Link (new window)

"Researchers John Lyons, Rachel Anderson and David Larson of the National Institute of Healthcare Research recently conducted a systematic review of the research literature on corporal punishment.[6] They found that 83 percent of the 132 identified articles published in clinical and psychosocial journals were merely opinion-driven editorials, reviews or commentaries, devoid of new empirical findings. Moreover, most of the empirical studies were methodologically flawed by grouping the impact of abuse with spanking. The best studies demonstrated beneficial, not detrimental, effects of spanking in certain situations. Clearly, there is insufficient evidence to condemn parental spanking and adequate evidence to justify its proper use."


None of that comes even close to supporting your claims that:

children who are spanked are less likely to engage in anti-social or violent behavior, and that they have higher self-esteem and better mental health as adolescents.


Farking liar.
 
2009-10-22 06:53:29 PM
Nuuu: Well, if you are looking for a lesson in decorum, I can probably help here. If you insult someone you never talked to before in the first sentence of talking to them, without them having said a single word to you or against you, that's kind of a jackass thing to do

Like I said, it's the Internet, we're all assholes.

I ass an asshole and called you a twit. You're an asshole and won't let it go, even though you're citing portions of the post where I apologized for calling you a twit. Why can't we just agree that we're all assholes?
 
2009-10-22 06:54:32 PM
morgantx: erikike: morgantx: children who are spanked are less likely to engage in anti-social or violent behavior, and that they have higher self-esteem and better mental health as adolescents.

Do you mean children who are spanked compared to children who are beaten? Or children who are spanked compared to children who are not spanked (or beaten)? Because if you mean the later, then I really need to see a citation for that claim.

I'm still searching, but here's some of what I've found so far on the effects of spanking in studies where spanking was differentiated from abuse:

Link (new window)

"The authors conclude that spanking in any group is not a major risk factor for future behavior problems."

Link (new window)

This article kind of waffles on the issue, but this quote explains what I mean about differentiating between spanking and abuse:

"Furthermore, studying the true effects of corporal punishment requires drawing a boundary line between punishment and abuse. This is a difficult thing to do, especially when relying on parents' self-reports of their discipline tactics and interpretations of normative punishment."

Link (new window)

"Researchers John Lyons, Rachel Anderson and David Larson of the National Institute of Healthcare Research recently conducted a systematic review of the research literature on corporal punishment.[6] They found that 83 percent of the 132 identified articles published in clinical and psychosocial journals were merely opinion-driven editorials, reviews or commentaries, devoid of new empirical findings. Moreover, most of the empirical studies were methodologically flawed by grouping the impact of abuse with spanking. The best studies demonstrated beneficial, not detrimental, effects of spanking in certain situations. Clearly, there is insufficient evidence to condemn parental spanking and adequate evidence to justify its proper use."


You are a dishonest person.

In your household, you would be spanked.

Interesting.
 
2009-10-22 06:56:35 PM
morgantx: I'm still searching, but here's some of what I've found so far on the effects of spanking in studies where spanking was differentiated from abuse:

I appreciate the links. Thanks

/not being snarky I really do
 
2009-10-22 06:57:11 PM
captain_heroic44: I've never claimed that spanking has %100 negative outcomes. I've made exactly two claims, both of which I will stand by.

1) Spanking is never necessary, and
2) Spanking increases the risk of adult mental health problems.


"Necessary" is tricky. You might be able to discipline them some other way that might take much longer to have the desired effect; does that mean it's "unnecessary" even if it's more efficient and effective than the alternative?

As for #2, I'm calling bullshiat. Morgantx just linked a study that provides evidence it's bullshiat, so I'm gonna ask that you pony up a study, one that distinguishes between spanking and beatings/physical abuse, to prove your wild claim.
 
2009-10-22 06:57:11 PM
erikike: morgantx: captain_heroic44: Spanking = hitting. It is a form of violent physical punishment. It isn't necessary for any child.

Bullshiat. There is no violence involved in spanking a child. Dictionary defines violence as "rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment." I am not being "rough" when I spank my child, nor am I being "injurious". In fact, I am taking numerous precautions to ensure that he is NOT injured.

Are you really so farking stupid that you can't tell the difference between a highly-controlled and calm application of minor force to the clothed buttocks of a child and a violent attempt to injure a child?

Based on the tone of your reply one might wonder just how calm you really are when you non-violently spank your children.


This.

Thanks for saying it before I could.
 
2009-10-22 06:58:21 PM
Spank early = No Yelling later.
 
2009-10-22 06:59:11 PM
The Southern Dandy: Spank early = No Yelling later.

Correction: Spank Early = No Yelling or Spanking Later.
 
2009-10-22 06:59:23 PM
There is only one right way to do anything.

See how stupid that sounds.
 
2009-10-22 07:04:30 PM
I don't get the giant leap people are making to equate spanking (a punishment done after a transgression, ideally from a calm state of mind) to heroically fighting back against a bully or intervening to save a damsel in distress.

The latter actions are stepping in to physically stop someone else's violence in progress, you don't calmly mete out a beating to the skeeve after the girl gets away - or if you do, the police are very RIGHTLY called and you get charged with assault. Ditto the bullying situation - you can fight back, sure, but you can't go get revenge on your own or YOU will be the one in trouble.

Hell, even the police aren't supposed to be the ones who START the fight.
 
2009-10-22 07:05:13 PM
Gyrfalcon:
You do too, if you think "spare the rod and spoil the child" is in the Good Book, Bible Troll. Cuz it ain't in there.


Proverbs 19:18 KJV Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.

Proverbs 13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

Observations 21:14 It's a trying of our patience when people respond in the heat of the moment without checking their facts, but it still beats a snotnose in the checkout lane biatching for candy.
 
2009-10-22 07:07:49 PM
logophile: Proverbs 19:18 KJV Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.

Proverbs 13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

Observations 21:14 It's a trying of our patience when people respond in the heat of the moment without checking their facts, but it still beats a snotnose in the checkout lane biatching for candy.


Interesting. The verse I see cited most often is

Prov 22:15: "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him."

Googling "rod of correction" will lead you to various Christian parenting sites that are big on spanking. Some of the literalists go all serious about using a "rod" too, saying you can't hit with your hands, etc. Interesting reading anyway.
 
2009-10-22 07:08:01 PM
Re: the positive effects of spanking

I would also argue that much can depend on how it is used (i.e., is it controlled or an act of temper? Is it used in conjunction with teaching methods, discussion, etc.? Is the parent normally affectionate and loving toward the child?), and what the alternative is.

A child who is spanked calmly and in a controlled manner by a loving parent they have a close relationship with will have a better outcome than a child who is not spanked but whose parents use guilt and shame, particularly in self-esteem areas. A child whose parents attempt to discipline using ineffective methods (and as a result never learns to respond to authority) will have a worse outcome than a child whose parents are able to maintain an orderly household through the use of spanking.

So many factors determine the outcome, but it is clearn that spanking alone does not cause a negative outcome (or a positive one). It's a "big picture" kind of thing--not something that can be accurately determined on the basis of a single factor.
 
2009-10-22 07:12:48 PM
morgantx: Re: the positive effects of spanking

I would also argue that much can depend on how it is used (i.e., is it controlled or an act of temper? Is it used in conjunction with teaching methods, discussion, etc.? Is the parent normally affectionate and loving toward the child?), and what the alternative is.

A child who is spanked calmly and in a controlled manner by a loving parent they have a close relationship with will have a better outcome than a child who is not spanked but whose parents use guilt and shame, particularly in self-esteem areas. A child whose parents attempt to discipline using ineffective methods (and as a result never learns to respond to authority) will have a worse outcome than a child whose parents are able to maintain an orderly household through the use of spanking.

So many factors determine the outcome, but it is clearn that spanking alone does not cause a negative outcome (or a positive one). It's a "big picture" kind of thing--not something that can be accurately determined on the basis of a single factor.


When you spank, do you exert the same calm and control as you did when I disagreed with you about whether spanking was "violent?"
 
2009-10-22 07:14:09 PM
Mocking and humiliation are working wonders for me. You should see the kid, every time someone on TV is in a sticky situation or is involved in some silly shenanigans he covers his ears, rocks back and forth, starts shaking and pees himself and I've never had to yell or hit.

/"I'm not a little girl, not a little girl, not a little girl..."
//Stepchildren: one of the silver linings of marrying a tramp.
 
2009-10-22 07:14:29 PM
As a bystander, I'm way more bothered by screaming than spanking (unless the spanking results in a kid screaming).

As far as I can tell, the worst discipline is either no discipline at all or inconsistent, lazy-ass discipline, ie, not doing anything about a kid misbehaving until he/she pisses you off so much that you go apeshiat and beat the crap out of him/her and/or scream uncontrollably.

Unfortunately, a lot of people parent the way they were parented. They either don't discipline at all and congratulate themselves for being better parents than the ones they had, or they shiat a brick over every little thing, including behaviors that are just how kids are (crying, cranky, dropping stuff accidentally, maybe getting a little too excited and screechy). There seem to be lots of people who think either that kids naturally know how to behave well without being taught or that if a kid ever does anything kidlike, he/she should be harshly corrected and never be given an ounce of indulgence or room for error. Both kinds of parents are idiots. And they're usually way more annoying than the children.
 
2009-10-22 07:15:30 PM
I'd let the yellow pages do the walking... I mean talking.
 
2009-10-22 07:17:42 PM
Devil's Playground: I raised three children, starting when I was 17. I yelled allot. Spanked them often as well. I am now 49, and in August my 9 1/2 y.o. grandson moved in with my wife and I. I have yet to feel the need to yell, let alone hit him. Yes, he is unruly at times. He neglects his chores, homework etc., but I sit him down and explain to him why we have rules and what is expected of him. I have had to take away privileges a few times. I can honestly tell you his behavior has changed for the better in two months time. Kids understand more than most adults give them credit for.
I have come to the conclusion that no one should have kids until they are in their 40's.


Yeah I can agree with that to a certain degree. My dad was 46 and my mom was 44 when they had me. Dad had 8 kids with his first wife. None of kids are close to him except for me, both he and my mom are/were amazing parents.
 
2009-10-22 07:17:45 PM
Why is it always about what's best for the children? Why isn't it ever what is best for the parents and children? There's gotta be some compromise. Sure, hitting the kid may not be the best for him, but it may help the parent out a lot.
 
Displayed 50 of 447 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report