The state Legislature is about to weigh in on a question that stirs impassioned debate among moms and dads: Should parents spank their children?

Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, wants to outlaw spanking children up to 3 years old. If she succeeds, California would become the first state in the nation to explicitly ban parents from smacking their kids.
Talk about liberal idiots. Just what we need in this country, less disipline! Fortunately, this bill has little chance of passing and the rest of the country seems to be moving the other direction:
Last year, the Oklahoma State Legislature amended their child abuse laws with a bill that explicitly granted parents the right to use paddles and switches to spank their children. The bill was enacted reportedly in response to the Columbine High School killings in Littleton, Colo., and to broaden the rights Oklahoma parents already had to spank their children under current laws. Nevada passed a similar law.

In Virginia, the Board of Social Services adopted new regulations in July that would make sure foster parents were not turned away because they believed in corporal punishment, said Sonny Riviero, the Virginia commissioner of Social Services.

That's horrible.

Let's have a Beat the Children Amendment added to the Constitution! Yaaaaaay! Can't find any real news tonight ant?

Let's have a Beat the Children Amendment added to the Constitution! Yaaaaaay! Can't find any real news tonight ant?

What are you talking about? Discipline is very important to a child's development and future success.

There's a big difference between a beating and a spanking, in my book. A spanking is a quick disciplinary swat to the butt. TO THE BUTT!!! I heard someone talk about spanking their child "in the head". ????????? A spanking, while done for disciplinary action, should never be done out of anger or just because you lost your patience and want to hit something. It's done only enough for the child to get the picture that they've done something wrong, not, as my great-aunt believed, to make the child cry. I can't think of any reason to apply corporal punishment to a child in any other way or for any other reason.

One other thing, you don't spank a frikkin' teenager. (Yeah, I know some parents who have tried this. It just never seems to work.)

One other thing, you don't spank a frikkin' teenager. (Yeah, I know some parents who have tried this. It just never seems to work.)
While a slight swat to the butt is enough to discipline a small child, you'd have to literally beat the crap out of a teenager to make an impact.

I spank my young kids (6,7, and 8), but my teenager gets his computer and/or videogames taken away.

My wife never spanks the kids, she threatens them with the threat that I will. You can see the difference in their behavior . When dad says, "Go to sleep", they listen. When mom says it, they keep on jumping around the room.

One of my children has Down's Syndrome, and I even spank him (I basically just treat him exactly like the others). For a while, he was misbehaving in class. The teacher wanted to put him on drugs. The last thing he needs is to further impair his brain function. I told her to send a note home whenever he misbehaved. He would come home, I'd check his backpack. If there was a note about him misbehaving, he got a spanking right then. This happened for three days in a row, then his behavior improved.

Children need discipline. Without it they become out of control brats and never grow up. The undisciplined child becomes the undisciplined man.

I see nothing wrong with giving a child a sane spanking. However, it should not be the totality of moral instruction.

I was spanked a few times as a kid and I feel no animosity or ill will towards my father for it. I was also smacked across the cheek once or twice and, also, no problem whatsoever.

To give your kid a brutal beating is obviously quite different. IF you are seriously injuring your child, then you are not doing what is appropriate. Ideally, all punishment should be no longer needed after they've reached puberty. If you raise your kids well, they oughtn't have too much trouble in highschool and such.

Ultimately, at the point where a child is developing into an adult, one ought to shift gears towards training them to be adults, and not simply good children. And this is not at all inhibited by earlier stages when spanking and other punishments are far more common.

People who are obsessed with spanking are just absurd.

Children start out as baby animals and have to learn to become adult humans. You have to discipline baby animals with physical punishment because that is the only way you can get their attention.

Children have no time sense, no ethics, no concept of deferred gratification. They have no idea how the things they do affect other people and they don't have the social maturity to care about it even if they did.

Some puppies need to be spanked once or twice during their puppyhood because that is the only way they understand that they've done something wrong. And I mean a light spanking, just enough to get their attention and make them not want it to happen again. Not all do, in fact I'd say most don't, but some do.

Some children need this too. Again, just enough to get their attention and make them not want it to happen again. And if it has to happen more than once a year, or beyond the small one-digit ages when their social skills should start to develop, then there's a deeper problem in play.

I think parents who deliberately withhold corporal punishment under all circumstances are teaching their kids a very dangerous lesson: No matter how badly you treat someone, you can never make them so angry and irrational that they will hit you.

That is not true, and I don't think people should be allowed to reach their late teens and twenties before they find out.

I think parents who deliberately withhold corporal punishment under all circumstances are teaching their kids a very dangerous lesson: No matter how badly you treat someone, you can never make them so angry and irrational that they will hit you.

That is not true, and I don't think people should be allowed to reach their late teens and twenties before they find out.
Good point, I've never heard it put that way before.

I think parents who deliberately withhold corporal punishment under all circumstances are teaching their kids a very dangerous lesson: No matter how badly you treat someone, you can never make them so angry and irrational that they will hit you.

That is not true, and I don't think people should be allowed to reach their late teens and twenties before they find out.

Come on... that's a lesson every kid learns as soon as they mix with other kids. If not personally, then from observation.

While a slight swat to the butt is enough to discipline a small child, you'd have to literally beat the crap out of a teenager to make an impact.

I spank my young kids (6,7, and 8), but my teenager gets his computer and/or videogames taken away.

So it's possible to discipline children without physical force, right? You do it with your teenagers, why not with the young ones?

Discipline is very important to a child's development and future success.
Yes... but discipline doesn't necessarily require spanking. The discussion isn't about whether discipline should be allowed, but whether spanking should be allowed. You see the difference, right?

So it's possible to discipline children without physical force, right? You do it with your teenagers, why not with the young ones?
?
Not very young children. They do not understand other punishments well. Whereas older children would require more than a simple swat on the bottom to make an impact. Fortunately, by the time they are that old there are many other ways to discipline them. They then have the mental capacity to understand cause and effect even when they are seperated in time. They also have many more priviledges than a young child that can be taken away.

Furthermore, if you've done a good job up to that point, you (hopefully) won't need to do much disciplining. (So far that's proved true with my seventeen year old. He was spanked as a young child, and now rarely requires any discipline. Of course, I have three more to go, so we'll see.)

I personally think that the banning of corporal punishment in schools is in large part responsible for the need to drug an entire generation of boys. I'd much rather see young boys spanked than see them turned into zombies with psychoactive drugs.

How old do you think a child needs to be before they can understand other discipline? (Which need not involve "punishment", by the way... just "consequences". That might appear to be splitting hairs, but it makes a big difference to the development of a child.)

In my experience (two sons, plus childcare centre work), four years old is old enough to understand the idea of rules and consequences. Under three is usually too young, but at that stage physical punishment is a waste of time because they don't connect their action with the punishment. All it does is teach them to be frightened of you.

I agree that spanking is better than inappropriate medication, but it's a false dilemma. Good discipline doesn't require either of those, if it's done well from an early age.

You have to discipline baby animals with physical punishment because that is the only way you can get their attention.
I disagree. You can get attention without punishment, either physically or verbally.

If they are pre-language, then you pick them up and move them away from the action. You can also look them in the eye (holding their head if necessary, and say "no", firmly but not angrily).

If the child can understand speech, then there are a number of verbal tricks you can use - "Look at my eyes", or "What's in my eye", or "What have I got". A well practiced "No!" is often a good attention grabber as well.
But if all else fails, then a physical non violent approach is still viable.

So it's possible to discipline children without physical force, right? You do it with your teenagers, why not with the young ones?I watch my step-brothers and my sisters a lot. My step-brothers weren't raised by my step-dad, but by his family who let them do whatever they wanted when they were young. They're very bad kids. They've been to counseling, and been admitted into hospitals for it. The thing is...there's nothing wrong with them...they talk in full sentences, they don't get crazy mood swings, they have friends who are their age, and one of them even gets good grades in school. The ONLY reason that they're so bad is because they weren't disciplined right when they were younger. Anyway, I've figured out that sticking them in a corner works better than hitting them with the belt somethimes when I'm watching them(or even when my mom's watching them, since they listen to me better anyway). However, sometimes it's necessary to use force to get them to stand there(or to stand there right). I was punished the same way, and if I ever have kids, I would punish them the same way(and maybe some other ways aswell). Spanking and beating are hardly the same thing. I don't live in California though, so I don't care.
Yes... but discipline doesn't necessarily require spanking. The discussion isn't about whether discipline should be allowed, but whether spanking should be allowed. You see the difference, right?
No. Many times, spanking is necessary for proper discipline. If my mom's watching my step-brothers, and no one else is here, they won't listen to her, at all. There's only one difference between my step-da or me and my mom, can you guess what it is?

I'm guessing that the difference is that you clearly spell out the rules and the consequences of breaking those rules, and then follow through as promised.

The fact that those consequences include spanking isn't terribly relevant - any explicitly defined and followed through consequence would be sufficient. Spanking isn't necessary for proper discipline. Following through on defined consequences is.

Try it! Withholding pleasantries can be a useful consequence, as long as it's within a reasonable time. Shorter times for younger kids - maybe minutes for 3 year olds, up to a few hours for 7 year olds, maybe a day for 10 year olds.

This is how an apparent lack of understanding of what we are (animals with a sense of the absurd) is driving society to what we see today - chaotic, egomaniacal self importance. The west is basically a snotty, spoiled child.

Fraggle is right. We start as baby animals and need to learn two things at that stage. You will be punished for disobeying your parents edicts, and that punishment can be physically meaningful, in addition to metaphysical. After a certain age, denial of freedoms becomes far more effective.

Lack of physical discipline at an early age can (not always) result in the child associating all punishment with denial of "things" thus placing the child's focus completely on "things". Can anyone say "consumeristic psychosis"? (the USA today imo).

When your children are young, spank them to enforce your rules. As they mature, replace this with denial of freedoms. These are the two consequences that actually happen in the real world.

The biggest thing is to be consistent.

And california is a land of incompetent idiots. And anyone who classifies a discliplinary spanking as a "beating" should go live in california.

Lack of physical discipline at an early age can (not always) result in the child associating all punishment with denial of "things" thus placing the child's focus completely on "things".

That would be a lack of appropriate discipline, which doesn't have to involve spanking. The most effective discipline in my experience in early childhood is the (short) denial of affection and attention... not things.

How does California plan to enforce the ban on spanking?

How many laws, rules are there now in California which the police and courts can't or won't enforce?

Baron Max

That would be a lack of appropriate discipline, which doesn't have to involve spanking. The most effective discipline in my experience in early childhood is the (short) denial of affection and attention... not things.

I am going to agree with Pete.

Unfortunately I have done spanking a few times and it's been a while since I stopped. As far as my children are concerned nothing would have changed if I hadn't spanked, and believe me they are wild. (4 and 7) I'd rather they understand the reason behind the rule with their own thinking than punish them physically.

It seems like the situation Pete described works for now. We don't only focus on things but the other treats that they are entitled to. (like movie time, playground etc..) And they don't care so much if I take away things anyway. They obey the rule better once they understand.

It's my personal experience, would it work for everybody, it's worth the try.

By the way, everybody knocks down California, maybe because of jealousy:)

That would be a lack of appropriate discipline, which doesn't have to involve spanking. The most effective discipline in my experience in early childhood is the (short) denial of affection and attention... not things.
So you see, I would never let my child think I would withold affection or attention. I'm kind of suprised you would do that pete. I think we are making a mistake when we try to subvert behaviors (good ones that it) that are at the core of our evolutionary development.

You will see a mother gorilla cuff (sometimes pretty hard) her youngster, but she will never ignore or not cuddle the child as punishment.

I am going to agree with Pete.

Unfortunately I have done spanking a few times and it's been a while since I stopped. As far as my children are concerned nothing would have changed if I hadn't spanked, and believe me they are wild. (4 and 7) I'd rather they understand the reason behind the rule with their own thinking than punish them physically.

It seems like the situation Pete described works for now. We don't only focus on things but the other treats that they are entitled to. (like movie time, playground etc..) And they don't care so much if I take away things anyway. They obey the rule better once they understand.

It's my personal experience, would it work for everybody, it's worth the try.

By the way, everybody knocks down California, maybe because of jealousy:)
I really think you should agree with me.

Are we talking the occasional swat on the bottom here, or a sound beating of the ass? I'm talking about the bottom-swat. You guys?

So you see, I would never let my child think I would withold affection or attention. I'm kind of suprised you would do that pete. I think we are making a mistake when we try to subvert behaviors (good ones that it) that are at the core of our evolutionary development.

You will see a mother gorilla cuff (sometimes pretty hard) her youngster, but she will never ignore or not cuddle the child as punishment.

Oops, I didn't see the affection and attention, I disagree with that... That's important for development at any age...

I'm guessing that the difference is that you clearly spell out the rules and the consequences of breaking those rules, and then follow through as promised.

The fact that those consequences include spanking isn't terribly relevant - any explicitly defined and followed through consequence would be sufficient. Spanking isn't necessary for proper discipline. Following through on defined consequences is.
She cant tell them do do whatever she wants or tell them that they're not allowed to do whatever, but she can't physically stop them. That's the difference. She can't make them stand in the corner, because as soon as she leaves their side, they get out. As soon as she goes to cook or wash dishes, or clean clothes, or something happens with the other kids, they're doing whatever she said they weren't allowed to do. What would you suggest to do about this Pete?
Try it! Withholding pleasantries can be a useful consequence, as long as it's within a reasonable time. Shorter times for younger kids - maybe minutes for 3 year olds, up to a few hours for 7 year olds, maybe a day for 10 year olds.Only if you have some way to withhold them. How exactly do you do that without the occasional hit from the belt? What other incentive do they have to listen to you?

superluminal,

I really think you should agree with me.

I see what you're saying, I didn't say ban the spanking, simply there might be an alternative. Also Physical Punishment might instill in children the idea that the Authority can use physical force without explanation.

How old do you think a child needs to be before they can understand other discipline? I go by what works. I only spank with my bare hand. When this is no longer effective, (probably ten years old, or so) I switch to denying priviledges.

Spanking is very effective because the punishment immediately follows the misbehavior and can not be avoided. I see parents trying to put their kids in "time out" and the kids playing around, not being punished at all. This kids learn no discipline and are generally spoiled brats.

In my experience (two sons, plus childcare centre work), four years old is old enough to understand the idea of rules and consequences. Under three is usually too young, but at that stage physical punishment is a waste of time because they don't connect their action with the punishment. All it does is teach them to be frightened of you.I disagree. A two year old can understand you saying, "NO!" and giving him a light swat. Say they're trying to stick their fingers in a socket or play with matches. They need to learn that bad behavior results in bad consequences.
I agree that spanking is better than inappropriate medication, but it's a false dilemma. Good discipline doesn't require either of those, if it's done well from an early age.
Well, why then are so many of our young boys being drugged until they behave like girls? When I was in elementary school and junior high, we were afraid of the teachers. This one guy (we called him "B.O. Banks" due to his offensive odor) kept a paddle with holes drilled in it to achieve greater velocity when spanking. Nobody liked him, but the fear of the paddle kept us in line. Nowadays students tell their teachers to "fuck off" and there are no consequences. No consequences=no respect.

If they are pre-language, then you pick them up and move them away from the action. You can also look them in the eye (holding their head if necessary, and say "no", firmly but not angrily).

If the child can understand speech, then there are a number of verbal tricks you can use - "Look at my eyes", or "What's in my eye", or "What have I got". A well practiced "No!" is often a good attention grabber as well.Sure, saying, NO is effective. But even more so if they know it is likely to be followed by a swat to the bottom.

So you see, I would never let my child think I would withold affection or attention. I'm kind of suprised you would do that pete. I think we are making a mistake when we try to subvert behaviors (good ones that it) that are at the core of our evolutionary development.

You will see a mother gorilla cuff (sometimes pretty hard) her youngster, but she will never ignore or not cuddle the child as punishment.
Short denial. Rough rule of thumb is a minute per year of age. Cuddles follow straight after.

Short denial. Rough rule of thumb is a minute per year of age. Cuddles follow straight after.
It seems to me that putting a child in time out for three minutes and then cuddling immediately afterwards would be interpreted as a game, not a punishment. Like playing peek-a-boo.

It doesn't seem that way to a three year old.

Spanking is very effective because the punishment immediately follows the misbehavior and can not be avoided. I see parents trying to put their kids in "time out" and the kids playing around, not being punished at all. This kids learn no discipline and are generally spoiled brats.
They're not doing it right. Effective timeout means immediate denial of simple privileges. It can be difficult (that's why parent like spanking, I think), but it's worth learning how to do it right.
I disagree. A two year old can understand you saying, "NO!" and giving him a light swat. Say they're trying to stick their fingers in a socket or play with matches. They need to learn that bad behavior results in bad consequences.
Sure. But the swat isn't necessary, and I doubt that it's any more effective than the "No!" on its own. As far as sockets and matches go, I find it's easier (and safer!) to simply remove those opportunities from the two year old's environment.

Well, why then are so many of our young boys being drugged until they behave like girls?
Because it's "fashionable", and because many parents don't give good discipline.

When I was in elementary school and junior high, we were afraid of the teachers. This one guy (we called him "B.O. Banks" due to his offensive odor) kept a paddle with holes drilled in it to achieve greater velocity when spanking. Nobody liked him, but the fear of the paddle kept us in line. Nowadays students tell their teachers to "fuck off" and there are no consequences. No consequences=no respect.
Respect earned through fear is a poor sort of respect, I think. Do your children fear you?

Sure, saying, NO is effective. But even more so if they know it is likely to be followed by a swat to the bottom.
...or some other effective disciplinary measure. Perhaps one that encourages self-esteem instead of fear.

She cant tell them do do whatever she wants or tell them that they're not allowed to do whatever, but she can't physically stop them. That's the difference. She can't make them stand in the corner, because as soon as she leaves their side, they get out. As soon as she goes to cook or wash dishes, or clean clothes, or something happens with the other kids, they're doing whatever she said they weren't allowed to do. What would you suggest to do about this Pete?
Need more info.
How old are these kids?
What are some things that they enjoy doing?
Are they always little shits, or do they have angelic moments?
Also, it would help to focus on a specific example of bad behaviour.

An occasional spanking around 4-6 years of age is necessary in my opinion.

For you, or for the child?

I'm with Pete, convince your child with love and discipline.

For you, or for the child?

Good question. But you can't bear a child at 4, can ya? :p

...

Spanking is Counterproductive and Dangerous
Alice Miller, June 1999

Why are spankings, slaps, and even apparently harmless blows like pats on the hand dangerous for a baby?

-They teach it violence
-They destroy the infallible certainty of being loved that the baby needs
-They cause anxiety; the expectancy of the next break
-They convey a lie: they pretend to be educational, but parents actually use them to vent their anger; when they strike, itís because, as children, they were struck themselves
-They provoke anger and a desire for revenge, which remain repressed only to be expressed much later
-They program the child to accept illogical arguments (Iím hurting you for your own good) that stay stored up in their body
-They destroy sensitivity and compassion for others and for oneself, and hence limit the capacity to gain insight

What long-term lessons does the baby retain from spankings and other blows? The baby learns:

-That a child does not deserve respect
-That good can be learned through punishment (which is usually wrong, since punishment merely teaches the children to want to punish on their own turn)
-That suffering mustnít be felt, it must be ignored (which is dangerous to the immune system)
-That violence is a manifestation of love (fostering perversion)
-That denial of feeling is healthy (but the body pays the price of this error, often much later)

How is repressed anger very often vented? In childhood and adolescence:

-By making fun of the weak
-By hitting classmates
-By annoying the teachers
-By watching tv and playing video games to experience forbidden and stored up feelings of rage and anger, and by identifying with violent heroes. (Children who have never been beaten are less interested in cruel films, and, as adults, will not produce horror shows).

--In adulthood:

-By perpetuating spanking, as an apparently educational and effective means, often heartily recommended to others, whereas in actual fact, oneís own suffering is being avenged on the next generation
-By refusing to understand the connections between previously experienced violence and the violence actively repeated today. The ignorance of society is thereby perpetuated
-By entering professions which demand violence
-By being gullible to politicians who designate scapegoats for the violence that has been stored up and which can finally be vented with impunity: ìimpureî races, ethnic ìcleansingî, ostracized social minorities
-(Because of obedience to violence as a child), by readiness to obey any authority which recalls the authority of the parents, as the Germans obeyed Hitler, the Russians Stalin, the Serbs Milosivic. Conversely, some become aware of the repression and universal denial of childhood pain, realizing how violence is transmitted from parents to children, and stop hitting children regardless of age. This can be done (many have succeeded) as soon as one has understood that the causes of the ìeducationalî violence are hidden in the repressed history of the parents.

Alice Miller has doctorates in Philosophy, Psychology, and Sociology from the University of Basel in Switzerland. She is author of Paths of Life (Pantheon 1998) and eight other books on childhood.

[SIZE="3"]Alice Miller has doctorates in Philosophy, Psychology, and Sociology from the University of Basel in Switzerland.
How long did it take her to earn all of those?

How long did it take her to earn all of those?

Actually three doctorates in one, which she earned in 1953 at aged thirty.

Actually three doctorates in one, which she earned in 1953 at aged thirty.

You can do that?

Alice Miller has doctorates in Philosophy, Psychology, and Sociology ...

Philosophy is just bullshit-talk about words!

Psychology is just bullshit-talk about what's inside someone else's head!

Sociology is just bullshit-talk in an attempt to explain why people don't like other people!

None of those "degrees" give any insight into how to raise children!

She is author of Paths of Life (Pantheon 1998) and eight other books on childhood.

Anyone can write fuckin' books ....but does she have any experience raising children? How many kids does she have?

And even if she does have kids, it's still nothing more than one person's opinion about raising kids. Her degrees don't mean jack-shit.

Baron Max

Oh my God!!!

-They convey a lie: they pretend to be educational, but parents actually use them to vent their anger; when they strike, itís because, as children, they were struck themselves
That's nonsense btw.

That's nonsense btw.

I've known it to happen.

I've known it to happen.

That you've know it once, don't mean shit, Sam, and you know it!

Baron Max

That you've know it once, don't mean shit, Sam, and you know it!

Baron Max

You don't know of parents who abuse their children with physical violence? Vent their anger on their children?

I've known it to happen.
It's not always the case.

You don't know of parents who abuse their children with physical violence? Vent their anger on their children?

I know of those who might make that CLAIM ....which does NOT make it true!!

Do you believe everything that you read or hear, Sam?

Baron Max

It's that time again sam.

I've known people who own guns that sometimes shoot people. Or who own kitchen knives and sometimes stab people.

The question here is not regarding the rediculous idea that most parents beat their childrens asses for self gratification. It's whether a swat on the bottom or a smack on the hand to reinforce a rule to children that have no concept of the metaphysics of "pleasure denial" is effective and correct, or useless and evil.

Who here thinks they can "reason" with a two year old? Who here thinks that a two year old having a tantrum responds to "Now please stop Timmy, or I'll ignore you for 2 minutes".

My experience with my own children, grandchildren, and stories from numerous freinds tells me that children who are never physically corrected at an early age, by and large, end up spoiled brats with no innate respect for authority.

And yes. Respect for authority is essential for running a safe and prosperous society. This doesen't mean slave-like obedience either. You put leaders in charge, and show respect for the position you've put them in, and when what they're doing turns to shit, you, kick their asses out and try again.

If your youngster seriously tests you, smack them on the bottom or smack the offending hand that refuses to put down the valuable vase in the store. Trust me on this.

It's that time again sam.

I've known people who own guns that sometimes shoot people. Or who own kitchen knives and sometimes stab people.

The question here is not regarding the rediculous idea that most parents beat their childrens asses for self gratification. It's whether a swat on the bottom or a smack on the hand to reinforce a rule to children that have no concept of the metaphysics of "pleasure denial" is effective and correct, or useless and evil.

Who here thinks they can "reason" with a two year old? Who here thinks that a two year old having a tantrum responds to "Now please stop Timmy, or I'll ignore you for 2 minutes".

My experience with my own children, grandchildren, and stories from numerous freinds tells me that children who are never physically corrected at an early age, by and large, end up spoiled brats with no innate respect for authority.

And yes. Respect for authority is essential for running a safe and prosperous society. This doesen't mean slave-like obedience either. You put leaders in charge, and show respect for the position you've put them in, and when what they're doing turns to shit, you, kick their asses out and try again.

If your youngster seriously tests you, smack them on the bottom or smack the offending hand that refuses to put down the valuable vase in the store. Trust me on this.

Personally I think violence desentises children and I don't believe in it. I was never spanked as a child and I don't think I am any the worse for it.

I was never spanked as a child .....

Ahhh, so that's what the fucks wrong with you, huh?!

I should have known - it makes a bit of sense now. ....you growing up in a rich, wealthy, powerful family in India, rich enough to have some nanny with you 24 hrs a day to keep you protected, then with enough money to send you to America to get a good education, and, of course, money enough to let you travel all over the world.

Yeah, with all of that in your background, I can see how you might feel that spanking is bad. Perhaps all children should be raised in wealthy, powerful families, huh????

Baron Max

Personally I think violence desentises children and I don't believe in it. I was never spanked as a child and I don't think I am any the worse for it.
That's fine. How were you dealt with when you threw a tantrum or started testing your parents beyond their breaking point?

I was spanked a couple of times that I can remember and seem no worse for wear. Again, were talking in general here.

Spanking is Counterproductive and Dangerous
Alice Miller, June 1999

Alice Miller has doctorates in Philosophy, Psychology, and Sociology from the University of Basel in Switzerland. She is author of Paths of Life (Pantheon 1998) and eight other books on childhood.
Does she have any kids? What with all her schooling, I doubt she has any real world experience with children. She makes all these assertions based on nothing but her pie in the sky ideas.

Spanking your child does not teach them that they are not loved. it teaches them that there are consequences to bad behavior.

Does she have any kids? What with all her schooling, I doubt she has any real world experience with children. She makes all these assertions based on nothing but her pie in the sky ideas.

Spanking your child does not teach them that they are not loved. it teaches them that there are consequences to bad behavior.
Having a doctorate in the soft sciences usually just gives one the credentials to make their rediculous ideas sound more impressive. IMO.

That's fine. How were you dealt with when you threw a tantrum or started testing your parents beyond their breaking point?

I was spanked a couple of times that I can remember and seem no worse for wear. Again, were talking in general here.


Well I was never the tantrum type so that situation never did arise.

Ahhh, so that's what the fucks wrong with you, huh?!

I should have known - it makes a bit of sense now. ....you growing up in a rich, wealthy, powerful family in India, rich enough to have some nanny with you 24 hrs a day to keep you protected, then with enough money to send you to America to get a good education, and, of course, money enough to let you travel all over the world.

Yeah, with all of that in your background, I can see how you might feel that spanking is bad. Perhaps all children should be raised in wealthy, powerful families, huh????

Baron Max

Wish it were true, especially the wealthy and powerful part. :p

This is obviously one of those cherished debates in which reason and research is utterly futile.

This is obviously one of those cherished debates in which reason and research is utterly futile.

Can you really get 3 doctorates in one?

And yes. Respect for authority is essential for running a safe and prosperous society. This doesen't mean slave-like obedience either. You put leaders in charge, and show respect for the position you've put them in, and when what they're doing turns to shit, you, kick their asses out and try again.

:rolleyes:

Wish it were true, especially the wealthy and powerful part.

Oh, really? Who paid the expenses for your American eduacation? Who paid for the many trips all over the USA, which you claim to have made? Who paid for all the trips to New York City, which you claim to have visited enough time to learn to love? And, of course, who paid for your return trip back to India? And once there, who pays for your living expenses now?

Or is India such a wonderous place that all Indians have the money to do what you've done, Sam? ...even those poor, hungry residents of Calcutta?

Baron Max

Philosophy is just bullshit-talk about words!

Psychology is just bullshit-talk about what's inside someone else's head!

Sociology is just bullshit-talk in an attempt to explain why people don't like other people!

None of those "degrees" give any insight into how to raise children!

That's our Baron! SciForums resident expert on the value or otherwise of tertiary education. :rolleyes: Without knowing anything about Dr Miller except that she disagrees with him and has "degrees" :eek:, he's completely confident in dismissing her as knowing less than him about "the real world".

So, Baron... how many children have you raised? How many families have you studied carefully? How many children and adults have you interviewed about their childhood?


Alice Miller is pretty extreme in the world of early childhood, and I'm not comfortable with embracing her whole philosophy... but she is an extremely intelligent, dedicated, and honest author, and no ivory tower academic.

They're not doing it right. Effective timeout means immediate denial of simple privileges. It can be difficult (that's why parent like spanking, I think), but it's worth learning how to do it right.It sounds like you're some sort of virtuoso of the "time out". For most people, spanking is way more effective. Would you rather see children with no discipline, or spanked? For most kids, those are the options.

Delegitimize spanking and you get a society of spoiled brats, kind of what we have now.

There are children who have grown up nicely without spanking. And there are children who haven't. (Needless to say, the same goes for spanked children)What does this tell us about the complex impetuses for behaving unnacceptably and the simple-minded method of dealing with them? Of course, it stands to reasonable people that what worked in a different society some centuries/millenia back for curbing children exposed to vastly different temptations etc will work the same reforming magic today. Brilliant.

The only spanking still persists is because 'that's the way it's always been'.

And that's the same reason a people can believe heterosexuality has always been normal, that human sacrifices have always been abhorrent, etc.

If as a 21st century Westerner, you are so indoctrinated and so daft that you can't be bothered to even try to see what alternatives there are to spanking, or your defense consists of 'it happened to me and I turned out fine', then, well, you really are daft. Think outside of the box a bit.

as a 21st century Westerner, you are so indoctrinated and so daft that you can't be bothered to even try to see what alternatives there are to spanking, or your defense consists of 'it happened to me and I turned out fine', then, well, you really are daft. Think outside of the box a bit.

That's a weird way to prove your point. I believe that the corner is a brilliant alternative to spanking, but what happens when you have a 9-12 year old who won't even stand in the corner without motivation? How do you deal with that? You just ask them to get back in the corner? That's the problem with methods that don't involve some level of paddling, they don't work on kids who are already undisciplined and disrespectful.

It sounds like you're some sort of virtuoso of the "time out". For most people, spanking is way more effective. Would you rather see children with no discipline, or spanked? For most kids, those are the options.

Delegitimize spanking and you get a society of spoiled brats, kind of what we have now.

I agree that most people don't know how to discipline their kids without shouting and hitting. I also agree that banning spanking isn't going to fix the problem.

That's a weird way to prove your point. I believe that the corner is a brilliant alternative to spanking, but what happens when you have a 9-12 year old who won't even stand in the corner without motivation? How do you deal with that? You just ask them to get back in the corner? That's the problem with methods that don't involve some level of paddling, they don't work on kids who are already undisciplined and disrespectful.

More work is required, but it can still be done with imagination, patience, and love. Give me a particular example of behaviour that you'd like to adjust and why, and let's see what ideas we can come up with.

What the hell is wrong with you guys !!!!!!!!!!!

Ban it - right now !!!!!!!!!!

http://www.scandinavica.com/culture/society/children.htm

Please notice article 19 , in the 1989, UN charter of rights for children:
" any form of discipline involving violence is unacceptable " ..........

http://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Rights_overview.pdf

More work is required, but it can still be done with imagination, patience, and love. Give me a particular example of behaviour that you'd like to adjust and why, and let's see what ideas we can come up with.

Ok, I'll give you an example. Fighting each other in the house. How do you stop this witout force? What type of punishment works for you?

Of course, it stands to reasonable people that what worked in a different society some centuries/millenia back for curbing children exposed to vastly different temptations etc will work the same reforming magic today. Brilliant.

The only spanking still persists is because 'that's the way it's always been'.

If as a 21st century Westerner, you are so indoctrinated and so daft that you can't be bothered to even try to see what alternatives there are to spanking, or your defense consists of 'it happened to me and I turned out fine', then, well, you really are daft. Think outside of the box a bit.
'Think outside the box.', you say. 'It's the 21st century!' You say.

Humans are the same now as they have been for milenia. If you dressed up a Cro magnum man in a suit and put him on a bus, you couldn't tell him from anyone else.

Just because an idea is new doesn't make it correct. Such things should be judged objectively, not by their degree of novelty.

Humans have been raising children for milenia. We've pretty well figured out how to do it. Now Dr. Spock comes along and says, "Don't spank your kids". It's so medieval.

Spanking works, I've seen no empiracal evidence that any other method is superior or more practical.

I've seen plenty of evidence that alternative methods DO NOT WORK with my own eyes.

Somehow the idea that violence is the only solution to some problems is not a lesson to be teaching kids, especially violence against those you love.

I've seen plenty of evidence that alternative methods DO NOT WORK with my own eyes.

In my experiences, corners work extra well. After you stick a kid in a corner 2-3 times(and make them stand there, the right way) for 2 hours or so, they start listening to what you say a lot more often. It's worked with every kid I've ever watched anyway.

In my experiences, corners work extra well. After you stick a kid in a corner 2-3 times(and make them stand there, the right way) for 2 hours or so, they start listening to what you say a lot more often. It's worked with every kid I've ever watched anyway.
When I was in college, I worked as a substitute teacher once in a while. I knew I couldn't spank the kids, so I started putting them in the corner. It was working really well, until the principle walked by. She didn't approve of the corner treatment.

Democrat though I may be, let’s face reality: spare the rod, spoil the child. Spanking is not abuse. If there are bruises, broken bones, excessive welts, burns, et c., a child has been abused. A lack of one does not directly imply the lack of the other, but it is fairly well coorilated.
There are times when a child needs their butt spanked, their hand smacked, their mouth washed with soap, and such what not. It is at a parents discretion the level of punishment required, and that is as it should be. My dad spanked me when I directly disobeyed the rules, my mom smacked my hands when I took or touched stuff I knew I was not supposed to, and if ever my parents caught me swearing of back-talking... let's just say Dial soap is foul tasting. My parents *punished* me. They were not abusive. I never missed school to hide bruises, and the only time I went to the hospital with an injury was the time I ran down the stairt, and fell three steps from the top... I punished myself there, we were not supposed to play or run on the stairs.
As long as the parent is using *an open hand,* not a fist or forign object, spanking is neither abusive, nor detrimental. It is punishment. Who's right is it to say what is best for anyone else's child?
Personal Example: I have 3 nephews and a neice. Each of their six parents spank their children, smack hands, and wash mouths with soap. What's more, they have explicitely given me permission to do so at my discretion.
Last week, when my 7-year-old nephew said the "a-word," I fetched the soap. A few weeks before, my neice, instead of taking her nap, snuck into the kitchen and got into the play makeup that *she knew she was not to play with without adult supervision." She got her hand smacked, and was sent back to bed, while her mother, my sister, and I cleaned up the mess. My other nephew threw a fit when he was told he needed to quit playing with his V-Smile (God, it is hard to punish them for learning too much!), and come eat dinner. My sister, his step-mother, is 7 months pregnant, and is uncomfortable spanking him because he kicks, and could hurt the baby, so she called me (I live about 5 minutes away). He waited in the corner, and when I got there, he got three good swats on his bum, then got to eat his dinner alone. Twice, previously, he had acted up like this, and gotten grounded from his V-Smile. This was the third time, and this time, he got his butt spanked.
Anyone who even dared to tell me I am abusive to these children would be laughed out of any of our houses, by the children. Why? Because, even though I use corpral punishment on "my babies," they all KNOW I LOVE them more than life itself.
Every Wednesday, I go without any sleep (I work 2 jobs, so sleep is a rare treat) to pick them up after school. It's Ice cream Wednesday. If they have been good in school and done all their homework all week, I take them to Coldstone's. They know what is coming. Every monday, I spent 2 hours volunteering in each of their classes. There is never a week that goes by that one of their teachers is not complimenting on how active my sister's and I are in their educations, how well mannered the kids are, and *how have we raised such respectful children?* It is always the same: they may only have one mom or dad, but we all play a parental role. By learning to repect all of us, and follow our various rules, they learn how to act in the different arena's of life.
Every time I go to one of my sister's, or to the kids schools, or see them while out and about, my neice and nephews scream and run towards me, they jump into my arms (all 60 lbs, 68 lbs, 24 lbs, and 47 lbs, you would not believe how hard it is to hold 4 squirming children ranging from 2 1/2 to 7), and they all go at once, "Guess what, Aunt Ruby," "Hey, Aunt Ruby, did you know...?" "Aunt Ruby, will you...?" Does this sound like they are abused? No. They are happy, well-managed, healthy children.
I find it a bloody crying shame that when our nation is plagued by so many other evils (war, gang wars, defecit, AIDs, HIV, rape, Energy Insuficiency, Poverty, racism, et c.), we can waste time on worthless, populist-minded, intrusive wastes of paper in some bureaucrats disposal reciprical like what this bill is!

I find the idea of making a child, any age, stand in a corner for an hour+ more abusive that spanking. My feet hurt a lot worse the first time I worked a four hour shift than what my butt ever did when my parnts spanked me.

There are children who have grown up nicely without spanking. And there are children who haven't. (Needless to say, the same goes for spanked children)What does this tell us about the complex impetuses for behaving unnacceptably and the simple-minded method of dealing with them? Of course, it stands to reasonable people that what worked in a different society some centuries/millenia back for curbing children exposed to vastly different temptations etc will work the same reforming magic today. Brilliant.

The only spanking still persists is because 'that's the way it's always been'.

And that's the same reason a people can believe heterosexuality has always been normal, that human sacrifices have always been abhorrent, etc.

If as a 21st century Westerner, you are so indoctrinated and so daft that you can't be bothered to even try to see what alternatives there are to spanking, or your defense consists of 'it happened to me and I turned out fine', then, well, you really are daft. Think outside of the box a bit.

And if you don't 'think outside of the box', we're going to persecute you.

Yaaay freedom!

Democrat though I may be, let’s face reality: spare the rod, spoil the child.
Is that uncommon among Democrats?

Spanking works, I've seen no empiracal evidence that any other method is superior or more practical.
It works if your only concern is limiting a certain behavior. It doesn't work towards raising a happy healthy adult. While I think calling it abuse is going to far, and it would be wrong to legislate against it, it can cause real psychological damage, and it's wrong.

There is something sexual about spanking the buttocks, it is an obscene way to raise a child, and a sure sign that you have no parenting skills in the first place.