Spanking children, a parent's right ?

shorty:

Lock him in an (empty) room and ignore him, let him cry himself out and go crazy with boredom. Indifference and boredom are the best medicine when it comes to tantrums, imho. With some children, even bad attention (spanking) fuels such behaviour, because to them some attention is better than no attention at all. I've noticed this trend in shopping malls, where parents will spank their screaming kids, to no avail. If anything, their kids will just scream louder, because they upset about being spanked!

Anti-spanking doesn't mean anti-discipline. My kids will respect me. But they won't dread me, either. I'll save the violence for my enemies, not my offspring.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

(Q):

*gasp* Male privilege!?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

mad, i was pointing out (now for ATLEAST the third time) that corporal punishment increases the chance the child will turn into an abusive partner.

In fact the first artical i posted stated quite clearly that americal could quite radically LOWER the levels of domestic violence by making corporal punishment of children a criminal offence

Futher more in regard to your comment about a randomised controled trial of corporal punishment i will point out that the artical i posted in 324 stated that

So even people who are working with the hardest cases (ie foster parents) are banned from physically abusing those in there care.

wonder why that is?
could it be that NITHER goverment thinks corporal punishment works?

 

That was one productive dump, then.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Ok, I absolutely love those claims. Now, back them up with something and then distinguish the difference between the toddler and the beaten wife scenario. We've both posted links to websites containing parental guidance tools and articles decrying spanking as physical violence only to be abhorred.

Show me something that supports spanking?

 

Mentality has everything to do with it! As I've said multiple times, the reason parents spank toddlers more than any other group is that they can't understand other punishments.

As to your mentally retarded question, it so happens that one of my 4 children is mentally retarded. And, yes, I do spank him more than I would a normal 10 year old. Why? Because he still has the mentality of a 5 year old!

But guess what? He's the best behaved and highest functioning kid in his special ed class. A few years ago he was throwing tantrums in class to get his way. His teacher and doctor wanted to put him on psychoactive drugs to make him settle down.

I said the last thing my son, who is already mentally retarded, needs is some drug to "settle him down" and fuck up his brain worse than it already is! I told the teacher that when he acts up at school, just send a note home. He will then be punished at home.

A couple notes came home. A couple spankings were administered (I think I spanked him three days in a row when he got home from school). And then, no more acting up in class.

Would it have been better to administer the drugs? Or should I have tried to simply explain to a 7 year old (this was a few years ago) child with an IQ of about 55 why his behavior was inappropriate?

My method worked, and it kept my son off the psychoactive drugs that have turned so many of his "special ed" classmates into vegetables.

 

Btw, I really would like to see you wriggle out of the bolded. You are stating that children require physical punishment simply because they don't understand and are unlikely to consider.

We beat the ignorant because they are ignorant? :huh:

 

If you read my post about the time he kept coming out of his bed...I did something very similar.


An empty room, very hard to find in a house. I don't have one room that is empty.

As for the tantrums that happen out in public places, I never experienced that with my kids. He basically had that 1 tantrum and never again. So do you think that maybe my couple of smacks to his butt actually registered and he didn't do them anymore? It was the first time I ever smacked him and the first and last tantrum he had. :shrug:

My kids respect me and they tell me I am a cool mom, so they definately don't dread me. I show them love and they express it back daily.

Do you really think a few smacks in a kids lifetime is going to turn them against you?

 

We use the form of punishment appropriate to their level of understanding.

 

Would you increase the physical violence the more ignorant one was?

Should newborns be hit the hardest?

 

Children are not that simpleminded.

Or, since in fact people tend to raise their kids the way they themselves were raised, you could note that kids who are not spanked more often grow up to be wealthy, liberal, do-gooder types, and then not spank their own kids.

Rather than the sorts of people who end up in jail.

And you don't like them. Come right down to it, you would rather your kid ended up jailed for some reasonably manly crime, like assault or armed robbery, than turn out to be a liberal do-gooder type. And by hitting your kid, you do seem to protect them from the liberal do-gooder fate, if stats are to be believed.

And the odd fact is that the people whose kids turn out to be poor, violent, mean-spirited types, - just like their parents - are proud of their own upbringing and satisfied with the results they obtained by handing on the tradition. "I was spanked, and I turned out OK" - so said the guy on the truck next to me one day, who was addicted to cigarettes and alcohol by age 13, high school dropout, jailed and almost dead several times over fighting and driving drunk, messily divorced, etc. He wasn't joking.

So ? People raise kids the way they themselves were raised, 90% of the time. It's all they really know, for one thing - what do you do about a bad tantrum ? Persistent self-destructive behaviors ? What your parents did.

The percentage of the spanked is lower among high acheivers, Nobel Prizes, that kind of thing. People who didn't get spanked tend not to spank their own kids, so you can actually follow cohorts for your study, if you want to.

Just compare equivalent demographics. There are enough people out there who haven't been hitting their kids to get a reasonable sample.

Or do cross-cultural comparisons - some cultures, like inner city black Americans, hit their kids more than others do.

It's not a matter of passing judgment - and if it were, take a look at the judgments passed on parents who don't hit their kids, in this thread. If you don't spank, and your kid misbehaves, where does the blame go? If you do spank, and they misbehave anyway, well you tried. It actually takes a certain amount of courage for a parent to admit they don't spank their kids, in most American communities. It's like admitting you breastfed past the community sanctioned weaning age - doesn't matter what the numbers or experts say, you are setting yourself up as a target.

 

Your absurd statements do nothing to bolster your argument. Let's pretend that was a serious question, just for fun. Newborns are incapable of doing much more than eat, poop, and pee. They are, therefore, never in need of discipline as they are incapable of willfully doing anything wrong.

 

Las Vegas Sun, Nevada, 28 May 1999
Nevada Senate approves spanking bill

CARSON CITY -- The Senate, at the urging of its majority leader, approved a bill Friday opening the door for parents to spank their children without worrying about suits or police harassment.
Majority Leader Bill Raggio, R-Reno, said the bill doesn't allow child abuse or neglect. But it does permit parents to use spanking to discipline a child.

In justifying the bill, Raggio cited a recent escalation in youth violence and gang activity, causing "grief, destruction and terror."

"There is a fear by parents who should be in a position to deal with reasonable discipline," Raggio said. "They have rebellious kids who say 'If you touch me, I will turn you into the cops or I will sue you.' "

At the same time, Raggio said he would not argue with child psychologists who say a parent should never lay a hand on their child.

If a parent is turned in to authorities for spanking or swatting a child, an inquiry will be held. But if the discipline is determined to be reasonable, any record the incident would be expunged.

Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus, D-Las Vegas, said she did not agree with the portion of the bill which would eliminate any record of the incident. She suggested repeated spanking could point to a serious problem.

Sen. Ray Rawson, R-Las Vegas, said spankings don't equate with child abuse. He said child abuse comes when a youngster is thrown against a wall or his legs are broken. In those cases, the records should be kept. But spanking, he said, "is a case of proper discipline."
Raggio said he patterned the bill after similar legislation in Oklahoma which was passed two days ago.

He said he "would not assign all the blame" to parents for recent school shootings in Colorado, Arkansas, Oregon and other states. But he added, "If you don't instill authority at home, it will never be instilled at school."
He noted that several years ago teachers were given the authority for corporal punishment. That authority was later removed.

 

WOW shorty, i thought you were one of those people who DIDNT take the word of legislatiors as scientic evidence

sad to think that you would take a news artical on a piece of legislation over a 100 scientific studies showing that abuse (including corporal punishment) leads to domestic violence.

Nice to see you want to raise kids to hit there wives

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

so basically what your saying mad is that they are to young to understand punishment and so there for your justified in using whatever means you can to disipline them (which they wont understand anyway)

Tell me would you agree with using diazapram to sedate todlers simply as a means of control? (rather than as a treatment for epilepsy and other MEDICAL conditions)

 

LOL Yeah I am raising 2 wife beaters over here. The next time ppl/teachers tell me how mannerly and well behaved they are, I will tell them it's all an act.
They are actually filled with rage from those few times I spanked them and are just waiting to take it out on some innocent future wife.
They are really great actors too because they are usually joking around laughing all the time.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

BTW: I just came across the article and thought I would post it. I never knew there were such laws passed on the subject.

 

shorty it doesnt MATTER wether they are "well behaved" now. The evidence is that they are at an increased chance of becoming a rapist or a domestic abuser (got to think of a better verb for that, hmmm) if you assult them when they are kids

And by assult i include coporal punishment because no one has yet found ONE scientific artical which proves its in ANY way benifical in the long term to the abused rather than the abuser.

I will remind you of some historical facts:

the british felt that it was ok to kill aborigionals and take there lands because they were "sub human".

The Australian goverment thought it was ok to take aborigional children away from there families because they were automatically "bad parents"

The US goverment thought it was ok to own slaves because they wernt "really human"

Women wernt alowed to vote because "they couldnt possably understand the political proccess"

Husbands were alowed to beat there wives and were in turn liable for there wives offences because women wernt "really human"

Why do i post these? what do they have to do with corporal punishment?

Because everytime people have said "we do always have done it and thats the way its done" we as a speicies have causes EMENCE problems. This is what comes from being a sheep and ignoring the scientific evidence, massive levels of injustice.

Even a baby can be harmed by a parents actions, in this case its mainly ignoring the child because this causes distress. Even this lack of affection can over a long time cause LONG term psychological harm.

Think what being beaten teaches and then re read the posts i have made, the evidence has come from diverse sources including in the US and ignoring it just shows that your no better than the generations which opressed and abused other groups be them homosexuals, women, aborigionals, africans, jews or any other group

 

Spanking your kids is a good way to Discipline

Way back in the 1940's and 1950's, Dr. Benjamin Spock made popular the idea that spanking children was not good way to discipline them. In fact, Dr. Spock claimed that spanking kids actually hurts them and so should spanking kids should be avoided at all cost. Dr. Spock and other physiologists told us that children should be reasoned with and persuaded to do good using positive reinforcement techniques. We were told to avoid the use of spanking or other "negative" forms of punishment. Such ideas from psychology followed the "spirit of this world", claiming that bad behavior is "really not your child's fault", and that spanking "teaches children to be violent through the use of violence" (i.e. by the "violence" of spanking them.)

But were such arguments by Dr. Spock and other physiologists really valid? Is spanking your kids a good way to discipline them, or is it a bad way that will actually harm them instead of helping them? We should look at this issue from a number of different angles.

What Are the Alternatives to Spanking?

For years, many people have tried the use of various alternatives to spanking. These alternatives have generally included such methods as vocal correction, rewards, and various other forms of punishment which do not include spanking.

(1) Correction by the use of vocal instruction

When a child is only verbally corrected, apart from the use of any other form of punishment, the result is almost always a disaster. The child quickly learns that you are "all talk and no action". Such a child therefore does not learn to conform his or her behavior to your commands. Instead, such a child does as he or she pleases, knowing that "the voice" correcting them, (i.e. your "tongue lashing"), is only that - just a voice. Therefore, the use of vocal instruction alone teaches children that disobeying authority is not a serious offence. Likewise, such children learn to "tune out" their parents. This "tuning out" of parents can cause these children a great deal of trouble later in life, (especially when they are "teenagers"). This is because such children will learn to "tune out" all forms of vocal instruction from others, having developed this bad habit by tuning out their own parents.

(2) Correction by the use of rewards for being good

Correction by offering kids a reward for good behavior has behind it the idea that children are basically good. Therefore such children will do good if you will just reward them for doing so. The problem with such an idea is that it rejects "the total depravity of man", by looking at children as being basically good and not bad. Actually, the offering of rewards can often be beneficial to children. Nevertheless, the positive benefit of offering rewards is rarely seen unless it is also combined with the fear of punishment in the heart of such kids. The problem here is twofold - that children will learn to be bad in order to get something good out of you by then "being better". (This is a case of a child actually training his or her parents through the use of a common "behavior modification" technique.) The other problem is that you will only be able to correct a child if he or she wants something out of you. A stubborn, rebellious, self-willed child will not be easily corrected by the use of rewards alone.
(3) Correction by the use of punishments other than spanking

I have found that the use of punishments other than spanking generally works much better than by the use of either vocal instruction or rewards for being good. Nevertheless, a child who is never spanked will generally eventually develop some sort of discipline problem. Another problem with using only non-spanking forms of punishment is that such punishments will not work too well with very young children, since such children cannot yet understand what it is that you are trying to say to them. Spanking solves this problem, by enabling you to communicate in the language of "pain", a language that every child (even deaf ones) readily understand. Further, the use of only non-spanking forms of punishment can cause such children to become bitter at you, by causing them to think that you are "always punishing them".

All of the above methods have some benefits. Often the use of more than one of these methods in conjunction will result in a higher rate of success than the use of one method alone. Nevertheless, on at least a pragmatic level, the use of such methods will not be anywhere near as successful as the use of one or more of them in conjunction with "good old-fashioned spanking".
http://www.usingspankingdiscipline.com/

 

You're getting close. They are too young to understand things like "time out" or the denial of priviledges. But they do understand pain. They can make the association between pain and the bad action they took prior to the spanking.

You must not have read my earlier post regarding my son with Down's syndrome.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1981328&postcount=346
I am absolutely opposed to drugging up kids. Frankly, I believe it is the fact that schools no longer spank or allow enough time for recess that requires that an entire generation of little boys be drugged up to the point that they act like little girls.