The World We Live In...

OK, we seem to disagree here. Let's take a look at some criminal statistics I pulled out of thin air:

Family background
* Thirty-one percent of jail inmates had grown up with a parent or guardian who abused alcohol or drugs
* About 12 percent had lived in a foster home or institution.
* Forty-six percent had a family member who had been incarcerated.
* More than 50% of the women in jail said they had been physically or sexually abused in the past, compared to more than 10% of the men.


from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

I'm no expert in this field, but there seems to be a certain likelihood that a criminal career is linked to criminal/violent parents rather than to non-authoritarian parents. And it is crime we are discussing here, not bad language and bad manners, right? Social behaviour needs certain rules that are set predominantly by the parents, sure enough. But I have yet to see something convincing with regard to spanking being useful and effective in successfully raising a self-confident, healthy human being.

Maybe it is a country specific problem - I have friends who had much freedom during their child and teenage years, none of them is a spoiled brat. What do you learn out of such an arbitrary narrative? Tststs.

 

You have only mentioned two types of parents.

1. Criminal/violent
2. non-authoritarian.

I personally take offense if you are implying that because I set rules and consequences that little snook must follow that means I'm a criminal/violent parent.

Spanking is an incredibly useful tool. It is also the most severe form of punishment and a child should recognize that. Routine spankings would defeat the purpose for the child would not recognize the serverity of what they did wrong.

You mention social behavior needs rules, well rules need consequences. Many parents are good at making rules and then not enforcing them. Just a couple of weeks ago some of the neighborhood kids asked little snook if he could come out and go bike riding with them. He had to tell them "No" because he was rude to his mother and was grounded. He was not a happy camper about it, but I'll tell you his behavior to his mother has been significantly improved since then.

 

There's not a parent in the world who doesn't understand that they're going to be blamed for their children's behavior, don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise. The other piece that escapes most people who aren't parents - including me, at the time! - is that almost all parents are always doing what they think is best for their children. Unfortunately, it takes 18+ years to find out if your best efforts were good enough or not.

Sympathies, Barmy.

 

No Snook, Taluntain, in fact it is the other way round. chevalier implied that the best way to prevent people from becoming criminal is a good spanking and strict rules. I focused on the spanking part, because there isn't much disagreement on the rules.

My position is that violence at home is never a solution to anything - and spanking is violence, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself otherwise. I believe there's a negative impact there - but it is nice of you to call such a position ridiculous. The statistics are in no way satisfying, of course, but it is more than you came up with. If you say that spanking doesn't lead to criminal behaviour (a thing I didn't try to insinuate, mind you), then how can you come up with a position of not enough spanking leading to criminal behaviour? Some facts on your part beside "what a ridiculous idea" would be in order, don't you think?

Snook, if you think of spanking as a useful tool, then I'm glad my position offends you. I do not want to have anything to do with your world. Cheers.

 

I agree with Darkthorne. Spanking is violence (emotional and physical). I understand the difference between spanking and beating (my parents beat, frequently and sometimes savagely). Regardless, hitting someone is violence. If spanking is okay, then why can't a boss spank an employee who breaks the rules? How come it is only okay to perpetrate violence against children?

As a parent, I have found that it is possible to effectively discipline a child without violence (I have never hit my children). It takes creativity and discipline on the part of the parent. Spanking may be effective in the short term, but if non-violent alternatives are available, then why not use them?

 

Spanking the child is no better than spanking your wife. The child needs to have rules and it should be made to follow those but spanking just is not the right method. In Finland spanking a child is illegal, and has been so for nearly twenty years. Of course supervising it is difficult but it's really the principle that matters. Our government does not accept family violence no matter how small it is.

So all you child beaters better make sure that you can keep your hands in control when you visit Finland, at least in public or there might be unwanted consequences.

[ July 27, 2005, 02:55: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

 

Spanking your wife is not necessarily a bad thing if done in the bedroom.

I think spanking a child, however, is in bad taste. It simply perpetuates the idea that violence is okay, when it most definitely is not. I disagree with Darkthrone only in that it can be used as a tool, rather effectively in fact, but it is too much of a blunt object to be worth using. Precision consequences are much more effective.

 

@Taluntain:
You seem to be ignoring the happy medium (or at least not mentioning it). Just because you don't spank doesn't mean you don't discipline. I was never spanked, except for once when I called my mom a b*tch (having just learned the word but not what it meant ), and I grew up just fine. My parents had plenty of ways to punish me for being bad without having to resort to physical punishment. IMHO, spanking (like gambling) is the last resort of the desperate.

 

The whole problem with this spanking debate is that it ignores so many of the other factors that go into a child’s development. You can’t just say “spanking works because I turned out alright” because you might have also received lots of positive parental attention as well, in the same way you can’t say “sparing the rod spoils the child” because that unspanked kid might have had no other discipline in their life.

My personal opinion, now that I have been both a child and a parent, is that spanking is NOT necessary, but it requires great discipline on that part of the parent to follow through on the application of other forms of discipline. The greatest thing that my son craves is parental attention. The best way for me to make him do what I want is to give him attention when he is good and to withhold attention when he is bad. One minute in his play pen (with no toys) after being naughty, with no interaction from his parents, is more than enough to convince him to desist what he was doing before, especially if it is followed up with lots of positive attention when he comes out and plays nicely. I tried spanking a few times and he just giggles at it. Also, I know of other parents who spank their kids and they now have six year olds who think nothing of whacking the parents back.

I’m not going to go so far as to say the spanking is evil, but it’s not going to be the discipline of choice in this household.

 

Are you classifying things such as time-outs and groudings as "words," or just ignoring them completely?

Those punishments tend to get the message across very well. Kids aren't happy when they're told, "No, you can't go play with Tommy because you called your mother a bitch. You have to stay in your room for x hours, with no TV, radio, etc." and will, *gasp*, actually make an effort to avoid that sort of punishment.

As for spanking being violence...of course it is. You are, after all, hitting your child. However, it is very mild violence, certainly nothing like, oh, smacking little Timmy with a wooden chair. It's completely acceptable violence when done right, but it's silly to claim it's not violence. After all, there's nothing inherently wrong with violence; it's a tool like any other. If properly applied, violence can work wonders. When misused, it can be counter-productive. It's hardly unique in that.

 

Harbourboy, as usual, brings up the correct points. Spanking delivers desired results when it comes to obedience and following rules, no doubt. However, it is an easy way out and makes allowance rather for the needs and desires of parents than for those of the children. In light of this, it is not correct to say "it is in the best interest of the child". "It is in the best interest of the parents" is more to the point. This in itself is not condemnable, but don't act like it makes you a saint and other parents irresponsible.

Now, if spanking was the only possibility of obtaining desired behaviour on behalf of the children, well, then we would have to deal with such a fact. There are, however, other possibilites which lead to the same results, but additionally meet the concerns of the children as well as those of the parents. These possibilites can be more exhausting and demanding for the parents, of course. Spanking is easy. Effectuating win-win situations is strenuous.

Taluntain, I am not kidding - I thought I made that clear, so why are you still trying to belittle my position? I certainly never said that spanking can be linked directly to criminal activities; I said that violence leads to violence, and if taken to the extreme, a criminal, violent environment will aid and abet criminal and violent behaviour. Criminal and violent behaviour is the starting point of this debate, remember?

Whether or not spanking is violence may be debatable, but hey, then please let's debate it. Instead, you say

To which I reply: no, you didn't make it pretty clear. You made it pretty clear that you personally make a difference between spanking and "real" violence. Without further clarification or definition of what real violence is. How shall we debate this position?

But you don't seem to be interested in such a debate anyway. You wrote:

Wow, we all know that I'm wrong, but because I was deprived of the blessings of spanking my judgement has been tainted; is that what you're claiming? If you really believe this issue depends on perspective - well, where do you see an issue then? But as soon as some hard claims come in - such as "spanking decreases crime rates" - it is no personal opinion anymore but rather a measurable thing. So, again I ask where the proof for that claim is.

If there is neither a proof for nor against such a hypothesis, then it really seems to be a thing of perspective. In this case I can't understand why anyone thinks it is ridiculous to spare a child pain and humiliation.

A last thing that did catch my eye:

First of all, duty, responsibility and obedience are not of the same value. I personally value responsibility but find obedience rather needless and void of real meaning. A thinking, empathic human being tends to behave correctly because of his world view and self-conception, not because of reflexive but unreflected submissiveness. This is my leveling rule for my own child. I don't care for obedience. Obedience sucks.

Duty I never fully understood, so please provide me with some meaning of this term. What is the difference between duty and responsibility? I really want to know. Again: I'm not kidding.

Secondly, you said "this is exactly what happens". I'm sure you can provide some substance for this tautology?

Lastly, the "be without it for the rest of their life" part. This ignores the fact that today we think that learning, even on an emotional, unreflected level, does never stop for any human being. There simply is not one single phase in which the character of a human being is coined. People do change all the time, some ever so slightly, some never, but some even to a large extend. Childhood is predominant in this regard, but simply refusing to acknowledge any further impact on the personality after this period is plain wrong.

 

Sure. However, preventing a smaller child from doing anything enjoyable is an effective punishment; that's where stuff like "sit in the corner for ten minutes" comes in.

 

With no disrepect to AMaster.

Anyone who thinks that making a child sit in a corner for ten minutes is an effective punishment is delusional. Most kids don't have an attention span that exceeds ten minutes. While they are in the corner they may be miserable, but it is far more likely they are making you miserable, by constantly asking if they can come out now. Thirty seconds after they are allowed out of the corner they have forgotten about it and why they were sent there. Scolding a cat may be more effective then a timeout.

 

I disagree Snook, at different points in a child’s development, this is a very effective tool, especially for circumstances where the child has gotten out of control and really needs time to regain their composure. I have spanked my child when they are in such a state, and it tends to only aggravate the situation. 1 minute for every year of age in a corner is effective in giving them time to calm and to think about what they were doing. A stern conversation at that point can remedy many behavior problems, especially if the enforcement remains consistent.

I am not saying that time outs are superior to spankings, just as I would not say that a hammer is superior to a screwdriver (analogy, obviously hammers and screwdrivers are not tools for disciplining children). They are all tools, and they should be used to their best advantage for the given need.

 

True, but hopefully you wouldn't throw out your hammer because of a feel good psychiatrist telling you that a screwdriver is the only tool you need.

Don't get me wrong, in Little Snooks life (and he is 9) he has probably only been spanked 5 or 6 times and they were for very serious offenses (running away from his mother in a crowded mall, running into the street, etc.) He all in all is a very good kid. The most effective punishments against him are taking away things (tv, computer, comic books, etc.) A time-out has never done anything positive for him.