Spanking children doesn't work.

[Dr. Keith]

I remember the time I popped my nephew's boy (3 years) quite hard on the keester. The kid was hellbent on getting near a very dangerous Bull (just cause he's so huge - 2000 lb) despite telling him to stay away several times.

Of course, the kid probably thought I was just being a meanie for popping him, and I really didn't care - I was just scared he would get hurt, and relieved that I had caught him before he got too close. So, yeah...I guess he saw it as nothing but a "Penalty" from a capricious uncle, and I saw it as something quite different. And his father saw it as a job well done.

Later on when the boy cooled down, we took great pains to explain why Big Bulls are so dangerous - just like Big Cars and Trucks. I don't know if the lesson stuck, but I hope it did.

What did the spanking achieve? If he was 3 you could easily restrain him from the bull by simply picking him up. In fact that would be easier than spanking. All the spanking did was confuse the kid as to why Uncle Jules was hitting him.

Hitting is wrong, Uncle Jules just hit me. Why isn't Uncle Jules being punished? What the **** just happened to our carefully constructed system of rules? Can I hit Uncle Jules back? Can I hit my sister when I'm older like Uncle Jules? Do I have to wear tacky clothes like Uncle Jules to hit people?

Picking the child up creates far less confusion, safely removes them form the danger, and makes the subsequent explanation easier. You don't have to wait as long for them to settle down and the immediacy of the explanation has some meaning.

 

[Belz...]

Even if I assume the evidence is inconclusive, why choose the method that includes modeling physical violence as a solution to problems?

If we were talking about dogs or coworkers we would reject the violent route unless there was compelling evidence that it was the better route. But with kids you seem on the fence. That seems odd to me.

That's a very interesting way of wording it. If it were dogs, "we" would reject it, but with kids, "I" am on the fence. Do you not see a problem, there? I mean, aside from the fact that you attribute opinions to me that I have not voiced.

 

[Jules Galen]

What did the spanking achieve? If he was 3 you could easily restrain him from the bull by simply picking him up. In fact that would be easier than spanking. All the spanking did was confuse the kid as to why Uncle Jules was hitting him.

Hitting is wrong, Uncle Jules just hit me. Why isn't Uncle Jules being punished? What the **** just happened to our carefully constructed system of rules? Can I hit Uncle Jules back? Can I hit my sister when I'm older like Uncle Jules? Do I have to wear tacky clothes like Uncle Jules to hit people?

Picking the child up creates far less confusion, safely removes them form the danger, and makes the subsequent explanation easier. You don't have to wait as long for them to settle down and the immediacy of the explanation has some meaning.

Well, he stayed away from that Bull as a result of the spanking. And...I really don't care if he was confused, or not, at the time - he just needed to stay away from that Bull.

Sorry man...life isn't perfect. I guess in a better world I could have reasoned with the child and shown him Logic Diagrams Equations demonstrating the Bull's Danger and the need for him to keep away from it. Yeah....Right!

 

[Cavemonster]

But the "I put my child in time out but I didn't kidnap him" distinction doesn't mean something? Or the "I took away my child's cell phone but I didn't rob him" distinction doesn't mean something?

All discipline involves doing things to children that we are not allowed to do to other adults. This is a feature of the system, not a bug.

For at least the cell phone part of that question, you may call it your "child's cell phone" in some conversations, but for most of their time as a minor, kids have no property. They don't own their room if they aren't paying rent, they don't own "their" cell phone if you paid for it and for the plan.

When you take away access to property for a child, you aren't robbing, you are rescinding their permission to use what is legally YOUR property, which you could do with any adult you allowed to use your property.

There are certainly a few things you can do with a kid that would be illegal with an adult, but it's a little more of a narrow band than you're representing here.

And most importantly, I think there's a positive duty to show those cases are necessary, safe and beneficial. We can't force adults to get immunized, but we can do that with our children, but it's not too hard to make a positive argument for that. The efficacy of vaccines is well documented and the fact that kids at two months old can't digest that information to make a decision is equally clear.

Sure, spanking isn't the only case where kids are subject to what might be a crime in other circumstances, but for all of these allowances, there should be an argument with good evidence for why it should be allowed.

 

[Dr. Keith]

That's a very interesting way of wording it. If it were dogs, "we" would reject it, but with kids, "I" am on the fence. Do you not see a problem, there? I mean, aside from the fact that you attribute opinions to me that I have not voiced.

Am I wrong in saying you and I agree not to beat dogs? Am I wrong in saying that you find the evidence unconvincing and thus are on the fence? If so, I apologize. As you say, this isn't the best way to get to know another person's thoughts.

My main point is if you find the studies unconvincing that I would suggest favoring not spanking over spanking.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Well, he stayed away from that Bull as a result of the spanking. And...I really don't care if he was confused, or not, at the time - he just needed to stay away from that Bull.

Sorry man...life isn't perfect. I guess in a better world I could have reasoned with the child and shown him Logic Diagrams Equations demonstrating the Bull's Danger and the need for him to keep away from it. Yeah....Right!

I'm still confused as to how spanking was better than just picking him up?

 

[Jules Galen]

I'm still confused as to how spanking was better than just picking him up?

Because I had tried that 3 Jillion times before! Also, had some things to do and couldn't carry him every where at all times.

Listen...if you are trying to make it sound like I have only one tool in the tool box (i.e., spanking) and I am somehow overanxious to use it, or too thoughtless not to consider something else, then you are dead damned wrong.

In fact, to me it is you who seems to be kind of thoughtless insofar as you seem to have a knee-jerk reaction that Spanking is wrong - or assume it is wrong at all times without carefully considering the context. I mean it seems to me that you want one of those simple "One answer fits all" sort of paradigms - much like the people who over-spank their kids (because they figure if a little is good...then a lot is better, huh?) And you seem to figure that if Spanking can be applied badly, then no spanking at all is best.

Seriously, you seem to have the same mentality of a habitual spanker - just reversed.

But...I don't read minds, so I can't know for sure. Perhaps you could explain?

 

[ZirconBlue]

Are you saying that ALL parents who might smack their kids are like this or are you just being ridiculous?

You might want to go back and read at least the first word of the post you are quoting.

 

[AdamSK]

What did the spanking achieve? If he was 3 you could easily restrain him from the bull by simply picking him up.

You don't have children, do you?

 

[Jules Galen]

I have 3 white kids in my class. My school is 90% free-and-reduced lunch. It's an inner-city school.

The average IQ of my classes was 87, and I didn't have one student - NOT ONE - who had an IQ of 100 or greater. In other words, I was working with some pretty-darned slow kids...and that's why there were always Teaching Jobs open at that school. Hardley seems like the place to throw a fresh, newly-minted Teacher, does it? I mean, this situation seems like it would call for some experience. Hah...don't make me laugh!

As an added bonus, the Parents were just a mess - most all of them anyways. They wouldn't return calls, answer correspndance....even if they could speak English (which a lot of them couldn't). Most of the worked most all of the time so the the kids practically raised themselves. So, I had a bunch of slow kids with a streak of independance who thought "I raise myself anyways...so who are you to tell me what to do?".

I mean, I could go on and on...but one thing did really nag me - and nags me to this day. You see, the School District I worked in had a system that was expert at alienating and weeding out kids like mine once they reached High School: they made school so miserable and hopeless that the kids quit. They did it by the Hundreds...the Thousands...and it still goes on today. And it's all aimed at making the State Test Scores look good.

So...me standing in front of a class of 7th Graders and telling them they have a future in education and this is why they should study hard so they can later master Chemistry and Biology and...whatever, is pretty laughable - in a grim way. And, I knew it was a lie....and the kids knew it was a lie before I figured it out (they had older Siblings and Friends who had been previously ground up by the System).

And I figure what I saw is pretty-much the norm for a lot of School Districts who are wealthy enough not to need the extra government money from class attendance, and have enough smart kids to make the scores on the State Tests look good. Else, they can run them all into dumbed-down "Special Ed" classes and get them exempt from testing (which is done a lot if you can't just flush them out of the system due to needing the money that their warm bodies provide).

And...I got no reason to believe that what I saw wasn't the norm.

So I would say to prospective (new) teachers: don't teach minorities for they know they are already screwed by the System. And once a kid knows the System is there to screw him, he's very difficult to deal with. And...that's why the the fresh, young teachers before you quit...and the fresh, young teachers before them...and on, and on.. Every Year...a set of Newly-minted Teachers to throw into the grinder - because all the decent teaching jobs are held by teachers who aren't leaving those jobs (and I can't blame them).

And that's the way it is.

 

[Darat]

You don't have children, do you?

If you could smack him you could have grabbed him, which to me would have seemed the sensible thing to do given the description you posted.

 

[AdamSK]

If you could smack him you could have grabbed him, which to me would have seemed the sensible thing to do given the description you posted.

What description was that?

 

[Cain]

If hitting children doesn't work, then you aren't hitting them hard enough.

 

[cullennz]

Find the person suggesting shunning and yelling. They would be better able to help you.

What else is a time out?

 

[Jules Galen]

What else is a time out?

It's a time for penance (i.e., self reflection about what has gone wrong).

As a result, Dad used to have a Tim-Out Chair he referred to as the "Penitentiary" - and, if you think about it, that's just what it was. (Actually, it was mom's chair, for Dad was so scary he rarely had to tell me twice even though he rarely spanked me - I mean like maybe 3 times in my whole life...at most).

 

[mgidm86]

Am I wrong in saying you and I agree not to beat dogs? Am I wrong in saying that you find the evidence unconvincing and thus are on the fence? If so, I apologize. As you say, this isn't the best way to get to know another person's thoughts.

My main point is if you find the studies unconvincing that I would suggest favoring not spanking over spanking.

You're talking about spanking kids and beating dogs. That's not a fair comparison. This is obviously an emotional subject for some.

I don't beat dogs but I've swatted one on the butt to get its attention or to reinforce something important that I'm trying to teach it, like to stay out of the street or whatever. I'm talking about a light slap that wouldn't even hurt a small child. It gets their attention. This is extremely rare for me though.

I just had a discussion yesterday about hitting dogs. Someone thought I should beat my dog for this or that after it's over a year old. The guy who said that is not welcome in my home anymore (I'd just met him and didn't like him much anyways but that was a factor in my decision).

My Dad "spanked" me with his belt several times, mainly for lying. I don't think that's the right thing to do at all, it was his frustration that led to that. I would never resort to that type of thing with anyone or any animal.

Having said all that, I did not grow up with violent tendencies of any kind because of my spanking. I don't consider what he did as abuse, but I consider it wrong and would never ever do that.

I don't have a problem with parents swatting their kids on the butt now and then. Frankly, as long as they aren't abusing the child, that is none of my business.

Sometimes standing in line at the store (It's always in line at the store for me!) I come close to asking the parent of an overly obnoxious child if I can smack it a couple of times for them - but then I think, in this situation the person who really needs it is the parent.

 

[quixotecoyote]

You're talking about spanking kids and beating dogs. That's not a fair comparison. This is obviously an emotional subject for some.

I don't beat dogs but I've swatted one on the butt to get its attention or to reinforce something important that I'm trying to teach it, like to stay out of the street or whatever. I'm talking about a light slap that wouldn't even hurt a small child. It gets their attention. This is extremely rare for me though.

If you're defending light swats that wouldn't hurt a small child, you're not talking about spanking either.

 

[Belz...]

Am I wrong in saying you and I agree not to beat dogs?

Depends on the physical punishment. Depends on the dog. Bear in mind that I see animals as below humans on the moral ladder.

My main point is if you find the studies unconvincing that I would suggest favoring not spanking over spanking.

That would require me to add another premise to my reasoning. Otherwise I remain relatively neutral on the issue.

 

[Belz...]

You don't have children, do you?

That's not an argument, Adam. For one, everyone's experiences differ. Also, the arguments are supposed to stand on their own. One can mention physics without being a physicist, for example. Also, we were all kids at some point.

 

[Fudbucker]

The average IQ of my classes was 87, and I didn't have one student - NOT ONE - who had an IQ of 100 or greater. In other words, I was working with some pretty-darned slow kids...and that's why there were always Teaching Jobs open at that school. Hardley seems like the place to throw a fresh, newly-minted Teacher, does it? I mean, this situation seems like it would call for some experience. Hah...don't make me laugh!

As an added bonus, the Parents were just a mess - most all of them anyways. They wouldn't return calls, answer correspndance....even if they could speak English (which a lot of them couldn't). Most of the worked most all of the time so the the kids practically raised themselves. So, I had a bunch of slow kids with a streak of independance who thought "I raise myself anyways...so who are you to tell me what to do?".

I mean, I could go on and on...but one thing did really nag me - and nags me to this day. You see, the School District I worked in had a system that was expert at alienating and weeding out kids like mine once they reached High School: they made school so miserable and hopeless that the kids quit. They did it by the Hundreds...the Thousands...and it still goes on today. And it's all aimed at making the State Test Scores look good.

So...me standing in front of a class of 7th Graders and telling them they have a future in education and this is why they should study hard so they can later master Chemistry and Biology and...whatever, is pretty laughable - in a grim way. And, I knew it was a lie....and the kids knew it was a lie before I figured it out (they had older Siblings and Friends who had been previously ground up by the System).

And I figure what I saw is pretty-much the norm for a lot of School Districts who are wealthy enough not to need the extra government money from class attendance, and have enough smart kids to make the scores on the State Tests look good. Else, they can run them all into dumbed-down "Special Ed" classes and get them exempt from testing (which is done a lot if you can't just flush them out of the system due to needing the money that their warm bodies provide).

And...I got no reason to believe that what I saw wasn't the norm.

So I would say to prospective (new) teachers: don't teach minorities for they know they are already screwed by the System. And once a kid knows the System is there to screw him, he's very difficult to deal with. And...that's why the the fresh, young teachers before you quit...and the fresh, young teachers before them...and on, and on.. Every Year...a set of Newly-minted Teachers to throw into the grinder - because all the decent teaching jobs are held by teachers who aren't leaving those jobs (and I can't blame them).

And that's the way it is.

It sounds like you had a horrible experience. But not all schools are like that. Too many are, but quite a few have dedicated staff and administrators who know what they're doing.