Spanking children doesn't work.

[Pup]

No, that's a stupid interpretation.

I disagree with spanking, but for you to suggest that spanking is done purely for causing pain for its own sake shows that you are not even prepared to discuss this dispassionately.

Maybe psychological aspects too--embarrassment, humiliation, surprise.

 

[Darat]

No, that's a stupid interpretation.

I disagree with spanking, but for you to suggest that spanking is done purely for causing pain for its own sake shows that you are not even prepared to discuss this dispassionately.

That isn't what I said. From reading this thread the proponents of spanking children have all indicated it is the pain that is the difference in regards to other methods.

 

[angrysoba]

That isn't what I said. From reading this thread the proponents of spanking children have all indicated it is the pain that is the difference in regards to other methods.

That's not what all of them have said, as Pup summarizes.

I think they are wrong, but that's not the point here.

 

[Belz...]

Well, there have been studies, and they show that there is no efficacy.

We've addressed that already: the studies done so far have compared no physical punishment with excessive (2 per week) punishment. The problem is that while this study shows that excessive punishment is damaging, it's been used to argue that _all_ physical punishment is damaging.

Unless you are aware of another study I haven't heard about.

 

[quixotecoyote]

We've addressed that already: the studies done so far have compared no physical punishment with excessive (2 per week) punishment. The problem is that while this study shows that excessive punishment is damaging, it's been used to argue that _all_ physical punishment is damaging.

Unless you are aware of another study I haven't heard about.

Moving target and burden of proof fallacies aside, you got that metastudy in post 30 and swifty handwaved it.

And that one included "conditional spanking" as a reasonably successful method, but it's defined as "a disciplinary technique for 2- to 6-year-old children in which parents use two open-handed swats on the buttocks only after the child has defied milder discipline such as time out."

Which leads to my other annoyance with these threads; the defense of spanking is always mounted on the barricades of trifling, limited, 'swats' rather than what is actually thought of as 'spanking'.

It's the same bait and switch that annoys me in the threads where Christians define God as love, love exists and is good, therefore God exists and is good. If you want to defend a couple mild open-handed swats, fine. But 'spanking' as anyone who has an objection to it would conceive of it, is not that.

 

[Mark6]

I oppose corporal punishment of children, particularly girls.

It spoils their (and mine) enjoyment of spanking when they grow up.

 

[quixotecoyote]

That annoys me less. But still the 17th person who thinks referencing 'spanking can be sexual for adults' is funny as a standalone still wears. It wasn't a particular knee-slapper the first 16 times.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Moving target and burden of proof fallacies aside, you got that metastudy in post 30 and swifty handwaved it.

And that one included "conditional spanking" as a reasonably successful method, but it's defined as "a disciplinary technique for 2- to 6-year-old children in which parents use two open-handed swats on the buttocks only after the child has defied milder discipline such as time out."

Which leads to my other annoyance with these threads; the defense of spanking is always mounted on the barricades of trifling, limited, 'swats' rather than what is actually thought of as 'spanking'.

It's the same bait and switch that annoys me in the threads where Christians define God as love, love exists and is good, therefore God exists and is good. If you want to defend a couple mild open-handed swats, fine. But 'spanking' as anyone who has an objection to it would conceive of it, is not that.

Possibly because those of us who'd agree that spanking as you define it is not a good thing, have been lectured in previous threads that our occasional use of, as you put it, a 'mild, open handed swat' is the same thing.

It's not an attempt to defend spanking as you've defined it, more a discussion as to whether such occasional 'swats' are, or are not, effective.

 

[Fudbucker]

That isn't what I said. From reading this thread the proponents of spanking children have all indicated it is the pain that is the difference in regards to other methods.

I take your point. Maybe spanking proponents would also be OK with occasional mild shocks? Maybe a taser specially designed for kids could deliver the needed pain necessary for behavioral modification?

 

[Belz...]

Moving target and burden of proof fallacies aside

Oh, no no. By all means, address those.

Which leads to my other annoyance with these threads; the defense of spanking is always mounted on the barricades of trifling, limited, 'swats' rather than what is actually thought of as 'spanking'.

Considering the physical damage that spanking incurs, which is none at all, it might as well be a swat, but you'll notice I have not used that term.

 

[HTTR]

Possibly because those of us who'd agree that spanking as you define it is not a good thing, have been lectured in previous threads that our occasional use of, as you put it, a 'mild, open handed swat' is the same thing.

It's not an attempt to defend spanking as you've defined it, more a discussion as to whether such occasional 'swats' are, or are not, effective.

Can you define how you mean effective?

I don't think anyone really questions that animals, including humans, can have their behavior modified (at least temporarily) via pain. After all, I would say that's why animals evolved to have pain. Following the "if it hurts, don't do it anymore" standard is a pretty good survival mechanism. Sure, some things that hurt don't pose any real risk, but in the grand scheme of things pain is overwhelmingly correlated with things animals shouldn't do if they want to live (get cut, burned, broken, or bitten, eat toxic things, poke your eye, etc).

Perhaps you mean "overall there's a net benefit" to the occasional swat in that it merely modifies behavior in the direction best for the child and does nothing else negative or the negative things are outweighed.

What negative things might be associated with these occasional swats to toddlers? One that comes to mind is teaching the toddler and onlooking older kids that hitting is the preferred method of getting people to do what you want. Did you have multiple kids? If so, how did you explain to them that it was a good thing for you to hit Toddler but it was not ok for them to hit Toddler? Or did you allow your older kid(s) to hit Toddler? I've seen non-familial kids using Occasional Swat and other physical force on toddlers, much to the dismay and anger of Toddler's parents.

I think someone in this thread mentioned keeping a toddler away from an animal that might harm them. Let's say you left Toddler in the care of another adult. That adult chose not to move the animal out of reach of Toddler. Adult didn't feel like repeatedly getting up and verbally addressing Toddler while physically redirecting Toddler, so Adult decided to use up one his allotted Occasional Swats.

Is this acceptable to you as Parent? What if instead of Adult it was Teen Cousin? Teen babysitter? Daycare Worker? Tween Sister? Eight year old Brother? Neighbor Kid?

If all of these people can do it, then fine. If not, then I would infer that there's something negative associated with Occasional Swat that is offset by the Swatter being the parent/guardian. What is that negative and how is it offset by being a parent?

I've heard people justify Occasional Swat by saying what they were doing just wasn't working, like with keeping Toddler away from Animal. How does this flowchart work?

Moving Animal out of reach of Toddler is not an option.
Physically getting off my ass and redirecting Toddler for the 50th time is not an option (why?).
Getting the assistance of others to help me in redirecting Toddler is not an option.
Moving Toddler away from Animal (as in get up and go somewhere else for a while, including leaving) is not an option.

Therefore, inflicting pain is the only option left. Of course, it's not 100% reliable, so I still have to keep an eye on Toddler to keep her safely away from Animal. What if she does it again? Do I use up another of my allotted Occasional Swats? How many times do I get to swat her?

Do I just keep on swatting her? Most people tend to say no, I don't. Instead I am expected to exercise one of the options that I already said weren't options to justify the first Occasional Swat.

I know what's coming next: The world's not going to end because I swatted my toddler on the butt. Nobody said it would because obviously it hasn't. But don't think for a moment that some kids haven't been totally flummoxed at getting in trouble for using mild violence to modify the behavior of smaller kids after seeing parents all around them using Occasional swats when the power differential is even greater.

Me? I'd much rather be able to say to me kid, "Do I hit you? Should I start now? You seem to think it's a good way of handling things, so should I do the same thing with you? No? Well, why not? How come it's not a good idea?" And therein comes the empathy lesson.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Can you define how you mean effective?

I don't think anyone really questions that animals, including humans, can have their behavior modified (at least temporarily) via pain. After all, I would say that's why animals evolved to have pain. Following the "if it hurts, don't do it anymore" standard is a pretty good survival mechanism. Sure, some things that hurt don't pose any real risk, but in the grand scheme of things pain is overwhelmingly correlated with things animals shouldn't do if they want to live (get cut, burned, broken, or bitten, eat toxic things, poke your eye, etc).

Perhaps you mean "overall there's a net benefit" to the occasional swat in that it merely modifies behavior in the direction best for the child and does nothing else negative or the negative things are outweighed.

What negative things might be associated with these occasional swats to toddlers? One that comes to mind is teaching the toddler and onlooking older kids that hitting is the preferred method of getting people to do what you want. Did you have multiple kids? If so, how did you explain to them that it was a good thing for you to hit Toddler but it was not ok for them to hit Toddler? Or did you allow your older kid(s) to hit Toddler? I've seen non-familial kids using Occasional Swat and other physical force on toddlers, much to the dismay and anger of Toddler's parents.

I think someone in this thread mentioned keeping a toddler away from an animal that might harm them. Let's say you left Toddler in the care of another adult. That adult chose not to move the animal out of reach of Toddler. Adult didn't feel like repeatedly getting up and verbally addressing Toddler while physically redirecting Toddler, so Adult decided to use up one his allotted Occasional Swats.

Is this acceptable to you as Parent? What if instead of Adult it was Teen Cousin? Teen babysitter? Daycare Worker? Tween Sister? Eight year old Brother? Neighbor Kid?

If all of these people can do it, then fine. If not, then I would infer that there's something negative associated with Occasional Swat that is offset by the Swatter being the parent/guardian. What is that negative and how is it offset by being a parent?

I've heard people justify Occasional Swat by saying what they were doing just wasn't working, like with keeping Toddler away from Animal. How does this flowchart work?

Moving Animal out of reach of Toddler is not an option.
Physically getting off my ass and redirecting Toddler for the 50th time is not an option (why?).
Getting the assistance of others to help me in redirecting Toddler is not an option.
Moving Toddler away from Animal (as in get up and go somewhere else for a while, including leaving) is not an option.

Therefore, inflicting pain is the only option left. Of course, it's not 100% reliable, so I still have to keep an eye on Toddler to keep her safely away from Animal. What if she does it again? Do I use up another of my allotted Occasional Swats? How many times do I get to swat her?

Do I just keep on swatting her? Most people tend to say no, I don't. Instead I am expected to exercise one of the options that I already said weren't options to justify the first Occasional Swat.

I know what's coming next: The world's not going to end because I swatted my toddler on the butt. Nobody said it would because obviously it hasn't. But don't think for a moment that some kids haven't been totally flummoxed at getting in trouble for using mild violence to modify the behavior of smaller kids after seeing parents all around them using Occasional swats when the power differential is even greater.

Me? I'd much rather be able to say to me kid, "Do I hit you? Should I start now? You seem to think it's a good way of handling things, so should I do the same thing with you? No? Well, why not? How come it's not a good idea?" And therein comes the empathy lesson.

I have 4 kids, they are all fine. One is at Uni, one is about to go, both the two younger ones are in the 'able and gifted' group in school and all seem happy and well adjusted. Two have never been smacked (eldest and third). 1 was smacked once (second) I think, I genuinely don't remember the details and they certainly don't. The other (youngest and only boy) has been smacked perhaps twice (I've described one of the occasions above - that was a smack on the hand). No smacking was done in anger.

I think you have me mistaken for someone who advocates smacking. I do not. The, very few, times we have done it, we felt it was appropriate but I would not argue that case strongly - as I stated, there may well have been a better way (and we usually found one - but not on those few occasions ).

I have not done your long post justice. Apologies, it is late. If get a chance I will come back to it tomorrow.

 

[HTTR]

I have 4 kids, they are all fine. One is at Uni, one is about to go, both the two younger ones are in the 'able and gifted' group in school and all seem happy and well adjusted. Two have never been smacked (eldest and third). 1 was smacked once (second) I think, I genuinely don't remember the details and they certainly don't. The other (youngest and only boy) has been smacked perhaps twice (I've described one of the occasions above - that was a smack on the hand). No smacking was done in anger.

I think you have me mistaken for someone who advocates smacking. I do not. The, very few, times we have done it, we felt it was appropriate but I would not argue that case strongly - as I stated, there may well have been a better way (and we usually found one - but not on those few occasions ).

I have not done your long post justice. Apologies, it is late. If get a chance I will come back to it tomorrow.

Thanks for the reply. I latched on to the "effective" part of your post, but I could just as easily latched on to someone else's post to make the same points. I didn't mean to attack you in any way. It was more an attack on the notion of what effective means in regards to corporal punishment of any kind.

Since you brought up the success of your kids, I actually find that irrelevant. The Jackson Five plus Janice were all very successful, but their upbringing was abusive. I would be willing to bet that if we looked closely at the upbringing of a lot of highly successful people we'd see a higher percentage of "abusive" parenting than we see in the normal distribution of all parenting, just as we see a higher percentage of abusive parenting among the least successful in society.

I am not at all implying the success of your kids is related to abusive parenting.

If my kid(s) carries a 4.0 through college on a scholarship because he or she is a self-motivated, hard worker who enjoys school, I'll be happy. I wouldn't be happy if he/she did it because he/she was scared of my wrath for doing anything less. That's a ****** way to live a life, in my opinion.

 

[cullennz]

One thing I do know is we have a new generation that has come through since smacking has been banned here.

Kids know it is technically against the law. They are smart.

Add this to teachers who have zero power to discipline anymore and you get what we have.

A section of teenagers who are *********

 

[cullennz]

And a embarrassingly large number of parents who still beat their kids to death.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Thanks for the reply. I latched on to the "effective" part of your post, but I could just as easily latched on to someone else's post to make the same points. I didn't mean to attack you in any way. It was more an attack on the notion of what effective means in regards to corporal punishment of any kind.

Since you brought up the success of your kids, I actually find that irrelevant. The Jackson Five plus Janice were all very successful, but their upbringing was abusive. I would be willing to bet that if we looked closely at the upbringing of a lot of highly successful people we'd see a higher percentage of "abusive" parenting than we see in the normal distribution of all parenting, just as we see a higher percentage of abusive parenting among the least successful in society.

I am not at all implying the success of your kids is related to abusive parenting.

If my kid(s) carries a 4.0 through college on a scholarship because he or she is a self-motivated, hard worker who enjoys school, I'll be happy. I wouldn't be happy if he/she did it because he/she was scared of my wrath for doing anything less. That's a ****** way to live a life, in my opinion.

I only mentioned the success of my kids because you asked if I had multiple ones in a paragraph suggesting negative impacts from smacking.

Your subsequent, abusive examples bear no relation to how I have raised my kids. To be clear, I consider smacking past the age of reason unnecessary, less effective than other means and counter productive, especially if frequent.

I am also open to the fact that the few, swats on the backside or slap on the hand I doled out to two of my kids could have been replaced by something better (we tried and failed but that could have been our failing). However, I also don't think they were disastrous or terrible - though I am, of course, biased.

 

[angrysoba]

One thing I do know is we have a new generation that has come through since smacking has been banned here.

Kids know it is technically against the law. They are smart.

Add this to teachers who have zero power to discipline anymore and you get what we have.

A section of teenagers who are *********

And a embarrassingly large number of parents who still beat their kids to death.

Are you saying that there is a Goldilocks middle ground?

 

[jimbob]

It was meta analyses, so probably a mix of all.

I figure toddlers need to learn the word 'no' means NO. A thump on their diapered butt will do that without physical damage or pain. Thereafter there should be no need to yank their pants down and wail on them with a leather strap, leaving welts for a week. Or to have a special strap with the end split hanging on a nail over the dining table. That was mental abuse added.

I managed to teach my kids that without hitting. When I was a teenager, I also managed to teach our dog without hitting.

 

[cullennz]

Are you saying that there is a Goldilocks middle ground?

Probably is actually

 

[cullennz]

As long as we jail the beaters