Do you believe spanking is an appropriate discipline for a child?

[Netzach]

Violence is sometimes useful, and occasionally even downright needful.

Generally not when you are 4.

 

[Homburg]

Generally not when you are 4.

And this is why I explained the point behind what I said in the part you didn't quote.

 

[castagnus]

I don't have children. However the only things I ever learned from being hit were rage and avoidance toward the adult hitting me.

When I was 8, I was pnce severely beaten by my father and I could never be warm or affectionate to him again. He has long ago passed away, and although he had many fine qualities for which I still respect him, that one angry act irreversibly destroyed something inside of me.

The memory of that more than anything else prevented me from ever hitting my children - 4 of whom are adults now and the last one a wonderful young boy.

 

[intothewoods]

Violence is sometimes useful, and occasionally even downright needful.

No, I'm not saying that I beat my kids so they'll understand violence, but blanket anti-violence statements like this bug me. Every parent on the planet could stop beating their kids and it would not make violence go away.

Sure, that's because parent-kid violence is obviously not the only kind of violence in the world. If you're living in a war zone, literally or figuratively, that violence will probably supersede whether or not your parents spank. But I don't think any of us here are in that situation.

That's not to say outside factors won't make an impression. They do. In fact, your kids' peers are hugely influential, so if you are trying to raise your kids to be, let's say, Ghandiesque, and they go to a really rough school, you're probably setting your kids up for disaster. You have to try to pick the best place for your kid in that regard. That said, assuming your kids don't go to a school where there is an inordinate amount of violence, you can raise them to regard nonviolence as part of their moral code. I'm not saying I do this, but you can absolutely teach your child that violence is always wrong and never needed. It wouldn't be particularly mainstream, but there's no harm there.

Violence is a choice. I'm ok with physical self-defense, but I see that as pretty different from outright violence. That's something I like about teaching kids, especially boys who tend to be very physical, martial arts. There are rules to thing. It's not about beating the crap out of each other.

On another point, I have to agree with those who question physical discipline for kids under two. While I don't think a flick to the hand is going to scar a kid for life, I also think the value of it is pretty questionable when used frequently. I did use "time outs" during that time, but the idea is essentially extinguishment of attention in the face of undesirable behavior. However, you have to remember that a toddler has very poor impulse control. You focus on the biggies, because of course a toddler is going to want a big, blinking light up thing every single time. And toddlers are into everything. It's a hugely frustrating age. I really am not such a fan. You have to be nine steps ahead, especially for very active ones, and have a lot for them to do. One drawer in most rooms that is their's to go to town on. Get them out of the house a lot. Mine was in nursery school at two and loooooved it. No separation anxiety whatsoever. He needed to explore new worlds. Anyway, you don't want to be saying no more often than not, regardless of the form that "no" takes.

 

[FurryFury]

Violence is sometimes useful, and occasionally even downright needful.

No, I'm not saying that I beat my kids so they'll understand violence, but blanket anti-violence statements like this bug me. Every parent on the planet could stop beating their kids and it would not make violence go away.

No that would not make violence go away. What it would do is stop circles of violence among kids and parents for the time period that every parent stopped. Of course there is also parent on parent violence and many other kinds.

 

[Homburg]

Sure, that's because parent-kid violence is obviously not the only kind of violence in the world. If you're living in a war zone, literally or figuratively, that violence will probably supersede whether or not your parents spank. But I don't think any of us here are in that situation.

Us here on these boards? No, but the kids in MIS' class just about are. More than one of those kids has an older brother in a gang. Not a cheerful little band of brothers either. An actual colors-wearing, roughneck drug-dealing, drive-by doing gangbanger. No, it's not Mogadishu, but those kids are exposed to far more environmental violence than yours or mine, and they live less than an hour's drive from me. And you can probably point to areas in similar distance from you that are as rough. Hell, probably worse.

That's not to say outside factors won't make an impression. They do. In fact, your kids' peers are hugely influential, so if you are trying to raise your kids to be, let's say, Ghandiesque, and they go to a really rough school, you're probably setting your kids up for disaster. You have to try to pick the best place for your kid in that regard. That said, assuming your kids don't go to a school where there is an inordinate amount of violence, you can raise them to regard nonviolence as part of their moral code. I'm not saying I do this, but you can absolutely teach your child that violence is always wrong and never needed. It wouldn't be particularly mainstream, but there's no harm there.

Eh, I think pure Ghandi-esque non-violence is likely to be harmful to a kid that is not in the absolute perfect environment for it. And for a kid that does not have the absolute rock-solid self-control needed for that level of conscious non-violence.

Very, very few adults can handle that, let alone someone with less impulse control. And, honestly, my kids don't go to rough schools, and I don't want them fighting, but I also won't raise a victim.

Violence is a choice. I'm ok with physical self-defense, but I see that as pretty different from outright violence. That's something I like about teaching kids, especially boys who tend to be very physical, martial arts. There are rules to thing. It's not about beating the crap out of each other.

Agreed. I've worked my two oldest kids on that. Eldest Daughter throws a mean punch. If she got into a fight (and didn't fold up), she's likely to lay a wallop on someone. And I'm fine with that. She understands that these things have rules, and I expect her to get out of the fight, not into it.

My eldest son appears to be a lost cause in this area. The boy just can't wrap his brain around throwing a punch. Fortunately, there's not an ounce of fight in him, unlike his older sister. He's a genial little peacemaker, so it's not a skill that I consider to be all that important.

On another point, I have to agree with those who question physical discipline for kids under two. While I don't think a flick to the hand is going to scar a kid for life, I also think the value of it is pretty questionable when used frequently. I did use "time outs" during that time, but the idea is essentially extinguishment of attention in the face of undesirable behavior. However, you have to remember that a toddler has very poor impulse control. You focus on the biggies, because of course a toddler is going to want a big, blinking light up thing every single time. And toddlers are into everything.

Agreed. They're like annoying puppies with thumbs.

--

No that would not make violence go away. What it would do is stop circles of violence among kids and parents for the time period that every parent stopped. Of course there is also parent on parent violence and many other kinds.

Parent-parent violence is a big problem for a lot of the kids in the school that MIS teaches at. And, wow, does it ever socialise. That message gets burned into their little brains.

 

[intothewoods]

Us here on these boards? No, but the kids in MIS' class just about are. More than one of those kids has an older brother in a gang. Not a cheerful little band of brothers either. An actual colors-wearing, roughneck drug-dealing, drive-by doing gangbanger. No, it's not Mogadishu, but those kids are exposed to far more environmental violence than yours or mine, and they live less than an hour's drive from me. And you can probably point to areas in similar distance from you that are as rough. Hell, probably worse.

Yes, us here on these boards.

Eh, I think pure Ghandi-esque non-violence is likely to be harmful to a kid that is not in the absolute perfect environment for it. And for a kid that does not have the absolute rock-solid self-control needed for that level of conscious non-violence.

Very, very few adults can handle that, let alone someone with less impulse control. And, honestly, my kids don't go to rough schools, and I don't want them fighting, but I also won't raise a victim.

It would be challenging to not be allowed to defend yourself, but so is being Jewish in a school of non-Jews. Or raising your kid to be vegetarian or to never watch tv. You'd be an oddball, but that's by far not the end of the world. A parent should weight the costs and benefits to such a choice, and try to make sure the environment is one in which your kid can succeed, but at the end of the day, it's a parenting choice like any other.

As for self-control, obviously the parent would know not to expect perfect compliance. Practicing non-violent solutions is a skill that has to be taught, and that skill set would have to include not conveying victimhood. Challenging, but not impossible, especially given that that's really a personality issue. I have preached a lot of nonviolence in my home, though I've not told my child he couldn't defend himself. I think he sometimes responds physically, and sometimes tells a teacher, and sometimes - actually mostly - tells the offender to buzz off. I really couldn't teach him that self-confidence. He just has it.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Violence is sometimes useful, and occasionally even downright needful.

No, I'm not saying that I beat my kids so they'll understand violence, but blanket anti-violence statements like this bug me. Every parent on the planet could stop beating their kids and it would not make violence go away.

I agree. Raise your kids to defend themselves if needed, to exercise good judgement and street wisdom, and to be good people.

 

[FurryFury]

I agree. Raise your kids to defend themselves if needed, to exercise good judgement and street wisdom, and to be good people.

Oh I do agree with that!

My motto is, I won't start it but I will sure as shit FINISH it and I do.

 

[Netzach]

Honestly, though, why isn't "avoiding the fight/conflict resolution" something that people put as much thought into as physical self defense?

Even in rough environments, it is POSSIBLE to disengage from the fight in multiple ways. If there are enough people concerned with the problem, then there can be a community response to it, even in very disenfranchised communities.

If no one is teaching nonviolence as valid, then why would anything change in environments where the only message is that violence works and nothing else does?

I'm not especially a pacifist or anything, myself, I have no problem with defending oneself, but the idea that when you hit your kids you teach them violence in a particularly non-useful fashion doesn't really need to be dismissed by the notion that you're endangering them through pussydom. Apples, oranges.

Some of the more crapped on minorities in history are people who weren't conscriptable.

 

[intothewoods]

Honestly, though, why isn't "avoiding the fight/conflict resolution" something that people put as much thought into as physical self defense?

Even in rough environments, it is POSSIBLE to disengage from the fight in multiple ways. If there are enough people concerned with the problem, then there can be a community response to it, even in very disenfranchised communities.

If no one is teaching nonviolence as valid, then why would anything change in environments where the only message is that violence works and nothing else does?

I'm not especially a pacifist or anything, myself, I have no problem with defending oneself, but the idea that when you hit your kids you teach them violence in a particularly non-useful fashion doesn't really need to be dismissed by the notion that you're endangering them through pussydom. Apples, oranges.

Some of the more crapped on minorities in history are people who weren't conscriptable.

Yes, I was sort of thinking of this idea when I was talking about not using violence does not = victim, but didn't articulate it.

 

[FurryFury]

Absolutely, the first line of defense to avoid conflict, then deflect it.

 

[Homburg]

Honestly, though, why isn't "avoiding the fight/conflict resolution" something that people put as much thought into as physical self defense?

Why is that assumed? I've personally lived in some pretty rough areas growing up, and been in situations many, many times where a fight as imminent, and even worked armed security in some unpleasant places, and I can honestly say that I've defused FAR more fights than I've been in.
Why is there an assumption that because self-defense skills are taught that deflection and defusing is not? Why is the assumption that those that preach non-violence do preach that?

I can think of one guy that I went to school with that was all about being a pacifist, yet he knew dick about how to handle violent situations. He'd instigate half the time, and just get slapped around until some teacher or official saved his punk-ass. It was a passive-aggressive way to get someone in trouble.

Diplomacy is only vaguely related to this conversation, just as much as self-defense is. Still, the fact that I teach my daughter how to throw a good cross-hook combo has nothing to do with the conversations we've had on calming people down.

I'm not especially a pacifist or anything, myself, I have no problem with defending oneself, but the idea that when you hit your kids you teach them violence in a particularly non-useful fashion doesn't really need to be dismissed by the notion that you're endangering them through pussydom. Apples, oranges.

Straw man. But there's been so much drift here that it is almost impossible to keep on track.

 

[clock1]

Wow, This thread has come a long way. So many great philosophies too.

All human behavior, including to spank or not to spank, falls on a bell curve. This small sample proves that. From "spankings help a kid deal with violence in the world through "beatings" to "a light tap on the hands" to "I never use physical violence" we have seen it all. I'm surprized no one has mentioned Skinner, and the theory that the only way to change behavior is through intermittent reward. Token systems in homes and schools do the same thing. Sea world and most animal trainers use reward, and never punishment to train their animals.

Countries have outlawed corporal punishment. Countries execute for insignificent crimes, again behavior falls across a spectrum.

We will not decide anything here, or even change opinions, but it has been an interesting read.

 

[missginger2177]

Sea world and most animal trainers use reward, and never punishment to train their animals.

Professional animal behaviorists/trainers do not consider "punishment" in the same way you do. We have a different view on this particular matter, and it absolutely does not equate with children and people. Unless of course, no offense intended, the child or person in question has some mental disorder which prevents them from learning in the same way the rest of us do.

And you are wrong to say that animal trainers never use punishment, we do it all the time. But again, it's using an entirely different definition.

 

[clock1]

And you are wrong to say that animal trainers never use punishment, we do it all the time. But again, it's using an entirely different definition.

I should have said physical punishment, ie beatings or spankings. Withholding of reward is punishment, and other non physical punishments are as you point out part of a different definition.

Meanwhile, it appears most of Europe does not spank.

Check out the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Corporal_punishment_in_Europe.svg

 

[Marquis]

Honestly, though, why isn't "avoiding the fight/conflict resolution" something that people put as much thought into as physical self defense?

Even in rough environments, it is POSSIBLE to disengage from the fight in multiple ways. If there are enough people concerned with the problem, then there can be a community response to it, even in very disenfranchised communities.

If no one is teaching nonviolence as valid, then why would anything change in environments where the only message is that violence works and nothing else does?

I'm not especially a pacifist or anything, myself, I have no problem with defending oneself, but the idea that when you hit your kids you teach them violence in a particularly non-useful fashion doesn't really need to be dismissed by the notion that you're endangering them through pussydom. Apples, oranges.

Some of the more crapped on minorities in history are people who weren't conscriptable.

I think this is an excellent point.

When I lived in Nairobi as a young teen, masterful conflict avoidance skills were a survival necessity. Nairobi is full of crime and most people are so poor there that stealing from someone who has more than them just makes sense. There is also a lot of anger against the upper class that makes it easy to provoke attacks.

Most attacks of any kind occur following an "interview" where the attacker attempts to determine if the prospective victim is a good target. It is possible to succeed in an interview without demonstrating superior aggression. Showing superior aggression in Kenya is a good way to get a machete to the skull. Showing fear and confusing will get you kidnapped, robbed or raped just as easily.

But showing awareness, intelligence and due respect when you're in a vulnerable position will usually get you a pass.

I think awareness is the biggest thing, whether it's being bullied in class or followed on the streets, if you can show the person you recognize what they're doing without accelerating the conflict they will often be forced to reconsider their actions which presents the opportunity to escape or resolve.

 

[missginger2177]

I should have said physical punishment, ie beatings or spankings. Withholding of reward is punishment, and other non physical punishments are as you point out part of a different definition.

Meanwhile, it appears most of Europe does not spank.

Check out the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Corporal_punishment_in_Europe.svg

Fair enough. Sorry to be so blunt, but I'm on frayed nerves because of finals and a bit tired of certain people arguing with me about my own field.

And, you are correct there are non-physical punishments as well. But even at that, I know people who will use that "shock-value" punishment to get attention and curb a particularly bad behavior at it's start.

Speaking of which, I'd be interested to know how many people said they'd never spank their child would use an electric fence on a cow, horse, or dog? Or a shock or pinch collar? How about a choke chain?

I know animals are different from "human" animals, but I also know enough philosophy and psychology to know that violence to one often is a prelude to violence to the other. Even if it is passive-aggressive violence like those I mentioned in the above paragraph.

 

[BiBunny]

I should have said physical punishment, ie beatings or spankings. Withholding of reward is punishment, and other non physical punishments are as you point out part of a different definition.

Meanwhile, it appears most of Europe does not spank.

Check out the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Corporal_punishment_in_Europe.svg

Withholding of reward is NOT punishment, actually. Not to a behaviorist. Punishment is only the application of an aversive stimulus.

Thank you, obnoxiously behaviorist undergrad psych program.

 

[Light Ice]

Spanking a child is absolutely unnecessary. Anyone who disagrees will be beaten.

 

[FurryFury]

Spanking a child is absolutely unnecessary. Anyone who disagrees will be beaten.

It's now tempting to disagree.

 

[intothewoods]

Wow, This thread has come a long way. So many great philosophies too.

All human behavior, including to spank or not to spank, falls on a bell curve. This small sample proves that. From "spankings help a kid deal with violence in the world through "beatings" to "a light tap on the hands" to "I never use physical violence" we have seen it all. I'm surprized no one has mentioned Skinner, and the theory that the only way to change behavior is through intermittent reward. Token systems in homes and schools do the same thing. Sea world and most animal trainers use reward, and never punishment to train their animals.

Countries have outlawed corporal punishment. Countries execute for insignificent crimes, again behavior falls across a spectrum.

We will not decide anything here, or even change opinions, but it has been an interesting read.

Oh my god, you must be my husband.

Because of the way the question was phrased, I wasn't thinking about all of the tools in my bag, you know? There are times when I take away a privilege, or give a time out. A time out can be seen as punishment, but it also provides a few moments of cool down for everyone, and I have absolutely told my kid that.

Overall, you want to be doing more positive reinforcement than negative. Although kids can be very challenging, in many ways, they're quite simple with simple needs (absent any major trauma, of course). In some ways, the toughest thing is to get out of your head and inside their brains in terms of the developmental stage that they're at.

 

[FurryFury]

Someone on this thread asked a while back if you practice time outs, have you, the parent ever put yourself in time out. The answer is YES! LOL. I have.

 

[zarngash]

Yeah that was me, and I need to practice taking time outs. It is easy to forget to do, but sets a good example.

I thought this thread would be dead by now...lol

 

[jadefirefly]

My sister and I were spanked. I believe it worked just fine.

Someone above put forth the statement that they'd never met a child who only needed to be spanked once, ever. Of course they haven't. One punishment, ever, in a child's lifetime will never ensure the child never misbehaves again.

However, a smack on my ass ensured that I never did that again. And that is what a punishment is for - to teach a child that X is wrong, and not to do it again. A punishment isn't intended to teach a child that X is wrong, so don't do Y.

And as has been said already, every child is different. What worked on my sister and I will likely work as well with my nephew; but it will not work for my baby brother. My nephew is, for all intents and purposes, a male version of my sister. My brother is seven, and autistic (Asperger's). He would likely be in his teens before he'd be able to understand why a spanking happened, and not have a complete breakdown because of it.

Regardless of the differences between all four children, not ONCE have any of us misbehaved in public the way some of us have seen children run rampant these days. We did not have public tantrums - hell, we didn't have private tantrums, really. My parents kept us, and now the boys, well in check, and for almost 30 years now they've been getting compliments on how well-behaved their children are. There is not a single shred of abusive behavior in their punishments. They simply know how to get a child's attention.

(One of their punishment options when I was young, and they knew one of us - my sister or I - had lied, but they didn't know which, was to have us kneel upright on a wooden floor. Eventually boredom, tiredness, and aching knees would garner results, usually within 30 minutes.)