Corporal Punishment: Have we let othe kid's down on discipline?

[FolkLikePanda]

Kids cheeky? Smack 'em happened to me and I soon learnt my lesson.

 

[Ashtovo]

well with me i had never been punished (in any form past "no internet until grades go up") and i also never do anything that warents punishment. as to should it be broaught back? i think no, too many parants have a superiority idea and that because they are the child's parent they automatically deserve respect. If they want respect, they should earn it.

 

[GothmogII]

The problem with American education is that 75% of the people round me just don't give a shit. I'm not sure corporal punishment would fix that, corporal punishment doesn't work because it hurts, it works because it's degrading. Apparently we're beyond anything other than a detention slip though.

To clarify, I don't support corporal punishment (it legitimizes violence as a solution), but i support more degrading punishments then our prudish sensibilities let us have.

Degrading? Why do I get a tickling at the back of my neck that tells me that could very well be worse. But, just to clarify, what do you consider 'degrading'?

And...why? Why not reciprocal punishment? IF you break something, clean it up. IF you don't do your homework, talk back to the teacher, you get held back after class. What puzzles me though, is this: The reaction to the above is "Well, kids don't listen! We can't control them!" and then...bring up corporal punishment, but, if the situation is that the teaching establishment is tied up in some kind of legal/social finagle...how exactly does it serve to try and bring in the most extreme end of the disciplinary spectrum, corporal punishment instead of...you know, empowering the teachers to use regular disciplinary measures?

 

[Busdriver580]

The problem with American education is that 75% of the people round me just don't give a shit. I'm not sure corporal punishment would fix that, corporal punishment doesn't work because it hurts, it works because it's degrading. Apparently we're beyond anything other than a detention slip though.

To clarify, I don't support corporal punishment (it legitimizes violence as a solution), but i support more degrading punishments then our prudish sensibilities let us have.

Degrading? Why do I get a tickling at the back of my neck that tells me that could very well be worse. But, just to clarify, what do you consider 'degrading'?

And...why? Why not reciprocal punishment? IF you break something, clean it up. IF you don't do your homework, talk back to the teacher, you get held back after class. What puzzles me though, is this: The reaction to the above is "Well, kids don't listen! We can't control them!" and then...bring up corporal punishment, but, if the situation is that the teaching establishment is tied up in some kind of legal/social finagle...how exactly does it serve to try and bring the the most extreme end of the disciplinary spectrum, corporal punishment instead of...you know, empowering the teachers to use regular disciplinary measures?

Degrading was probably a bad word to use, I mean there is an emotional significance to being beaten in front of your peers, and there has to be a less barbaric way to achieve a similar effect.
Reciprocal punishment doesn't work because the attention or laughs from wrecking something are far more valuable than the loss of repairing it. To the types of people who consistently cause trouble would find a purely reciprocal punishment to be worth it.

 

[Sovereignty]

It does. Kids (And people in general) now have far more access to information then used to be (Damn you interwebs.)

These kids have large chips on their shoulders, are more rebellious, and have no respect for authority or elders.

I agree with the OP that it's because beatings aren't a normal occurrence anymore. Now look I don't want child abuse that's unfounded. But seriously if a kid steals, he gets a slap on the wrist. That's it. Back in the day you mother would beat the hell out of you for such a dumb thing (If she believed it was wrong anyway.)

People who believe in time-outs are wasting their time. Without some sort of physical loss (This loss being manifested as pain. Which hurts.) You're leading impressionable minds to believe doing bad results in no ill-effects.

Then they end up suing the police department when they're tazed for resisting arrest.

I mean come on. Child abuse from the worst sorts of people is still around. And it'll never go away. What use is there in making good parents revoke the one type of punishment that has meaning?

 

[Del-Toro]

The way I see it, a spanking is best used for establishing a hierarchy. Ever watch supernanny? Those kids that think they rule the roost, they need a fucking spanking. Just to establish who's in charge. Obviously force will not teach kids right from wrong, not on it's own anyway, but that's how you keep your kids in line and from rioting in the house. I'm not saying lets beat our kids until they are submissive automatons, I am simply proposing that, when they get out of line to that excessive point, where a scene is made everywhere and at the point where words will not work at all (children don't posess advanced reasoning or even fucking empathy) then a swat to bring them back in line, maybe supported with an explaination from the parent so it's not just violence without context. I'm sure the bleeding hearts will scream that I'm an evil child abuser, but I propose that, even if I were to propose another solution, the confiscation of a favoured toy I'd get flak for causing psychological harm, so apparently parents have no right to do anything other than "wuv" their children.

Yes, my position is a tad warped, I'm something of a disciplinarian. In fact, I'm the only real disciplinarian my air cadet squadron still has, and it's not hyperbole to say that the trait is badly needed.

 

[XzarTheMad]

Fine. Seven billion people on Earth, most of whom were spanked and whooped as children, have (for the most part) become functioning members of society. That's people living now.

Shit, there's no arguing with you. In practice, it apparently works, whether it's archaic or not. There's more evidence than theory there. No, it is not violent, the child learns from it.

As I said before, there is a difference between bruising and harming a child and giving a child a spanking/whooping, whatever you want to call it. I would never harm a child that way. But, and I'm saying this as someone who got spanked and whooped more times than once, it does work. I lied to my mom once, when I was in second grade. I have hardly ever lied in my life since then - not just to her, but to anyone. It's hard for me to consciously do it.

Oh, yes, and those psychological studies are all theories. There's a difference between in theory and in practice.

Corrolation does not equal causation. I see no evidence that people became decent folk because of spanking. Rather, it seems they did so in spite of it. The "tool of teaching" that you revere is a shortcut of lazy parenting, and there are better and less damaging methods that parents can use to punish their child. Your idea that "people do it, so it's okay" is ridiculous. Again, looking back at history, only those raised within the last 40-50 years apply, and during that period spanking became increasingly frowned upon and thus increasingly rare. As a side note here, why do you even think it's illegal and considered immoral in almost all countries, including several African, 3rd world countries? Where did the general consensus come from, if not from a general belief in the harm it does to children?

Again, you have no proof. Arguing with me is easy, so long as you provide something more than personal experience. In general, you don't want people who have a personal, emotional attachment to a subject to be the ones debating it. Once you have an opinion based on your own, single hand experience you become too biased to look at the debate in a rational fashion. That's why you don't have a rape victim's brother as a juror on the case.

I know what you mean; that's not what I was asking. My opinion on violence has already been stated earlier. You ask if I have children, as if that is a requirement to have an opinion on this matter. It seems that you imply that if I don't have a kid, or weren't beaten as a child, then I have no clue what I'm talking about. Why else would you ask if I have kids?

The theories used are based on thousands of case studies, and are subject to peer review. It's a theory in the same way that gravity or evolution is a theory. A scientific theory. Any scientific theory can be improved upon, but discarding it because you fail to grasp the concept of one word having multiple meanings is a surefire way to stay ignorant. Once again I urge you to educate yourself.

 

[spartan231490]

I?m afraid anecdotal evidence isn?t good enough.

Why not? Anecdotal evidence was the birth of modern science, and is usually more than enough to draw the correct conclusion. For example, we have absolutely no proof of gravity except anecdotal evidence. We have theories about what causes it(graviton) but we can't find any. The only proof of gravity is that it's there.
mare.

No it wasn?t the theory of gravity was proven through years of study not by stories.
Science defines anecdotal evidence as
"Information that is not based on facts or careful study

"Non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts

"Reports or observations of usually unscientific observers

"Casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"

"Information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically"

So no anecdotal evidence was not ? the birth of modern science.?

You can define anecdotal evidence all you want, but let me ask you this: What is the quantitative difference between the "scientific observation" that proved gravity, and a "Non-scientific observation"? Answer, nothing. You can discount anecdotal evidence all you want, I'll admit the fact that another human being is likely smart enough to have eyes and use them at the same time, and not ignore relevant data just because it was found through "casual observation."

 

[Yan007]

Oh, yes, and those psychological studies are all theories. There's a difference between in theory and in practice.

Aight, timeout. Studies have shown that to a child the degree of violence used is not always as damaging as the frequency. Children perceive being hit as love withdrawal, which in turn teaches them that love is/can be conditional, which in turn leads to many interpersonal issues later on in life. I read a lot about psychologists research and also a psychiatrist who is very outspoken about this issue. All agree that the vast majority of cases they have to take care of are of people hit by their parents as children. Some were beaten constantly, some were beaten on occasion. The ratio of people who were beaten/hit/spanked as children to that of people who were not is quite telling in itself. The amount of anti-depressants prescribed every year to people who can't love life is also interesting.

Comparing the way kids were raised in the old past is irrelevant to how kids should be raised nowadays. In the past, children were not treated as children, but as little adults. Childhood is a modern days invention. They were given responsibilities and had to contribute to society and their family. While kids would be hit for being disrespectful, it was not happening as frequently as most would believe. Not that kids were inherently better, they just spent more time with older people learning about life and how to do things and were much less likely to show disrespect to people they have worked and grown with. Kids were not separated from the rest of society by age groups and everyone had to work together.

I have yet to have children. On the other hand, I am a teacher. I am with your children 5-6 hours a day. That may not be your case, but most parents will spend less than 2 hours a week with their children having meaningful discussions/conversations or simply spending time doing something together. If that little time spent together is punctuated by bouts of slapping and love withdrawal, then why are people wondering what went wrong when stuff hits the fan?

My question to you would be: Being that I spend more time with your children than you yourself do, would you prefer that I use your methods to teach your children or that I do what I am doing right now by trying to help them resolve our problems without resorting to violence? Can I spank your kids when I have nothing else that will work, pretty much like when you yourself justify your actions by saying you had no other realistic choice?

A stranger spends more time with your kids and you can still justify hitting them because you are their parents and can't handle them for a handful of hours a week? Kids aren't that bad at all, get a clue. Work less, give them unconditional love, spend more time with them and show interest in what makes them happy to live. Maybe then they will give you back the respect you crave so much. You may get love instead (and "respect"), maybe this is not what you want as I read this word quite infrequently in discussions about raising children, but I think this is a valid goal.

Btw: Every law in science is also a theory. Being called a theory does not mean it is not proven or uncertain. Moreover, what most people call theories (in this thread) are in fact developmental models, but I digress.

 

[Ham_authority95]

When I was a boy I was sent to a Jesuit school. The cane was a standard disciplinary tool.

Read: I got my arse beat.

In that context, I respected my elders and the law... (well, mostly)

Kids these days are seriously out of control because they know that can't be touched. Not unless the parent/guardian/other is willing to face nearly universal scorn.

I have a daughter, and while I don't hit her, ever, I make sure she knows who's in charge. I make sure that if she won't behave herself or if she choses to be disrespectful, she will not get what she wants.

BUT...

I put it to you, does corporal punishment need a return to form? If not, why not?

Edit: Yes, I do know of the supurfluous 'o' but my keyboard is very old. Sometimes it does wierd shit.

Edit 2: My point in this discussion is to foster debate on an important issue. The arse whompin's I recived as a kid, thaught me that that was an accptable mode of social interaction. After many years, many brutal fights and military service, I feel that I've learned better. This is just an opinion. I apreciate, other people's experiences are widely varied.

I find it funny how so many "How should we punish our children?" threads have been popping up, but a fair majority of people on here barely have the social skills to approach someone they like.

What does that tell you?

 

[Worgen]

what is with all these stupid beating your kids threads lately?
kids need direction but all hitting them does is make you feel better, it doesnt teach them a damn thing aside from physical violence should be used on those weaker then you

edit: Ive heard that one of my uncles hit me when I was a kid for acting up, now Im contemplating hitting him back, I dont remember it, it happened long ago but I kinda want some fucken vengence... hmm maybe hitting kids does have a point, get in your licks before they get too big and strong and you cant pull that shit anymore, just hope they dont come back looking for you later

 

[Sovereignty]

It does. Kids (And people in general) now have far more access to information then used to be (Damn you interwebs.)

These kids have large chips on their shoulders, are more rebellious, and have no respect for authority or elders.

I agree with the OP that it's because beatings aren't a normal occurrence anymore. Now look I don't want child abuse that's unfounded. But seriously if a kid steals, he gets a slap on the wrist. That's it. Back in the day you mother would beat the hell out of you for such a dumb thing (If she believed it was wrong anyway.)

People who believe in time-outs are wasting their time. Without some sort of physical loss (This loss being manifested as pain. Which hurts.) You're leading impressionable minds to believe doing bad results in no ill-effects.

Then they end up suing the police department when they're tazed for resisting arrest.

I mean come on. Child abuse from the worst sorts of people is still around. And it'll never go away. What use is there in making good parents revoke the one type of punishment that has meaning?

Is it hard to see with those rose colored glasses on?

Easier seeing through them then your thin responses.

But seriously... Prove that spanking children doesn't make them better people. Oh wait you can't. Imagine that.

 

[lSHaDoW-FoXl]

When I was a boy I was sent to a Jesuit school. The cane was a standard disciplinary tool.

Read: I got my arse beat.

In that context, I respected my elders and the law... (well, mostly)

Kids these days are seriously out of control because they know that can't be touched. Not unless the parent/guardian/other is willing to face nearly universal scorn.

I have a daughter, and while I don't hit her, ever, I make sure she knows who's in charge. I make sure that if she won't behave herself or if she chooses to be disrespectful, she will not get what she wants.

BUT...

I put it to you, does corporal punishment need a return to form? If not, why not?

Edit: Yes, I do know of the superfluous 'o' but my keyboard is very old. Sometimes it does weird shit.

Edit 2: My point in this discussion is to foster debate on an important issue. The arse whompin's I received as a kid, taught me that that was an acceptable mode of social interaction. After many years, many brutal fights and military service, I feel that I've learned better. This is just an opinion. I appreciate, other people's experiences are widely varied.

I consider it complete and utter bull shit. While I'll agree some kids can be absolute brats and they definitely got something coming I still find it's a horrible way to go about something. Why? Because I don't agree with some of the reasons we'd hit a child and if we start allowing parents to hit their children we're basically picking and choosing what's acceptable reasons.

One 'rule' I always disagreed with was the good old 'Don't talk back to your parents.' And if we're going to start hitting our children just because they don't agree with us on a particular issue or if they have a different viewpoint then clearly it's not them at fault, it's us.

Though to be honest I have a filthy mouth and I curse time after time. Does that mean I'm undisciplined? No. Because I wouldn't learn that swearing was bad. I'd learn to do it while my parents aren't around. Which you know, defeats the entire purpose of disciplining someone if they're going to start cursing behind your back.

According to some parents it would probably be okay to beat their son if they ended up being gay. And to me that's horrifying because that's probably exactly what's going to happen. Parents wouldn't just beat their kids if they did something hurtful to the community, they'd beat their children if those kids had different ideals.

After all, if you can't get someone to agree with you on an issue the other best way is to force them to. Oh right, and fuck elders and adults. No one, absolutely no one deserves any more respect then another simply because of their age. I'll treat those according to how they treat others. And that has absolutely nothing to deal with me being undisciplined, that's just my belief and my own moral compass.

Sometimes these 'Adults and Elders' act far more immature then I am (I'm nineteen years old) and sometimes these adults and elders are out insulting me just because I'm an Atheist or perhaps out banning my personal freedoms because I'm a Bi.

In short, discipline doesn't stop people from being bigoted and it certainly doesn't change a thing. I meet just as many assholes as I do decent people and there is no doubt some on both sides were disciplined in their youth. And if we start giving illogical bigots the right to hit their own child then you can bet your ass they're going to use it.

And they'll be raising their kids to be the same way.

Another Edit -

I probably come across a bit of a pompous asshole online but i can assure you I'm very different in real life. I'm very quiet, very shy, and I have this bad habit of apologizing constantly over minor things. Basically put, I'm not an outspoken twat and I'm certainly not disrespectful.

So that's another thing. No matter how much you discipline your child the way they'll act online is different from offline. So in a way they're actually two faced.

 

[StBishop]

I've got a bit of a split opinion on this. See, corporal punishment is a great way to teach kids that when they do bad things, bad things happen to them. So for getting caught cheating, bullying and harassing teachers and fellow pupils there need to be consequences. This is where I see corporal punishment being an effective teaching tool.

This is the second hand. EDIT: Everyone deserves respect right off the bat EDIT:, until they lose it. I don't care whether you're a war veteran, a police officer, a teacher; you still have to earn my respect as much as I have to earn yours. I adopted this view at an early age and it's never steered me wrong. I have never disrespected someone who has shown me equal respect.
Age should have nothing to do with it. When I meet another individual I treat them with the same respect I'd treat any other human being, my age or otherwise. If they don't respect me, then that respect stops. No amount of beatings will change this.

To sum up my opinion:

You can beat discipline and penalise for doing wrong, but you can't beat respect into someone.

Just put a little edit it that I find works much better. If you think I need to earn your respect and I feel the same way, neither of us will show respect and therefore neither will gain the respect of the other.

 

[Pifflestick]

I grew up getting spanked, and I've turned out wise, strong, and respectful. My little brother does not get spankings, and he attacks the rest of my family, breaks whatever he wants, and has threatened my sister with a knife. So yes, I think corperal punishment is a-Ok. Am I saying you should beat your kids? F*** no, what are you an idiot? All you need is one or two quick slaps on the behind to correct them, and explain what they did wrong. If you're punching your child or hitting them with an object your a bad parent.

If my little brother got a smack, he wouldn't be a danger to everyone around him, but he knows that my mother won't punish him. Hell, when someone does try to punish him my mother freaks out about it, then she turns around and whines about how she can't control him. Oh, she's tried all that new-age bullshit punishment like time out and taking away toys, but he gets violent when you do that and like I said he's not afraid to seriously injure people.

So I guess my point is; If you beat your child, you're a bad parent. If you don't properly punish your child, you're a bad parent. You should do everything in moderation, including punishment.

 

[Knusper]

No, it teaches kids that violence can be used to solve every issue in life. Also, in th long term, it only serves to make them more rebellious and hateful towards the authority.

 

[Saint of M]

I feel spanking should be the nuclear bomb option, the last option you use when all else fails.

Being disappointed in them is enough for most people, and a few other punishments (those toilets won't get cleaned by themselves for a month) are preferable to hitting, and talking with your kid should always be the first three things you should do.

Kids need boundaries, and as long as they are justly punished and rewarded they will do pretty good. The parents just need to be a parent first and foremost.


However, when it does get to the spanking thing it should never beating the living the living hell out of the child. you are using the rod of correction, not hitting them with the ugly stick. There is a fin line between corrective measures and leaving emotional and physical scars on them