Poll: Is it ok for parents to spank their kids?

[intheweeds]

How about some scientific studies instead of anecdotes:

http://www.parentingscience.com/spanking-children.html

TL;DR:
- Spanking is less effective than other forms of discipline;
- Spanking outside the ages of 2-5, with emotion, designed to injure, frighten, or humiliate, or in an area were spanking is uncommon is detrimental to the child's development;
- Spanking at any age leads to the child being more aggressive than usual.

Thus, based on these studies, spanking is not okay; there is no scenario were spanking would be the best option.

It's the same way you'd train a dog - when they do something right, they get a treat. When they do something bad, a bit of pain goes a long way.

Incorrect. Studies have shown that using pain to train a dog makes them fear you and hide this bad action was from you, rather than to stop doing it. I couldn't find the study I was thinking of, but this webpage [http://www.dogwelfarecampaign.org/implications-of-punishment.php] seams to have an in depth look into the problems with punishment.

Training dogs is the same as training kids or employees. Seriously. What you need is respect. Fear and respect are NOT the same thing. People that fear you hide from you. People that respect you work with you.

People that feel the need to hit kids/dogs or punish employees need to realize that if they had respect in the first place, they wouldn't need to resort to that behavior.

Think about yourself as an adult. How do you respond to a threat? What if i said "do X or I will hit you." Do you respect me? You might do what i say, but afterwards you will try to get away from me as soon as possible and make a point to avoid me in the future.

If you have ever had a boss who you respect and like you can easily see the difference between the two styles. I prefer the respect one. With bosses though, someone is hiring and firing them too. A boss has a track record that follows them, so they are accountable, whereas any idiot can have a kid or buy a dog and treat it like crap all day because its 'mine'.

 

[Condemned]

Physical violence is the sign of a weak and desperate mind. It is strength to make a child see reason trough dialog or less aggressive punishment rather than beating them into submission.

 

[King of the Sandbox]

Physical violence is the sign of a weak and desperate mind. It is strength to make a child see reason trough dialog or less aggressive punishment rather than beating them into submission.

I think you may be forgetting (or ignoring) how children aren't mature, and thus, aren't capable of logic or rationalization on a sufficiently deep level. If you could, we'd all have jobs at 10 and we'd have elected the Jonas Brothers president at some point.

As for taking away their beloved possessions or activities, they know it's not permanent, and are often distracted soon enough by something else so that when they can access these things again, they're like... "Oh. Uhm, ok." If these actions are made permanent, by perhaps disposing of a favored toy, or banning an activity for a very lengthy period of time, are acceptable alternatives, however.

Physical pain? Everything understands that, and nature's not shy about using it. I don't think humans should be. Knowing the limit, however, and not taking it too far, is what separates us from animals. Over-moralization is weakening the survival capacity of the human race, IMHO.

 

[Dchao]

My dad always tried to when I was a little shit when I was younger, but my mam stopped him. I've turned into a horrible person, so maybe he should of. Haha.

 

[Dr Jones]

Why is this in the gaming discussion forum?

Because it is under "off topic".

OT: Hell yeah they can spank their children. Learns DISCIPLINE! Of course only in moderation.

 

[b3nn3tt]

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/5/e1057
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1983895,00.html

Research found above has shown that:

"As 5-year-olds, the children who had been spanked were more likely than the nonspanked to be defiant, demand immediate satisfaction of their wants and needs, become frustrated easily, have temper tantrums and lash out physically against other people or animals."

There are many non-violent alternates which are a little more inconvient for the parent but pay-off in the long run for the children's mental state.

You now what the flaw in that is? It doesn't show causation. Were the kids more trouble because they were spanked? Or were they spanked because they were more trouble?

One of the control variables was the child's behaviour. It says it in the abstract and goes into more detail in the method section.

 

[artanis_neravar]

No. To my mind, there should never be a situation where you'd need to. There are plenty of ways of disciplining children that don't require hitting them that will be just as effective.

EDIT: Hitting children only serves to teach them that hitting is an effective way to deal with someone who isn't doing what you want them to. I'd say it's much better to explain to them why what they did was wrong the first time they do it, and after that discipline them in a way which doesn't require hitting them.

I can actually use myself to counter that argument. My parents spanked my arse when I was out of line as a child, and I'm a pacifist. I've never hit anyone out of anger since I was a child.

OT: Yeah, spanking your kids is a perfectly fine way to get them to fall in line. They'll realize that they won't want to do that again, and will start building something I think we don't have enough of anymore: A good set of morals.

So you're a pacifist, but you condone people hitting their children?

I'm not saying that hitting children will invariably fuck them up, but I do think that there are much better ways of teaching children right from wrong without having to strike them. There is no other teaching situation where hitting the student is a valid method of teaching.

I wonder why you have to use the word hitting. Hitting is not good discipline. However, not being able to sit down for an hour or so without it hurting is definitely a motivator not to do it again. There's a big difference between beating your kids and discipline, and when I see people who immediately go 'OHMYGOD YOU'RE A BRUTE' when i say for discipline's sake it's a good idea, it sets my blood boiling. Used sparingly it's just fine.

And I'm not saying that NOT hitting them will invariably fuck them up, either. There are times when a timeout or a talking to are perfectly fine methods. But it's when you want to make a lasting impression that a spanking is of good use at times. Someone said before, Pain is a great motivator NOT to do something. You remember when you were a kid and you reached for a hot stove, and your mom said, 'that's hot' just before you burned yourself? Well, it hurt, and now you'll never touch a hot stove again. See what i mean?

hit Show IPA verb, hit, hit·ting, noun
verb (used with object)
1. to deal a blow or stroke to
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hitting

Seems a perfectly valid word to use to describe what people do to their children. I am aware that there is a huge difference between smacking your child as described in thsi forum and beating them, but the fact remains that we are still discussing hitting children.

The big difference between the stove example and a parent smacking there child is that the stove is an accident, which a child discovers by themselves. To properly compare the two, it would be like the parent touching the child's hand to a hot stove to show them that it's hot.

My argument is that there should be no need to strike your child, there are plenty of methods that are equally as effective that don't involve parents hitting their children. To me, hitting children seems like a lazy way to discipline them.

Hit has a much more bad connotation to it then spank. In a fight you hit the other person, when you get in a car crash you hit the other car. Spank is to "slap or smack with the open hand, esp on the buttocks". Much more of a specific word, that is designed for this use exactly.

To properly compare the two, it would be like the parent touching the child's hand to a hot stove to show them that it's hot.

No it isn't because that is forcing your child to do something that they should. The parent touching the child's hand to a hot stove to show them that it's hot, is much closer to the parent putting a crayon in the kids hand and using their(the parent's) hand to direct the child's hand in drawing on the walls and then spanking them.
Spanking your child is not always the answer, but pain is one of the best motivators especially when the parent later sits down and explains what the child did wrong. Spanking by itself isn't very effective but spanking followed by adult conversation with your kids is very effective.

 

[Whateveralot]

Conditioning is proven. Even though I know punishment doesn't have to involve physical pain, depending on the reason to punish, it can be the best way to deal with the situation.

But, inducing physical pain to condition a kid into doing what's right, is something that has to be done with responsibility, since physical punishment IS NOT RIGHT. I still voted yes. I know there's laws against it, but I know that I will.

 

[Jandipoo]

Absolutely. Nothing says "NO" quite like a swat to the hand, and nothing shows you won't take any lip back like another one to the rear.


That being said, there is a fine line between spanking a child and beating them. Using any item, be it a belt, shoe, paddle or what have you, should of course not be allowed.


Basically, if what you are doing is going to leave any noticeable marks past maybe some redness and tears, you are doing it wrong.

 

[orangeban]

No, because I can't go beating adults can I?

But that's just one point. More points:

Children should love their parents, not fear them.
Children shouldn't not do something because they might get hit, they should not do something because it is wrong.
Parent-child relationships should be built on mutual respect and trust.

Also, "It happened to me and I'm fine!" is not a good argument, I can't say, "I had smallpox and I'm fine!" in order to discredit vaccines.

 

[dead.juice]

Spank, yes. Abuse, no.
It's a great way to teach disciplined and respect, something this new dumbfuck generation is severely lacking. But if you don't know how to properly spank or punish a kid, then keep your hands off them.

 

[artanis_neravar]

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/5/e1057
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1983895,00.html

Research found above has shown that:

"As 5-year-olds, the children who had been spanked were more likely than the nonspanked to be defiant, demand immediate satisfaction of their wants and needs, become frustrated easily, have temper tantrums and lash out physically against other people or animals."

There are many non-violent alternates which are a little more inconvient for the parent but pay-off in the long run for the children's mental state.

You now what the flaw in that is? It doesn't show causation. Were the kids more trouble because they were spanked? Or were they spanked because they were more trouble?

One of the control variables was the child's behaviour. It says it in the abstract and goes into more detail in the method section.

How does one use a child's behavior as a control? There is no way of knowing if a child will be aggressive in 2 years, and there is no real way of knowing if spanking is what brought that along.

 

[b3nn3tt]

hit Show IPA verb, hit, hit·ting, noun
verb (used with object)
1. to deal a blow or stroke to
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hitting

Seems a perfectly valid word to use to describe what people do to their children. I am aware that there is a huge difference between smacking your child as described in thsi forum and beating them, but the fact remains that we are still discussing hitting children.

The big difference between the stove example and a parent smacking there child is that the stove is an accident, which a child discovers by themselves. To properly compare the two, it would be like the parent touching the child's hand to a hot stove to show them that it's hot.

My argument is that there should be no need to strike your child, there are plenty of methods that are equally as effective that don't involve parents hitting their children. To me, hitting children seems like a lazy way to discipline them.

Hit has a much more bad connotation to it then spank. In a fight you hit the other person, when you get in a car crash you hit the other car. Spank is to "slap or smack with the open hand, esp on the buttocks". Much more of a specific word, that is designed for this use exactly.

Well, connotations or not, hitting is what is being done. It may well be a specific type of hitting, but it is still hitting.

To properly compare the two, it would be like the parent touching the child's hand to a hot stove to show them that it's hot.

No it isn't because that is forcing your child to do something that they should. The parent touching the child's hand to a hot stove to show them that it's hot, is much closer to the parent putting a crayon in the kids hand and using their(the parent's) hand to direct the child's hand in drawing on the walls and then spanking them.
Spanking your child is not always the answer, but pain is one of the best motivators especially when the parent later sits down and explains what the child did wrong. Spanking by itself isn't very effective but spanking followed by adult conversation with your kids is very effective.

I would argue that the child needs the explanation that they've done something wrong as soon as possible, so that they can form a connection between the event and the subsequent punishment. And I would also argue that that punishment absolutely does not need to take the form of hitting your child.

 

[orangeban]

No. To my mind, there should never be a situation where you'd need to. There are plenty of ways of disciplining children that don't require hitting them that will be just as effective.

EDIT: Hitting children only serves to teach them that hitting is an effective way to deal with someone who isn't doing what you want them to. I'd say it's much better to explain to them why what they did was wrong the first time they do it, and after that discipline them in a way which doesn't require hitting them.

I can actually use myself to counter that argument. My parents spanked my arse when I was out of line as a child, and I'm a pacifist. I've never hit anyone out of anger since I was a child.

OT: Yeah, spanking your kids is a perfectly fine way to get them to fall in line. They'll realize that they won't want to do that again, and will start building something I think we don't have enough of anymore: A good set of morals.

So you're a pacifist, but you condone people hitting their children?

I'm not saying that hitting children will invariably fuck them up, but I do think that there are much better ways of teaching children right from wrong without having to strike them. There is no other teaching situation where hitting the student is a valid method of teaching.

I wonder why you have to use the word hitting. Hitting is not good discipline. However, not being able to sit down for an hour or so without it hurting is definitely a motivator not to do it again. There's a big difference between beating your kids and discipline, and when I see people who immediately go 'OHMYGOD YOU'RE A BRUTE' when i say for discipline's sake it's a good idea, it sets my blood boiling. Used sparingly it's just fine.

And I'm not saying that NOT hitting them will invariably fuck them up, either. There are times when a timeout or a talking to are perfectly fine methods. But it's when you want to make a lasting impression that a spanking is of good use at times. Someone said before, Pain is a great motivator NOT to do something. You remember when you were a kid and you reached for a hot stove, and your mom said, 'that's hot' just before you burned yourself? Well, it hurt, and now you'll never touch a hot stove again. See what i mean?

hit Show IPA verb, hit, hit·ting, noun
verb (used with object)
1. to deal a blow or stroke to
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hitting

Seems a perfectly valid word to use to describe what people do to their children. I am aware that there is a huge difference between smacking your child as described in thsi forum and beating them, but the fact remains that we are still discussing hitting children.

The big difference between the stove example and a parent smacking there child is that the stove is an accident, which a child discovers by themselves. To properly compare the two, it would be like the parent touching the child's hand to a hot stove to show them that it's hot.

My argument is that there should be no need to strike your child, there are plenty of methods that are equally as effective that don't involve parents hitting their children. To me, hitting children seems like a lazy way to discipline them.

Hit has a much more bad connotation to it then spank. In a fight you hit the other person, when you get in a car crash you hit the other car. Spank is to "slap or smack with the open hand, esp on the buttocks". Much more of a specific word, that is designed for this use exactly.

This thing of, "Don't call it hitting, that's got negative connotations," is a very interesting view. People in favour of, say, assissinating dictators don't really like calling it murder (though it is arguable it isn't that) or even killing (though it definetly is that) because they have negative connotations.

When you spank your child, you are hitting your child, if you want a reasoned and adult argument about this you have to face up to the facts and be proud of what you are doing, don't sugar the pill, it makes the pill look bad.

 

[b3nn3tt]

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/5/e1057
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1983895,00.html

Research found above has shown that:

"As 5-year-olds, the children who had been spanked were more likely than the nonspanked to be defiant, demand immediate satisfaction of their wants and needs, become frustrated easily, have temper tantrums and lash out physically against other people or animals."

There are many non-violent alternates which are a little more inconvient for the parent but pay-off in the long run for the children's mental state.

You now what the flaw in that is? It doesn't show causation. Were the kids more trouble because they were spanked? Or were they spanked because they were more trouble?

One of the control variables was the child's behaviour. It says it in the abstract and goes into more detail in the method section.

How does one use a child's behavior as a control? There is no way of knowing if a child will be aggressive in 2 years, and there is no real way of knowing if spanking is what brought that along.

Because it was a longitudinal study, they looked at the kids' behaviour and how much they were spanked when they were three, and looked at their behaviour again when they were five. The link to the study is somewhere earlier in the thread, go take a look for yourself.

 

[rutcommapat]

You ever notice how kids were a lot less fucking annoying back when parents were EXPECTED to smack them on the ass if they were acting up?

So, my answer would be, yes it's alright, and fuck you if you think the slightest bit of physical contact will scar them for life. Of course, there has to be a limit to how much you hit them, and how hard you hit them, and yet never hitting them pretty much makes them believe that they can do whatever the fuck they want with you as a parent.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Yes. Why? It works. It worked on me and I harbor no resentment to my parents at all. I actually appreciate it in the face of kids today and some of the bullshit they get away with.

I'd like to point out that this guy is a bit of a tool. It does not always work, and anyone who says "Yes. Definitely. It works." without any explanation saying that it does not always work is an idiot.

I've got enough problems with people as it is, if my parents had hit me at all, I probably would've jumped out a window by now, because I've got horrible anxiety problems anyway. So anyone saying that hitting children is an effective way of punishment just because "it worked for them" clearly lacks empathy.

Spanking does work. Sometimes. In rare cases where the parent administering the punishment isn't being influenced by anything else at the time. This, however, is very rare. So no, "King of the Sandbox". You're wrong.

What? I don't even... ok, aside from out and out insulting me (which I've reported you for), you seem like the kind of kid that could have benefited from a little corporal punishment yourself.

wow randomly read that and agreed, that was random and uncalled for, that kind of attitude would get your ass a nice smack back in the day.

a little off topic:

to all the people saying "would you smack an adult now for doing something as stupid?"

yes, yes i would, it shouldn't have to come to that point as your an adult now, but if i was about to do something wrong and didn't care to listen, i'd be expecting a swift kick/hand to the ass right about now from my parents for doing something idiotic.

have you ever smacked your friend across the back of the head or in the arm when he was doing something stupid/ being a cheap bastard in a video game?

same thing.