Spanking Kids in Kansas

[Bunyip]

I was spanked as a child, and it only made me fear my dad, not respect him. I love my dad, I really do, and in many ways we're very similar. We both have tempers and we both probably have ADHD (he's never been diagnosed.) But I hated him when he spanked me, and I've never "appreciated" it later growing up. When my younger brothers were spanked, my sister and I cried because they were crying. I think it probably contributed to my anger growing up, my temper as a teenager, etc. One thing alone doesn't destroy a person or make a person successful - in pretty much every other way my parents are awesome, they put us through private school and college and encouraged me to be myself. But I would probably be much closer to my father if he hadn't spanked me or my siblings as a child. To me, the spankings were abusive, even though my father isn't an abusive person in general.

What you're describing is anecdotal for a reason. What people will admit to friends doesn't always match what they will admit in an anonymous survey. Whether you've talked in depth about people's feelings for their parents when it came to spanking and whether they were honest to you about it, are only two reasons why your anecdotes don't match the data. It's also the fact that our memories do change as time passes, I don't think about my dad spanking me often, but I can look back and say its definitely affected me for the negative.

Wonderful post.

 

[Penumbra]

Seems pretty emotional in here.

Personally, I don't see why children should have fewer rights than adults and pets in the matter of rights against violence. I'm in favor of making it illegal to strike children, either as parents or school employees, just as it's illegal to strike spouses (at least in some parts of the world) or adult employees. I don't see why child abuse should be legal, unlike other forms of physical abuse which are generally illegal. We can't hit other adults because it's not civilized behavior.

-If you hit a pet, you're risking legal action for animal abuse.
-If you hit an adult without consent, you're risking legal action for assault.
-But if you hit a human child, that's "discipline" in some places.

And "discipline" in that context means using physical violence on a child to teach her or him how to be psychologically healthy and handle their problems constructively.

-_-'

 

[Mister_T]

It seems to me you are both a little over-emotional about this subject.

I can't really blame them if they're being equated to actual child abusers.

 

[Alceste]

I can't really blame them if they're being equated to actual child abusers.

They're not. Nobody is calling everyone who hits their kids a "child abuser" except those in favour of spanking in their straw man responses to those of us who refuse to hit kids because it is ineffective at best and destructive at worst.

 

[Alceste]

Seems pretty emotional in here.

Personally, I don't see why children should have fewer rights than adults and pets in the matter of rights against violence. I'm in favor of making it illegal to strike children, either as parents or school employees, just as it's illegal to strike spouses (at least in some parts of the world) or adult employees. I don't see why child abuse should be legal, unlike other forms of physical abuse which are generally illegal. We can't hit other adults because it's not civilized behavior.

-If you hit a pet, you're risking legal action for animal abuse.
-If you hit an adult without consent, you're risking legal action for assault.
-But if you hit a human child, that's "discipline" in some places.

And "discipline" in that context means using physical violence on a child to teach her or him how to be psychologically healthy and handle their problems constructively.

-_-'

I agree with all of this.

 

[psychoslice]

There is an Assyrian tablet from 2800 bc that makes almost exactly the same claim.

Most kids I know are pretty wonderful, respectful, caring and self disciplined. I am very proud of my son and his peers.

That's great that you have meet so many good kids, but unfortunately you don't represent the majority, you maybe taking it too personal and emotion is clouding your judgment ?.

 

[Drolefille]

That's great that you have meet so many good kids, but unfortunately you don't represent the majority, you maybe taking it too personal and emotion is clouding your judgment ?.

And yet evidence shows differently than your beliefs. Is it not possible that your personal experience is clouding your ability to accept scientific evidence on the matter?

 

[psychoslice]

One constant throughout history is that every generation thinks that the younger generation is more poorly behaved than theirs. No one denies that it (crimes by children) happens, but we do deny that it is "worse" than in previous generations and that a lack physical discipline is the cause of that.

I respect your opinion and I wish it was true.

 

[Bunyip]

I think it is perfectly fair to deny that the absence of physical discipline is responsible for any increase in crime or disrespect from children, because there is no evidence to link the two.

Denying a link that has not been established, and has in fact been very soundly dismissed by most modern child psychologists is a pretty reasonable position.

 

[Thana]

They're not. Nobody is calling everyone who hits their kids a "child abuser" except those in favour of spanking in their straw man responses to those of us who refuse to hit kids because it is ineffective at best and destructive at worst.

Ineffective? Destructive?

Well my family must be the exception to the rule, Since we're all pro-smacking and we're all perfectly fine and found that getting smacked as children was actually effective.

 

[Penumbra]

I think it is perfectly fair to deny that the absence of physical discipline is responsible for any increase in crime or disrespect from children, because there is no evidence to link the two.

Denying a link that has not been established, and has in fact been very soundly dismissed by most modern child psychologists is a pretty reasonable position.

Depending on where one lives, crime is down anyway.

Like in the US for example:

Property crime down:

Violent crime down:

Yet when surveyed, two thirds of people believe crime rates are increasing.

Crime rates are down in a lot of other countries too, although I think Australia is an exception.

Also, this is the map of states (in red) that allow corporal punishment in schools:

And this is the map of violent crime (darker red) by state:

So, corporal punishment is actually positively correlated with violent crime, to some extent. I'm not saying it's causal or that there's a direct link, but apparently it's not helping. Then combine that with studies showing striking children can cause psychological issues, or is determined to be unhelpful. Then there are many European and other countries that have outlawed corporal punishment in schools or in the home, including the Scandinavian countries with the highest standard of living in the world.

The only argument in response seems to be anecdotal experiences about how people got hit and turned out okay, which are easily countered by the broader studies, the actual statistics on various relevant things, and of course anecdotal experiences about how people didn't get hit and turned out okay. Nobody is claiming that all kids that get hit, don't turn out okay.

The result is basically that these ideas regarding using physical violence against children as discipline being some necessary or helpful thing, just don't seem to have any basis in reality.

 

[Alceste]

Ineffective? Destructive?

Well my family must be the exception to the rule, Since we're all pro-smacking and we're all perfectly fine and found that getting smacked as children was actually effective.

I'm sorry to say that two grown women who think it's a good idea to hit little kids with wooden spoons doesn't sound like much of a success story to me.

 

[Thana]

I'm sorry to say that two grown women who think it's a good idea to hit little kids with wooden spoons doesn't sound like much of a success story to me.

Okay well I did a little research on the subject, Let me know what you think.

Another study published in the Akron Law Review last year examined criminal records and found that children raised where a legal ban on parental corporal punishment is in effect are much more likely to be involved in crime.

A key focus of the work of Jason M. Fuller of the University of Akron Law School was Sweden, which 30 years ago became the first nation to impose a complete ban on physical discipline and is in many respects “an ideal laboratory to study spanking bans,” according to Fuller.

And also this I found interesting -

Of like mind is the American Academy of Pediatrics...... spanking is only effective when used in selective infrequent situation

Which is exactly what we've been discussing, Selective infrequent situations.

Gunnoe’s findings are being largely ignored by the U.S. media, but made a splash in British newspapers. It is not the first time her work has been bypassed by the press. Her 1997 work showing that customary spanking reduced aggression also went largely unreported.

Dr. Diana Baumrind of the University of California, Berkeley and her teams of professional researchers over a decade conducted what is considered the most extensive and methodologically thorough child development study yet done. They examined 164 families, tracking their children from age four to 14. Baumrind found that spanking can be helpful in certain contexts and discovered “no evidence for unique detrimental effects of normative physical punishment.” She also found that children who were never spanked tended to have behavioral problems, and were not more competent than their peers.

There seems to be conflicting studies aswell as conflicting opinions on the subject.


http://www.newsmax.com/US/spanking-studies-children-spock/2010/01/07/id/345669/

 

[Bunyip]

Okay well I did a little research on the subject, Let me know what you think.


And also this I found interesting -

Which is exactly what we've been discussing, Selective infrequent situations.


There seems to be conflicting studies aswell as conflicting opinions on the subject.

Can you identify the Akron Law review report? Or any of the others?

 

[Alceste]

Okay well I did a little research on the subject, Let me know what you think.


And also this I found interesting -

Which is exactly what we've been discussing, Selective infrequent situations.


There seems to be conflicting studies aswell as conflicting opinions on the subject.

Have you got a link? I'm a fact checker.

 

[Thana]

Can you identify the Akron Law review report? Or any of the others?

What do you mean identify?
All the names are there if you want to verify them

 

[Alceste]

What do you mean identify?
All the names are there if you want to verify them

Yeah, but it's common practice, not to mention forum rules, to provide a link to the original source when you're quoting extensively from another site.

 

[Thana]

Yeah, but it's common practice, not to mention forum rules, to provide a link to the original source when you're quoting extensively from another site.

Alright, I didn't realize that. I added the link to the article.

 

[Bunyip]

What do you mean identify?
All the names are there if you want to verify them

Well no, you did not name any of the reports you just referred to. I am only asking so that I can read them.

You have given a link to a pro-spanking article that refers to those reports, but does not identify them either.

 

[Alceste]

Ok, I found it.
Pro-Spanking Studies May Have Global Effect

Doesn't get off to a very good start, I have to say, what with immediately referencing "climategate" as a nail in the coffin of climate science.

That means I will have to verify every one of their factual claims, so it might take me a while to dig up the original studies and statements and get back to you.