Does Spanking kids Work?

[oldfart]

The other position is a rigid unwillingness to believe that children raised without physical punishment could ever turn out OK.

Who said that? The point was that some kids need it sometimes.

That specific sentence was based on many conversations I have participated in IRL. The statement that physical punishment is necessary to proper child rearing has explicitly been made in this thread several times. If you you want to confirm that, they are not hard to find. So I am not answering a straw man (and I wish it were a straw man!).

Some posters seem to realize this and don't want to go there. For them I ask, "If spanking doesn't work, and you don't want to escalate, what do you do? And why, if that works, don't you do it instead of spanking in the first place?"

That made no sense. A spanking probably won't instantly turn the child into a model citizen. You could use your argument about any form of punishment. What do you mean "if it doesn't work"? Growing up is a process, it doesn't happen in a day.

Any corrective action has failed when the child does not appropriately modify their behavior. Sometimes this requires some time to determine. If Johnny throws things at his sister and is corrected, and subsequently does not throw things at his sister, the correction was successful. This is true even if Johnny throws a tantrum and rolls on the floor screaming when corrected. I don't think we are in disagreement here.

I posit that those defending physical punishment simply can't admit that any other way could ever work for anyone, because to admit it is to admit their actions were unnecessary.

I posit that kids are more undisciplined than ever so your theory is a bunch of bull.

First, I was sloppy in my language. I meant to say "those who insist that physical punishment is required to rear children successfully" rather than "those who defend physical punishment". IOW my objection is not with parents using and defending physical punishment, but with those who argue that it is required to rear children properly.

Most kids were spanked, so if they are undisciplined, spanking does not seem to correct them. I know of many highly successful, happy, self-confident, and productive individuals who were never physically disciplined as a child. You seem to persist in thinking that these people do not exist. Why do you spend so much effort trying to deny this existence? Does it threaten you to admit they exist?

I have no problem with parents who use limited physical punishment for correction with young children. I think it has drawbacks, and there are better methods, but I won't condemn those who use it or argue that their children are irreparably damaged. There can be more than one style of parenting that works. Why are you defending the extremist position? And isn't this the very position you started your post with by accusing me of creating it as a straw man?

Why not just admit that some parents don't use physical punishment and that it can work out? That doesn't mean that you or anybody else needs to do so also. And why blame the perceived ills of society on this issue?

So if you want to use limited physical punishment in your childrearing, that's one thing. But to claim that somehow everyone who doesn't must be lying or produce worthless children is simple self-delusion, and a pathetic one at that.

Looks like you picked an extreme view to argue with, although I must have missed the individual that said that.

If it's so extreme, why are you arguing for it?

 

[Pogo]

Because I am Black and I know a lot about African History and culture. I know that beating kids was just one of the hangovers from slavery.

So whites don't beat their kids? Or they only have done it when they or their ancestors were slaves? I don't see how you can know that parents beating their children is something that only came about as a result of slavery, particularly US slavery.

I'm white. I'd never claim to know whether whites beat their children or not based on my own racial makeup. Why do you think your being black gives you insight into the practices of cultures other than your own?

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from. I'm very curious to hear, actually. Have there been a lot of studies and surveys done in the distant past about parents beating their children, and the answers given put in modern context?

Couple of things. I am talking in general. I dont know every single African or African American. Surely you understand this. However, being Black I am privy to things it would take you a lifetime to understand if you are not Black. White people most definitely beat their kids. As I said this behavior came about via slavery and the particular pathology is something Black people learned from white slave drivers . It was a power struggle and beatings were meant to intimidate and control Blacks. If you were ever privy to an episode of Black people "whipping" their children you would see that same mentality and language reflected. It doesn't take a genius to see the parallels as a lay person and realize its handed down. I have also taken classes back in college and it only reinforced what my mother and grandmother told me about how it was handed down from slavery. There are some books on it. I recall one entitled Black Rage. I forgot the author. I'm sure there are dozens of studies if you google it.

Beating Black Children = A SLAVE TRADITION = Racism/White Supremacy | Racism Is White Supremacy

While you're correct about slave beatings being used as intimidation, I think the general practice is far older. We're a sadistic society. By "we" I don't just mean American society, not even sure if I mean European or Judeo-Christian society -- but we as a people have been engaging in sadism for centuries. It was just a short time before slavery that "pious" Europeans were torturing each other with bizarre machinery that would stretch the body until the back broke, or literally press the flesh until it exploded -- and/or simply burned people at the stake, even alive, with their children forced to watch. This is in our history. And this sadistic base, even as it fades slowly over time, is the only reason we even entertain the idea of beating children (or beating anyone) without immediately dismissing the idea as absurd and perverse.

I can remember in my own lifetime an endless stream of dime store novels that featured some sort of woman-beating, right on the cover. This was accepted because our legacy made us historically used to it. Whatever that level was in say the 1950s was milder than it was in the 1900s and harsher than it is now as we excruciatingly slowly wake up to what we're doing. But it's there, and whatever the derivation it's got a long and infamous history.

So yes it was used on slaves, and it may have been something new in the experience of West Africans, but it didn't start with them by any means. It probably starts with a religion that splits the natural world in two and posits a black/white dichotomy of good vs evil and angels vs devils and rewards vs punishment and a so-called "loving" god that will turn on a dime and condemn to eternal fire. But these are ancient and deep psychological roots.

This is really the same observation I keep making about gun violence. The root cause is not the gun; it's the ingrained culture. Fucked-up moral standards. A bland acceptance, even worship, of death and force and the idea of "might makes right".

 

[Pogo]

As I said before, by that logic all parental discipline sends the message that if you are bigger than someone else, it is OK to enforce your will on them. Whether the method is physical pain or emotional pain, the message remains. Should parents never discipline then?

The conclusion doesn't follow. Nothing about disciplining with emotional or other non-physical methods requires owning greater physical force. Beating does. If you weren't bigger/stronger than the other person, you couldn't beat him because he'll beat you back.

More, I'm pretty sure the 4 year old I nanny is not coming to that sort of conclusion based on the very occasional swat to the behind. I believe it's likely that, at least until very recently perhaps, most children were spanked at some point. It's just a common form of parental discipline in this country. Did those children all grow up believing that it is ok to cause physical pain if you are bigger than someone?

Obviously, that's the message. Just look around -- we're a society swimming in violence. Some of us get past that message, others still struggle with it. Some never reconcile.
It might be better if such a message wasn't propagated in the first place. This could be step one.

As for "common", hey it used to be common to bleed people with illnesses too. George Washington died from it. Sometimes we humans have to stop and take stock of what's "always been done this way" and decide, "this is fucked up".

Such a blanket statement is rather inane though. That is not the only message that spanking can send and I think that declaring it so is completely off base. I have spanked my eldest three times and physical punishments do have their place though I don’t see many uses for term.

All three of those times were in direct relation to violent behavior – two to others and one in general while throwing a fit that would not be contained. The message is clear to him – violence begets violence and it does not end well for him.

Further, as pointed out through this thread, children are not of the same mold. They do not react the same to given discipline or reward. To state blankly that spanking leads to X is to completely gloss over this fact. Limiting a parent’s toolkit (other than abuse) without any knowledge of the child itself is asinine to say the least. I don’t pretend to know what is best for other parents and their children because I am well aware of the fact that I do NOT know what is best. I know that I don’t need to spank my youngest. I also know that my eldest needs something extra at times. They are each different and require different disciplinary actions. If that is so obvious within the same household within brothers I can only imagine how different others children may or may not be.

I don't think anyone suggested that "spanking = X in every child". I didn't read that. But you actually hit the nail on the head whether you meant to or not, right here:

The message is clear to him – violence begets violence and it does not end well for him.

Exactly. That was the original point. It's a slippery slope and it's all downhill.

 

[Pogo]

But new this new data of people who spank their kids for the most part do not do well in schools and are more aggressive

Self fulfilling findings...false conclusion. OF COURSE kids that were spanked did less well in school...the very fact they had to be spanked is a predictor of future bad behavior. That does not however, mean the THREAT of spanking isn't a good deterrent to bad behavior.

My father would have beat the crap out of me if I crossed certain lines. I knew it. Guess what? I didn't cross those lines and was therefore never spanked. Subsequently, I did very well in school and had no aggression problems. See how that works?

Exactly. You didn't cross those lines because you'd suffer the physical consequences. Not because you understood the wrongness of it. That's the whole issue, isn't it?

I guess only a committed Authoritarian could look back on that kind of experience positively. Maybe that's why this view strikes me as bizarre.

 

[Pogo]

No kid needs to be spanked or beat. You just need to release your frustration at your inability to handle the situation. Stop being lazy and parent.

Stop being a retard. Your inability to distinguish between spanking and beat isn't someone elses fault.

The post makes complete sense. If beating or spanking is your first resort you have nowhere to go from there. If a child is willful you will not break them with physical punishment. It will only serve to make them mean and or sneaky.

Except that it's been going on since the dawn of man. So your opinion can be dismissed for what it is.

Kids today are undisciplined because they are not taught respect for themselves and others. You dont have to beat them to teach them respect. Remember your job is teach your child to grow up and be a productive adult. Your job is not to intimidate bully them or be their best friend. Some people let their kids run wild with no restrictions or punishment. Others physically abuse them. Both methods are wrong.

Sounds a lot like you weren't spanked. Spoiled, smug, self righteous, etc. You exhibit all the signs of the undisciplined child.

Irony alert...

 

[eflatminor]

But new this new data of people who spank their kids for the most part do not do well in schools and are more aggressive

Self fulfilling findings...false conclusion. OF COURSE kids that were spanked did less well in school...the very fact they had to be spanked is a predictor of future bad behavior. That does not however, mean the THREAT of spanking isn't a good deterrent to bad behavior.

My father would have beat the crap out of me if I crossed certain lines. I knew it. Guess what? I didn't cross those lines and was therefore never spanked. Subsequently, I did very well in school and had no aggression problems. See how that works?

Exactly. You didn't cross those lines because you'd suffer the physical consequences. Not because you understood the wrongness of it. That's the whole issue, isn't it?

Children cannot understand those lines. They are not yet capable and further, I would suggest they never grow to understand right and wrong even into adulthood if they aren't taught those lessons as kids. Witness the insane incarceration rate among fatherless young men.

I guess only a committed Authoritarian could look back on that kind of experience positively. Maybe that's why this view strikes me as bizarre.

Authoritarian over a child? Heck yes. The consequences of doing otherwise are devastating.

The parent-as-friend thing doesn't work. Never has, never will.

The important part: My parents NEVER hit me. Not once. Didn't need to because I knew in no uncertain terms that if I crossed certain lines, that's exactly what would happen. No way my undeveloped brain as a child would have comprehended a rational plea to "be good and play nice". There MUST be consequences to motivate a child to do the right thing.

 

[oldfart]

It's my impression that many of those who are adamantly opposed to spanking, who equate it to beating children, etc. were themselves abused and beaten as children. That makes such an opinion understandable, but it does make me wonder about the possible differences in reasoning between those who were abused and those who were not that think any form of spanking is wrong.

OK, since I stated that I did not believe all physical punishment rose to the level of child abuse, but that I felt that physical punishment was not necessary, I am not in the "many of those" category. But I find it interesting that those defending physical punishment take one of two positions. One is that spanking is rare, almost symbolic, never delivered in anger, and is discontinued by age six or seven. I find this unobjectionable.

The other position is a rigid unwillingness to believe that children raised without physical punishment could ever turn out OK. This really implies and often is used to justify escalating violence. If a little slap on the behind doesn't work, and you don't want Suzy to become a shiftless lazy undisciplined child, so the reasoning goes, it's time for the paddle. If you accept the premise that physical punishment is unavoidable and the only solution when confronted with willful disobedience, then I think the conclusion of escalating violence is inevitable.

Some posters seem to realize this and don't want to go there. For them I ask, "If spanking doesn't work, and you don't want to escalate, what do you do? And why, if that works, don't you do it instead of spanking in the first place?"

Of course there are plenty of individuals, families, and societies that raise children without much physical punishment at home, in schools, and anywhere else. America is the anomaly in many ways. So why the need to deny an obvious reality? I posit that those defending physical punishment simply can't admit that any other way could ever work for anyone, because to admit it is to admit their actions were unnecessary.

So if you want to use limited physical punishment in your childrearing, that's one thing. But to claim that somehow everyone who doesn't must be lying or produce worthless children is simple self-delusion, and a pathetic one at that.

I'll answer this even though I fall into the category you listed as "unobjectionable."

If spanking doesn't work (due to the kid being THAT hard-headed or that spanking just doesn't work on the kid) then things must change fundamentally. Kid won't keep the fork out of the light socket even after a spanking? Cut the power to his room and use battery-powered lights. Kid won't stay away from the stove? He's locked in the bedroom when anyone is cooking. Kid won't stop eating dog shit? Keep her inside. Kid won't stop messing with the dog? Get rid of the dog.

In all of those cases the reason to try spanking is because it so often works without having to rearrange entire lifestyles, and because when spanking is effective it is indeed rare. Long time-outs, weeks of time in solitary - or worse weeks of time with direct adult micromanagement and correction can be psychologically damaging. A proper swat on the butt isn't. The key is to not do it first and not do it if it doesn't immediately work.

I agree that not all nor even most kids need to be spanked, I've got one of those. But there are a shit-ton of kids that have never been spanked and really need to. It'd fix them right up if done correctly.

First, thanks for a well thought out post. I really don't have a good answer to a swat for young children as a first attempt to get the message over. I'm not going to argue that it works for a lot of parents. And I agree that when it comes to issues of health and safety, there is a need to limit exposure to the threat; we are not going to risk serious illness or injury to make a point.

I think every parent is socially conditioned in America to believe they know how to discipline children (they just need to do what their parents did). Most just stop there. In my case, I had parents who used alternatives to physical punishment. The key was to figure out what conclusions a child draws from an adult's actions, and to develop a parenting method that teaches the intended lessons and promotes the desired behavior changes (and I see a lot of parents behaving as if their children thought as adults and just assuming the child understood why the parent was behaving as they were when in fact the child had no clue). I have a nephew who is educable mentally handicapped, strong as an ox, and now 40 years old. This parenting style even worked for him. My brother had the good sense to marry a special education teacher, so she had the required skill set, which I and virtually everyone else do not have. The point is that the skill set exists and special education teachers, other educators, mental health workers, and others who care for such people are trained to use them. If a child is really in need of extraordinary help in self-control and behavior disorders, why not learn from the professions set up to handle those circumstances?

 

[Pogo]

Self fulfilling findings...false conclusion. OF COURSE kids that were spanked did less well in school...the very fact they had to be spanked is a predictor of future bad behavior. That does not however, mean the THREAT of spanking isn't a good deterrent to bad behavior.

My father would have beat the crap out of me if I crossed certain lines. I knew it. Guess what? I didn't cross those lines and was therefore never spanked. Subsequently, I did very well in school and had no aggression problems. See how that works?

Exactly. You didn't cross those lines because you'd suffer the physical consequences. Not because you understood the wrongness of it. That's the whole issue, isn't it?

Children cannot understand those lines. They are not yet capable and further, I would suggest they never grow to understand right and wrong even into adulthood if they aren't taught those lessons as kids. Witness the insane incarceration rate among fatherless young men.

I guess only a committed Authoritarian could look back on that kind of experience positively. Maybe that's why this view strikes me as bizarre.

Authoritarian over a child? Heck yes. The consequences of doing otherwise are devastating.

The parent-as-friend thing doesn't work. Never has, never will.

The important part: My parents NEVER hit me. Not once. Didn't need to because I knew in no uncertain terms that if I crossed certain lines, that's exactly what would happen. No way my undeveloped brain as a child would have comprehended a rational plea to "be good and play nice". There MUST be consequences to motivate a child to do the right thing.

No, I mean Authoritarian by nature. The philosophy that Authority is always right and that 'might makes right'.... even the longing to be told what to do.

Say, if your parents "never hit you - not once" then on what possible basis could you conclude "that's what would happen"? That in no way follows. Your logic shoots itself in the foot, to borrow one of our typically sadistic metaphors.

 

[Asclepias]

If I were not able to distinguish between the 2 i would not have listed them separately. How did you miss that obvious paradox in your logic when you quoted my sentence?

Well duh Einstein. Who agrees with beating children? Why mention it if you aren't equating the two like the others here?

Lots of things have gone on since the dawn of time. You inability to evolve would render you extinct if we didn't have a place in our society for those unable to process complex issues. Normally you would be put down as a hinderance to the progress of the human race.

And lots of smug assholes died because they weren't as smart as they thought they were.

Funny you associate all those things with me. I'm told i am one of the coolest people on earth to be around. I do know people that lack confidence in themselves frequently express those same views of people that intimidate them. Do i intimidate you a little bit?

Sure. When I order fries I'll be watching to make sure you don't spit on them.

From your post:

Stop being a retard. Your inability to distinguish between spanking and beat isn't someone elses fault.

The issue was not about agreeing to the beating of children. It was about your lack of understanding in my post that you quoted. I ask again. How did you miss that paradox in your logic when I distinguished the two by listing them separately?

 

[asterism]

Because I am Black and I know a lot about African History and culture. I know that beating kids was just one of the hangovers from slavery.

But it's not.

Yes but it is. Just because you are not aware of it doesnt make you right. I am aware of it.

I'm aware of people that have never been slaves and have never even seen an American who beat their kids.

 

[eflatminor]

Exactly. You didn't cross those lines because you'd suffer the physical consequences. Not because you understood the wrongness of it. That's the whole issue, isn't it?

Children cannot understand those lines. They are not yet capable and further, I would suggest they never grow to understand right and wrong even into adulthood if they aren't taught those lessons as kids. Witness the insane incarceration rate among fatherless young men.

I guess only a committed Authoritarian could look back on that kind of experience positively. Maybe that's why this view strikes me as bizarre.

Authoritarian over a child? Heck yes. The consequences of doing otherwise are devastating.

The parent-as-friend thing doesn't work. Never has, never will.

The important part: My parents NEVER hit me. Not once. Didn't need to because I knew in no uncertain terms that if I crossed certain lines, that's exactly what would happen. No way my undeveloped brain as a child would have comprehended a rational plea to "be good and play nice". There MUST be consequences to motivate a child to do the right thing.

No, I mean Authoritarian by nature. The philosophy that Authority is always right and that 'might makes right'.... even the longing to be told what to do.

Then I disagree. I only suggest parents should be free to be authoritarians over their children because that's what kids need to understand those lines.

Say, if your parents "never hit you - not once" then on what possible basis could you conclude "that's what would happen"?

Because my father made it CRYSTAL clear that is exactly what would happen...multiple times, with great specificity. As a child, I may not have grasped the fine nuances between moral conundrums and issues of integrity, but I sure as heck could understand that if I ever hit my sister or my mother, I was in for an spanking of monumental proportions.

It worked.

That in no way follows. Your logic shoots itself in the foot, to borrow one of our typically sadistic metaphors.

Wrong. It makes perfect sense. It follows perfectly. And there is nothing sadistic of about informing a child that he will be cracked across the butt for crossing lines he should not cross. In fact, that kind of life guidance is born of love and caring, not sadism. The alternative is that the kid crosses those line and fails in life. Now THAT'S sadistic!

 

[Asclepias]

But it's not.

Yes but it is. Just because you are not aware of it doesnt make you right. I am aware of it.

I'm aware of people that have never been slaves and have never even seen an American who beat their kids.

I'm aware of Africans that abuse their children. My point is that it is not the norm in African culture. This is something Black Americans picked up from slavery. This and other bad habits.

 

[asterism]

OK, since I stated that I did not believe all physical punishment rose to the level of child abuse, but that I felt that physical punishment was not necessary, I am not in the "many of those" category. But I find it interesting that those defending physical punishment take one of two positions. One is that spanking is rare, almost symbolic, never delivered in anger, and is discontinued by age six or seven. I find this unobjectionable.

The other position is a rigid unwillingness to believe that children raised without physical punishment could ever turn out OK. This really implies and often is used to justify escalating violence. If a little slap on the behind doesn't work, and you don't want Suzy to become a shiftless lazy undisciplined child, so the reasoning goes, it's time for the paddle. If you accept the premise that physical punishment is unavoidable and the only solution when confronted with willful disobedience, then I think the conclusion of escalating violence is inevitable.

Some posters seem to realize this and don't want to go there. For them I ask, "If spanking doesn't work, and you don't want to escalate, what do you do? And why, if that works, don't you do it instead of spanking in the first place?"

Of course there are plenty of individuals, families, and societies that raise children without much physical punishment at home, in schools, and anywhere else. America is the anomaly in many ways. So why the need to deny an obvious reality? I posit that those defending physical punishment simply can't admit that any other way could ever work for anyone, because to admit it is to admit their actions were unnecessary.

So if you want to use limited physical punishment in your childrearing, that's one thing. But to claim that somehow everyone who doesn't must be lying or produce worthless children is simple self-delusion, and a pathetic one at that.

I'll answer this even though I fall into the category you listed as "unobjectionable."

If spanking doesn't work (due to the kid being THAT hard-headed or that spanking just doesn't work on the kid) then things must change fundamentally. Kid won't keep the fork out of the light socket even after a spanking? Cut the power to his room and use battery-powered lights. Kid won't stay away from the stove? He's locked in the bedroom when anyone is cooking. Kid won't stop eating dog shit? Keep her inside. Kid won't stop messing with the dog? Get rid of the dog.

In all of those cases the reason to try spanking is because it so often works without having to rearrange entire lifestyles, and because when spanking is effective it is indeed rare. Long time-outs, weeks of time in solitary - or worse weeks of time with direct adult micromanagement and correction can be psychologically damaging. A proper swat on the butt isn't. The key is to not do it first and not do it if it doesn't immediately work.

I agree that not all nor even most kids need to be spanked, I've got one of those. But there are a shit-ton of kids that have never been spanked and really need to. It'd fix them right up if done correctly.

First, thanks for a well thought out post. I really don't have a good answer to a swat for young children as a first attempt to get the message over. I'm not going to argue that it works for a lot of parents. And I agree that when it comes to issues of health and safety, there is a need to limit exposure to the threat; we are not going to risk serious illness or injury to make a point.

I think every parent is socially conditioned in America to believe they know how to discipline children (they just need to do what their parents did). Most just stop there. In my case, I had parents who used alternatives to physical punishment. The key was to figure out what conclusions a child draws from an adult's actions, and to develop a parenting method that teaches the intended lessons and promotes the desired behavior changes (and I see a lot of parents behaving as if their children thought as adults and just assuming the child understood why the parent was behaving as they were when in fact the child had no clue). I have a nephew who is educable mentally handicapped, strong as an ox, and now 40 years old. This parenting style even worked for him. My brother had the good sense to marry a special education teacher, so she had the required skill set, which I and virtually everyone else do not have. The point is that the skill set exists and special education teachers, other educators, mental health workers, and others who care for such people are trained to use them. If a child is really in need of extraordinary help in self-control and behavior disorders, why not learn from the professions set up to handle those circumstances?

The vast majority of the "professionals" I know of are completely unqualified, most don't even have kids themselves. They are all theory and zero practical application.

 

[oldfart]

I'll answer this even though I fall into the category you listed as "unobjectionable."

If spanking doesn't work (due to the kid being THAT hard-headed or that spanking just doesn't work on the kid) then things must change fundamentally. Kid won't keep the fork out of the light socket even after a spanking? Cut the power to his room and use battery-powered lights. Kid won't stay away from the stove? He's locked in the bedroom when anyone is cooking. Kid won't stop eating dog shit? Keep her inside. Kid won't stop messing with the dog? Get rid of the dog.

In all of those cases the reason to try spanking is because it so often works without having to rearrange entire lifestyles, and because when spanking is effective it is indeed rare. Long time-outs, weeks of time in solitary - or worse weeks of time with direct adult micromanagement and correction can be psychologically damaging. A proper swat on the butt isn't. The key is to not do it first and not do it if it doesn't immediately work.

I agree that not all nor even most kids need to be spanked, I've got one of those. But there are a shit-ton of kids that have never been spanked and really need to. It'd fix them right up if done correctly.

First, thanks for a well thought out post. I really don't have a good answer to a swat for young children as a first attempt to get the message over. I'm not going to argue that it works for a lot of parents. And I agree that when it comes to issues of health and safety, there is a need to limit exposure to the threat; we are not going to risk serious illness or injury to make a point.

I think every parent is socially conditioned in America to believe they know how to discipline children (they just need to do what their parents did). Most just stop there. In my case, I had parents who used alternatives to physical punishment. The key was to figure out what conclusions a child draws from an adult's actions, and to develop a parenting method that teaches the intended lessons and promotes the desired behavior changes (and I see a lot of parents behaving as if their children thought as adults and just assuming the child understood why the parent was behaving as they were when in fact the child had no clue). I have a nephew who is educable mentally handicapped, strong as an ox, and now 40 years old. This parenting style even worked for him. My brother had the good sense to marry a special education teacher, so she had the required skill set, which I and virtually everyone else do not have. The point is that the skill set exists and special education teachers, other educators, mental health workers, and others who care for such people are trained to use them. If a child is really in need of extraordinary help in self-control and behavior disorders, why not learn from the professions set up to handle those circumstances?

The vast majority of the "professionals" I know of are completely unqualified, most don't even have kids themselves. They are all theory and zero practical application.

Well, I certainly am not going to try to defend all professions or all professionals. But I would suggest you try to visit or volunteer at a special education class. You would have an opportunity to see the practice close up.

 

[R.D.]

Yes but it is. Just because you are not aware of it doesnt make you right. I am aware of it.

I'm aware of people that have never been slaves and have never even seen an American who beat their kids.

I'm aware of Africans that abuse their children. My point is that it is not the norm in African culture. This is something Black Americans picked up from slavery. This and other bad habits.

Just wow

 

[BillyZane]

Because I am Black and I know a lot about African History and culture. I know that beating kids was just one of the hangovers from slavery.

So whites don't beat their kids? Or they only have done it when they or their ancestors were slaves? I don't see how you can know that parents beating their children is something that only came about as a result of slavery, particularly US slavery.

I'm white. I'd never claim to know whether whites beat their children or not based on my own racial makeup. Why do you think your being black gives you insight into the practices of cultures other than your own?

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from. I'm very curious to hear, actually. Have there been a lot of studies and surveys done in the distant past about parents beating their children, and the answers given put in modern context?

Couple of things. I am talking in general. I dont know every single African or African American. Surely you understand this. However, being Black I am privy to things it would take you a lifetime to understand if you are not Black. White people most definitely beat their kids. As I said this behavior came about via slavery and the particular pathology is something Black people learned from white slave drivers . It was a power struggle and beatings were meant to intimidate and control Blacks. If you were ever privy to an episode of Black people "whipping" their children you would see that same mentality and language reflected. It doesn't take a genius to see the parallels as a lay person and realize its handed down. I have also taken classes back in college and it only reinforced what my mother and grandmother told me about how it was handed down from slavery. There are some books on it. I recall one entitled Black Rage. I forgot the author. I'm sure there are dozens of studies if you google it.

Beating Black Children = A SLAVE TRADITION = Racism/White Supremacy | Racism Is White Supremacy

In reality though, VERY few slave owners beat their slaves. Oh sure there were sadistic assholes of course, but why would the average slave holder beat what at the time was the same as his horse? Answer, they didn't.

The mean southern slave owner who beat his slaves nearly to death every day that we see on tv was as rare as the happy bunch of blacks sitting around singing songs after a long day in the fields that we see on tv today. Very rare.

 

[Asclepias]

So whites don't beat their kids? Or they only have done it when they or their ancestors were slaves? I don't see how you can know that parents beating their children is something that only came about as a result of slavery, particularly US slavery.

I'm white. I'd never claim to know whether whites beat their children or not based on my own racial makeup. Why do you think your being black gives you insight into the practices of cultures other than your own?

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from. I'm very curious to hear, actually. Have there been a lot of studies and surveys done in the distant past about parents beating their children, and the answers given put in modern context?

Couple of things. I am talking in general. I dont know every single African or African American. Surely you understand this. However, being Black I am privy to things it would take you a lifetime to understand if you are not Black. White people most definitely beat their kids. As I said this behavior came about via slavery and the particular pathology is something Black people learned from white slave drivers . It was a power struggle and beatings were meant to intimidate and control Blacks. If you were ever privy to an episode of Black people "whipping" their children you would see that same mentality and language reflected. It doesn't take a genius to see the parallels as a lay person and realize its handed down. I have also taken classes back in college and it only reinforced what my mother and grandmother told me about how it was handed down from slavery. There are some books on it. I recall one entitled Black Rage. I forgot the author. I'm sure there are dozens of studies if you google it.

Beating Black Children = A SLAVE TRADITION = Racism/White Supremacy | Racism Is White Supremacy

In reality though, VERY few slave owners beat their slaves. Oh sure there were sadistic assholes of course, but why would the average slave holder beat what at the time was the same as his horse? Answer, they didn't.

The mean southern slave owner who beat his slaves nearly to death every day that we see on tv was as rare as the happy bunch of blacks sitting around singing songs after a long day in the fields that we see on tv today. Very rare.

Slave owners and slave drivers are 2 different occupations. Slave owners may have had money invested in slaves but they frequently turned a blind eye to the beatings, torture, and savagery administered by the typical poor white trash slave drivers.

 

[Montrovant]

That ^^ right there.

As I said before, by that logic all parental discipline sends the message that if you are bigger than someone else, it is OK to enforce your will on them. Whether the method is physical pain or emotional pain, the message remains. Should parents never discipline then?

The conclusion doesn't follow. Nothing about disciplining with emotional or other non-physical methods requires owning greater physical force. Beating does. If you weren't bigger/stronger than the other person, you couldn't beat him because he'll beat you back.

More, I'm pretty sure the 4 year old I nanny is not coming to that sort of conclusion based on the very occasional swat to the behind. I believe it's likely that, at least until very recently perhaps, most children were spanked at some point. It's just a common form of parental discipline in this country. Did those children all grow up believing that it is ok to cause physical pain if you are bigger than someone?

Obviously, that's the message. Just look around -- we're a society swimming in violence. Some of us get past that message, others still struggle with it. Some never reconcile.
It might be better if such a message wasn't propagated in the first place. This could be step one.

As for "common", hey it used to be common to bleed people with illnesses too. George Washington died from it. Sometimes we humans have to stop and take stock of what's "always been done this way" and decide, "this is fucked up".

So where does the authority of adults over children come from? If it isn't from being bigger, then why is that the message with physical discipline and not with emotional discipline?

Wouldn't it be more likely, speaking of smaller children, that any message gotten from discipline would be that if you are a grown-up, you can control children?

I think you are attributing far too adult of a thought process to young children.

You have also, it seems, missed my point about spanking being common. I didn't say or indicate that something being common meant it should continue. I was pointing out that the correlation you and others seem to make between simple spanking and problems in adult life does not appear to be borne out.

Even if I were to agree with your description of our society as 'swimming in violence' (I don't; I think that, for the most part, society has become less and less violent over time. The violence that occurs is simply more visible now and contrasts more to the values of society), where is the evidence that is caused, in any way, by spanking?

 

[Pogo]

As I said before, by that logic all parental discipline sends the message that if you are bigger than someone else, it is OK to enforce your will on them. Whether the method is physical pain or emotional pain, the message remains. Should parents never discipline then?

The conclusion doesn't follow. Nothing about disciplining with emotional or other non-physical methods requires owning greater physical force. Beating does. If you weren't bigger/stronger than the other person, you couldn't beat him because he'll beat you back.

More, I'm pretty sure the 4 year old I nanny is not coming to that sort of conclusion based on the very occasional swat to the behind. I believe it's likely that, at least until very recently perhaps, most children were spanked at some point. It's just a common form of parental discipline in this country. Did those children all grow up believing that it is ok to cause physical pain if you are bigger than someone?

Obviously, that's the message. Just look around -- we're a society swimming in violence. Some of us get past that message, others still struggle with it. Some never reconcile.
It might be better if such a message wasn't propagated in the first place. This could be step one.

As for "common", hey it used to be common to bleed people with illnesses too. George Washington died from it. Sometimes we humans have to stop and take stock of what's "always been done this way" and decide, "this is fucked up".

So where does the authority of adults over children come from? If it isn't from being bigger, then why is that the message with physical discipline and not with emotional discipline?

Wouldn't it be more likely, speaking of smaller children, that any message gotten from discipline would be that if you are a grown-up, you can control children?

I don't understand what the question is here

I think you are attributing far too adult of a thought process to young children.

I don't think of it as an adult thought process; I think of it as a very basic, visceral gut emotional process. "Bigger is badder", "might makes right", and the base of authority on physical force are really not complex concepts at all. They're part of the most basic human emotion of fear.

You have also, it seems, missed my point about spanking being common. I didn't say or indicate that something being common meant it should continue. I was pointing out that the correlation you and others seem to make between simple spanking and problems in adult life does not appear to be borne out.

Even if I were to agree with your description of our society as 'swimming in violence' (I don't; I think that, for the most part, society has become less and less violent over time. The violence that occurs is simply more visible now and contrasts more to the values of society), where is the evidence that is caused, in any way, by spanking?

I'm not saying it's caused by spanking or beating or violence in general. I'm saying those phenomena are all part of the same mindset, which reinforce each other. To take it to the extreme, the idea that you can spank your kids and the idea that you can go invade a country are not unrelated. They're part of the same worldview.

And of course that's relative over time, as mentioned earlier. We seem to be, in our standards if not in our real pop culture, evolving slowly away from those idea of violence and force. But the underlying basis of it I think is still there so it's a Sisyphustic task.

 

[BillyZane]

Couple of things. I am talking in general. I dont know every single African or African American. Surely you understand this. However, being Black I am privy to things it would take you a lifetime to understand if you are not Black. White people most definitely beat their kids. As I said this behavior came about via slavery and the particular pathology is something Black people learned from white slave drivers . It was a power struggle and beatings were meant to intimidate and control Blacks. If you were ever privy to an episode of Black people "whipping" their children you would see that same mentality and language reflected. It doesn't take a genius to see the parallels as a lay person and realize its handed down. I have also taken classes back in college and it only reinforced what my mother and grandmother told me about how it was handed down from slavery. There are some books on it. I recall one entitled Black Rage. I forgot the author. I'm sure there are dozens of studies if you google it.

Beating Black Children = A SLAVE TRADITION = Racism/White Supremacy | Racism Is White Supremacy

In reality though, VERY few slave owners beat their slaves. Oh sure there were sadistic assholes of course, but why would the average slave holder beat what at the time was the same as his horse? Answer, they didn't.

The mean southern slave owner who beat his slaves nearly to death every day that we see on tv was as rare as the happy bunch of blacks sitting around singing songs after a long day in the fields that we see on tv today. Very rare.

Slave owners and slave drivers are 2 different occupations. Slave owners may have had money invested in slaves but they frequently turned a blind eye to the beatings, torture, and savagery administered by the typical poor white trash slave drivers.

That's a fair point. But I honestly don't believe there were as many as some would have us believe.