Does Spanking kids Work?

[Pogo]

Fully agree. Five lines, five ipse dixits, zero facts, zero links. Talk is cheap.

Personally I want a link for every one of those "ten thousand years" of child bliss. With video.

You might be interested in reading this. It does not support the idea that beating kids resulted in 10K of bliss ...

The History of Child Abuse

The rest of his writings -

The Institute for Psychohistory

Because I am part of this, I just wanted to point out that I consider there to be a definite distinction between spanking and abuse. I believe one can spank without being abusive.

Just to be clear because it's excised above, my comment "five lines of ipse dixit / zero links" refers to this airball post, not to Montrovant's:

for 10,000 years children were spank as part of an array of punishments to correct bad behavior.

during this time, child, criminal, violence was very low.

Now the only acceptable punishment is a time out.

Since this time, children have started committing crimes that only adults would ever consider.

So while there are plenty of studies out, by leftist covering for leftist, the clear results are out in the open for all to see

 

[Ringel05]

Words can do as much, and sometimes more, damage than hitting. But, from your posts, I suspect you are well aware of that.

Seems to me that some people really don't like children in general and their own in particular. I do believe that people who hit their kids just don't like having kids. And, if one doesn't like them, they really should not have them. IMO

You have a great point. "Sticks and stones" was made up by tough guys. Words can maim for life. People that spank and beat in anger usually worsen the physical punishment by the use of verbal abuse.

I just dont get why you would want to physically intimidate or harm your child. If you know there is a better way. Wouldn't you want to do parenting a better way?

I couldn't agree more. I also agree with those who have said that if you hit your child, you have already failed as a parent.

Hitting children is bullying at its worst. Its taking unfair advantage of not only the size difference but also the psychological strength an adult has over a child.

I hope that someday we see it outlawed completely. Hit a child - Go to jail.

Sounds like you should have been spanked more as a child.......

 

[whitehall]

Personally I would never authorize someone to use physical violence against my child but that's because I care. Some people would rather have the government in charge of raising their children.

 

[Ringel05]

I'll state the obvious (should be obvious).
There are those, a very small minority, who think beating their children senseless is acceptable punishment, conversely there are those who think that looking in anger as a child constitutes child abuse. The reality lies in the middle where most people discipline their children, with little anger, and with love in their hearts. My parents were of that sort, I was spanked when I deserved it, most will agree it didn't mess me up, others....... Well they need to buy a mirror.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Spanking works just fine.

... says the poster who also advocates that pot smokers be shot in the face.

Coincidence? I think not.

Psychopathy.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Anyone who hits children is a loser

Anyone that doesn't know a spanking from a beating is a loser.

Anyone who claims the two are different is a sick, twisted pervert trying to justify his own perversion. It's on the same level as defending NAMBLA.

 

[Jarlaxle]

What has happened to the ability to debate the actual topic in this country?

The title of THIS thread is " does spanking work?"

The answer is yes absolutely it work.

Another question entirely is being addressed by almost every person posting here. That question being "should we spank our children?"

Much like the question of torture. Makes me cringe when people ask "does torture work?" and then they go on to list reasons why we shouldn't torture. They are two different arguments, and I'm sorry but you are STUPID if you can't differentiate between the two. Torture works, PERIOD. the only question is should we do it.

Same for spanking. It works, PERIOD. Now we can debate should we spank?

I think that we would need to define the meaning of "work" in this context. To me "work" would mean to achieve the objective. If my objective is to intimidate then yes it works. If my aim is to teach my child why what they did was wrong then no it does not work nor is it the best way to teach someone anything.

Often, the objective is no more and no less than the enjoyment of the person doing it. It really is that simple.

 

[Ringel05]

Are you saying the violent criminals who are children were more rare in the past but are common now?

Does this take into account the fact that people were considered adults at an earlier age in the past?

And what, specifically, are the criminal acts you are talking about?

Even if your statement is true, is there any evidence that spanking has anything to do with it?

And I'm no liberal, but yes, I'd love a link.

Fully agree. Five lines, five ipse dixits, zero facts, zero links. Talk is cheap.

Personally I want a link for every one of those "ten thousand years" of child bliss. With video.

You might be interested in reading this. It does not support the idea that beating kids resulted in 10K of bliss ...

The History of Child Abuse

The rest of his writings -

The Institute for Psychohistory

Psychohistory? It has some interesting limited applications. As for it's validity as a distinct science with verifiable results and conclusions? That is still up for debate among psychologists.
It is an interesting read, not saying don't read it, just read it in context of valid applicable social science, there is some, some is pure conjecture.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Unverifiable and statistically insignificant. The facts prove that kids raised without real consequences tend to grow up to be entitled, dishonorable, and prone to getting in real trouble. Sorry, your wonderful children do not overturn a generation of fatherless and parents-as-friends experience.

And guess what, my father never hit me...he didn't have to because I knew what would be in store if I crossed certain lines, and it wasn't necessarily a spanking but consequences that actually meant something. See how that works?

Spankings or beatings are not the only way to provide a real consequence. Ostracizing is a very potent tool that provides real consequences and takes advantage of our hardwiring as social animals.

Words can do as much, and sometimes more, damage than hitting. But, from your posts, I suspect you are well aware of that.

Seems to me that some people really don't like children in general and their own in particular. I do believe that people who hit their kids just don't like having kids. And, if one doesn't like them, they really should not have them. IMO

I agree. I have no children because I DESPISE children. I knew by the time I was 14 that my never breeding would be a service to the human race.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Spankings or beatings are not the only way to provide a real consequence. Ostracizing is a very potent tool that provides real consequences and takes advantage of our hardwiring as social animals.

Words can do as much, and sometimes more, damage than hitting. But, from your posts, I suspect you are well aware of that.

Seems to me that some people really don't like children in general and their own in particular. I do believe that people who hit their kids just don't like having kids. And, if one doesn't like them, they really should not have them. IMO

You have a great point. "Sticks and stones" was made up by tough guys. Words can maim for life. People that spank and beat in anger usually worsen the physical punishment by the use of verbal abuse.

I went to school with someone whose mother was every bit as psychotic as my father. She never touched him...but every day, it was: moron, idiot, dullard, stupid, and the like. When he got a bad grade, she once told him "If I'd known you'd be this stupid, I would have aborted you." He was told that if he wasn't the valedictorian, he would be disowned.

His junior year, he got a C on a calculus test. (Note: that was a college-level course.) He wrote, "You're right, I'm stupid," on the test, went home, and hung himself in the garage. His 13-year-old sister (my wife's close friend) found his body.

His mother actually refused to pay for a funeral.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Words can do as much, and sometimes more, damage than hitting. But, from your posts, I suspect you are well aware of that.

Seems to me that some people really don't like children in general and their own in particular. I do believe that people who hit their kids just don't like having kids. And, if one doesn't like them, they really should not have them. IMO

You have a great point. "Sticks and stones" was made up by tough guys. Words can maim for life. People that spank and beat in anger usually worsen the physical punishment by the use of verbal abuse.

I just dont get why you would want to physically intimidate or harm your child. If you know there is a better way. Wouldn't you want to do parenting a better way?

I couldn't agree more. I also agree with those who have said that if you hit your child, you have already failed as a parent.

Hitting children is bullying at its worst. Its taking unfair advantage of not only the size difference but also the psychological strength an adult has over a child.

I hope that someday we see it outlawed completely. Hit a child - Go to jail.

No: hit a child, get executed by crucifixion on live webcast.

 

[Ringel05]

Anyone who hits children is a loser

Anyone that doesn't know a spanking from a beating is a loser.

Anyone who claims the two are different is a sick, twisted pervert trying to justify his own perversion. It's on the same level as defending NAMBLA.

Many people don't define the two as the same as you do, they see a distinct difference and just because they don't see it your way doesn't make them losers. It's those who can't see or understand the differentiation in personal views who tend towards the loser designation. Seems that it fits both in this scenario......

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Words can do as much, and sometimes more, damage than hitting. But, from your posts, I suspect you are well aware of that.

Seems to me that some people really don't like children in general and their own in particular. I do believe that people who hit their kids just don't like having kids. And, if one doesn't like them, they really should not have them. IMO

You have a great point. "Sticks and stones" was made up by tough guys. Words can maim for life. People that spank and beat in anger usually worsen the physical punishment by the use of verbal abuse.

I went to school with someone whose mother was every bit as psychotic as my father. She never touched him...but every day, it was: moron, idiot, dullard, stupid, and the like. When he got a bad grade, she once told him "If I'd known you'd be this stupid, I would have aborted you." He was told that if he wasn't the valedictorian, he would be disowned.

His junior year, he got a C on a calculus test. (Note: that was a college-level course.) He wrote, "You're right, I'm stupid," on the test, went home, and hung himself in the garage. His 13-year-old sister (my wife's close friend) found his body.

His mother actually refused to pay for a funeral.

Christ but that is sad. Sounds like my childhood - except, obviously, I didn't succeed in killing myself. I remember my mother telling me that if she had known about abortion the year I was born, I would not be here now. I can remember another dozen little gems like that including the constant threat of being sent to reform school. She wanted to have me lobotomized and I was beaten to the point of broken bones, burned with cigarettes and more.

I didn't have kids because I was terrified that I would beat them. Fact is, those who were beaten do not grow up to abuse their own but I didn't know that. I have grand kids and have never ever felt the urge to hit one of them.

Nonetheless, I do believe that some people should not have children and most of them do hit their children.

 

[Ringel05]

Part of the problem with debates such as this is it should be driven by dispassionate, unbiased, objective individuals. Unfortunately it is driven by impassioned individuals unable to see anything but their own experience wrongly transferring that experience as inclusive for all with no room for argument or dissent.

 

[Pogo]

Words can do as much, and sometimes more, damage than hitting. But, from your posts, I suspect you are well aware of that.

Seems to me that some people really don't like children in general and their own in particular. I do believe that people who hit their kids just don't like having kids. And, if one doesn't like them, they really should not have them. IMO

You have a great point. "Sticks and stones" was made up by tough guys. Words can maim for life. People that spank and beat in anger usually worsen the physical punishment by the use of verbal abuse.

I went to school with someone whose mother was every bit as psychotic as my father. She never touched him...but every day, it was: moron, idiot, dullard, stupid, and the like. When he got a bad grade, she once told him "If I'd known you'd be this stupid, I would have aborted you." He was told that if he wasn't the valedictorian, he would be disowned.

His junior year, he got a C on a calculus test. (Note: that was a college-level course.) He wrote, "You're right, I'm stupid," on the test, went home, and hung himself in the garage. His 13-year-old sister (my wife's close friend) found his body.

His mother actually refused to pay for a funeral.

I went to school with a kid like that too, who also hung himself. Same story. He was a top student and smart as a whip. Apparently not smart enough.

Also came to the same conclusion as Luddly and Jaraxle about not procreating, for similar reasons. I know exactly what you guys mean.

 

[GISMYS]

You have a great point. "Sticks and stones" was made up by tough guys. Words can maim for life. People that spank and beat in anger usually worsen the physical punishment by the use of verbal abuse.

I went to school with someone whose mother was every bit as psychotic as my father. She never touched him...but every day, it was: moron, idiot, dullard, stupid, and the like. When he got a bad grade, she once told him "If I'd known you'd be this stupid, I would have aborted you." He was told that if he wasn't the valedictorian, he would be disowned.

His junior year, he got a C on a calculus test. (Note: that was a college-level course.) He wrote, "You're right, I'm stupid," on the test, went home, and hung himself in the garage. His 13-year-old sister (my wife's close friend) found his body.

His mother actually refused to pay for a funeral.

I went to school with a kid like that too, who also hung himself. Same story. He was a top student and smart as a whip. Apparently not smart enough.

Also came to the same conclusion as Luddly and Jaraxle about not procreating, for similar reasons. I know exactly what you guys mean.

Yes!!! Satan is on earth to kill and destroy,parents need to teach and warn their children,those that do not do their duty pay a ver very high price!!!

 

[FA_Q2]

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:



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

No, it’s not a slippery slope and you are going to have to do a lot more to establish such a causation. Again, using such a tool in direct relation to another violent act is certainly an effective disciplinary tool as well as something that teaches the valuable lesson. That does not make it a slippery slope.


A LOT of your statements continually demand that others are setting up straw men when, quite frankly, they are not. You are making the contention that spanking is, essentially, universally bad because it is going to leave the child thinking that might = right. That statement is outright false and, as eflat has been pointing out, is proven false by the fact that it has been quite effective for damn near forever. It is a disciplinary tool simple as that and has its place/use. That does not mean that all children should be spanked. Quite the contrary, the majority of children need no such thing.

Your statements ONLY hold true if spanking is used regularly and often, something that the VAST majority of parents that use spanking DOD NOT DO. I think that perhaps a lot of what you are stating is colored by this stamen though:

If that's the case we may have been describing different things this whole time

I find that a single term becomes the common vernacular in a family... in mine it was called "spanking" but in others it might have been "whipping" or "switching". It could involve open hand or wooden or leather instruments; these made no distinction made in what it was called. Usually it involved being physically cornered, and it was always delivered in anger and rage (which only makes sense; how could a calm person do it?).

Anyway that's what I understand the topic to be. I think this idea that there's some kind of "spanking lite" controlled violence going around is just unrealistic.

It is not unrealistic at all. As a matter of fact, it is the commonality whereas your ‘definition’ of spank is extremely uncommon. I haven’t heard of a parent requiring an ‘instrument’ like a belt for a generation. Even in my childhood such was a rare occurrence. Also, being physically cornered is NOT a likely scenario. Typically, the parent would make the child come over themselves. Cornering a child and hitting them essentially takes away the entire discipline part of the spanking. I know that I certainly am not going to corner my child – he is going to walk himself over to me no matter what the disciplinary action is. Chasing him down gives the wrong message about who is actually in control here. I don’t know a single parent that would do otherwise as well (though I am sure that they are out there).

Quite frankly, you are talking about an abusive situation. If you need to chase the child down and hit them with a belt or other object it is no longer a disciplinary action. That is an action taken in anger and frustration. Most spankings are not taken in anger – they are delivered because a parent is disciplining the child. Most BEATINGS are in anger and such is an entirely different ballgame having no similarities at all with a disciplinary action.

Again, a tower of babble to make a distinction without a difference. I don't think your Pollyanna view is realistic as far as what goes on in the real world. At all. If a parent isn't inflicting pain and suffering out of anger -- what's the point? Why would you pretend to be angry when you're not? Doesn't add up.

Further, as regards belts -- read the OP.

A complete deflection, why am I not surprised. I should have expected such with the rest of your posts to others here completely missing the point in what can only be purposeful.

You are not even trying anymore Pogo.

 

[FA_Q2]

I notice an unsurprising trend that most of those demanding spanking is evil/terrible or otherwise unacceptable tend to be people that do not have children.

I would note that you have no concept whatsoever about how to raise a child if you do not have one. That is a position born out of complete and total ignorance. Being a parent is NOT something that you teach or comes out of a manual.

 

[Iceweasel]

Anyone who hits children is a loser

Anyone that doesn't know a spanking from a beating is a loser.

Anyone who claims the two are different is a sick, twisted pervert trying to justify his own perversion. It's on the same level as defending NAMBLA.

I'm close to filtering you out. I haven't seen a cojent word come off your keyboard. If you want to get into school yard taunts go find a school yard.

 

[Iceweasel]

I have no children because I DESPISE children. I knew by the time I was 14 that my never breeding would be a service to the human race.

Yes, please. Don't breed. Odd that you feel qualified to judge others' mental stability.