Claudia

For the tantrum in the shore, either I ignored it (if I had enough thing to do in this part of the shop to be able to watch the kid discretely) or I took the kid under the arm as an object and contiue my shoping that way, without more comment. It was very effective, tantrum dicn last long.

I make the difference between spanking (swat on the butt... or more... as punishment) and the swat on the butt as immediate answer to a dangerous behaviour. Spanking is a no, the other one should be but is more understandable. I had used it (rarely) when they were 2 or 3... but I always made it clear afterwards that I was sorry, I didn intend to hit them but it was an automatic reaction of fear I was trying to control. They very quickly learned not to run in places with cars, and to hold my hand when I was requiring it...

As for time out, it was more a "time to calm down": as soon as they were quiet, they were allowed to come back without having to ask for permission.

I think that in general, parents try too much to control kids and not enought to build an environment where they do not need so much control. And also they do not think so much about which behaviour need some punishment and which one let the kids deal with the consequences by themselves.
For example, tantrums in general need to be ignored, not punished (as the purpose of a tantrum is to make peoples react).

JGL53

((O.K., then, screw it, I DON"T give up.))

Claudia, Claudia, Claudia - the pro-spankers just aren't listening. One can only imagine the new and exciting rationalizations they'll come up with - I can hardly wait.

As for you opposing spanking, but admitting to, on occasion, a solitary "swat on the butt" due to an extreme emotional reaction that the child was endangering him/herself - I would prefer grabbing the child by the arm or whatever and pulling him/her quickly out of harms way, followed by a subsequent major scolding.

Claudia, what the never-say-die prospankers apparently can not appreciate is that IF you use the proper disciplinary techniques on children when they are, say, one to five years old, i.e., when they are very small, THEN they can be disciplined with the same non-violent techniques when they are ten, twelve, fourteen, etc.

Personality, size of family, ye olde temper tantrum, the sunspot cylce, one's or one's child's horoscope , etc., etc. are all irrelevancies and rationalizations. Apparently, many people just like to smack their children - and by god, they have legal right AND a moral obligation to do so. Or do they - in any society that lays claim to being 'civilized'?

One BIG problem, apparently - IF the pro-spankers could ever be brought to the realization that smacking children is NOT and can NEVER be morally or logically justified - any more than smacking the wife can or ever will be - well, at that point, they would have to admit to - oh, horror - FAILURE, both in sound reasoning and, more importantly, MORAL failure, for spanking their children. And, more importantly, they would have to see their own parents as guilty of moral failure and lack of sound reasoning for wacking them.

They just CAN'T do that. And I understand. It's human nature.
Fortunately, I can get over THEIR feelings of guilt easily.

Logically, the burden is STILL on the pro-spankers to demonstrate, from a scientific study, or from ONE SINGLE LOGICALLY SOUND example that spanking is NECESSARY - or the BEST way - in one instance, as opposed to SOME OTHER way, not just time out, or no TV, or whatever alternative choice they WISH to make the only other alternative for debate purposes.

Diabolical Vengeance

I think not, when i misbehaved when i was a child i got spanked. It worked too because i've rarely exhibited any mischivious behavior (no false modesty). As long as spanking is done as a last resort punishment and doesn't become abuse and the only form of discipline, it has its place. There are of course other methods of disciplining a child and spankign (as in any use of physical force) should be a last resort ONLY

JGL53

Really? Give me an example - just ONE real life example - where your 'last resort' spanking MUST be used because NOTHING else can work. This is all I ask. Do I ask too much? If I promise, on my father's grave, to join the pro-spanking crowd IF you can provide me with this example, will you do it? I await your enlightening words, D.V.

Donnmathan

JGL53 wrote:
Frankly, your implication that all people who don't find spanking morally objectionable are sadistic bullies is both wrong and highly offensive! I am not a sadist - I do not like to smack people; quite the opposite, and I do view children as people. Problem is, I'm guessing you find all forms of corporal punishment, from the death penalty to war, morally objectionable, and regularly use that tired fallicy, 'violence never solves anything'. If I am wrong, you have my most humble apologies, but this is how you are coming accross. I also challenge the notion that personality of the child is irrelevant to punishment - what good does it do to lock a shy, introverted daydreamer in their room? It isn't a punishment, merely an enforced period of something they prefer anyway. Likewise, if I realized that a child was a masocist, then it would be stupid in the extreme to spank them, wouldn't it?

JGL53 wrote:
This wasn't addressed to me, but I feel it is symptomatic of the failure to communicate we seem to be having in this thread. Were this statement being made in regards to a theory in a field of hard science, it would be 100% justifiable - we 'pro-spankers' would have to put up or shut up. Regretably, it is not - though I doubt you'd find a psychologist who would agree, the field is more of a psuedo-science. The theory you are working from, namely that spanking is immoral, and not a proper form of punishment, is undefendable from a scientific standpoint for a few reasons.

First, there is no scientific framework for morals, nor any scientifically approached theory thereof. Morals are, at this point, still frightfully unclear ground from which to make any sort of logical discussion. They can vary widely depending on on the group which appies them, and the ethical and emotional views and health of the individual. What we are really seeing here is a disagreement between the morals of two seperate groups, be they family, community, religous, or nations. That the morals of these groups do not completely agree is in no way grounds to state that one is automatically invalid, unless grounds can be found to frame a legal objection to one or the other. Thankfully, most laws do not venture into the relms of morallity, else our nation as we know it would have collapsed long ago.

Second, you are searching for one single instance where spanking is THE thing to do. I counter - give me an instance where, for whatever reason, a Time-out is THE ONLY THING that can be used because NOTHING ELSE WILL WORK. Now I will venture to say that you will find the task quite impossible; there will always be someone who will raise another possibility to be used. The problem is that punishment, without a universal scientific theory of behavior, must be tailored to the individual, and not applied just because the 'child psychologist'-of-the-week said so. The very fact that I sit here, an upstanding, adult member of my community, after having been spanked as a child, invalidates some or all of your arguement. If spanking universally scarred children, would there be so many well-adjusted adults around today whose parents used it? One could even argue that many of those folks might not be where they are today had there parents used a different form of punishment - they may have been better off, or may have been much worse; who can say?

The point is, the fact of the existance of unscarred adults that were spanked makes half the claims of the anti-spanking crowd irrelevant, just as the presence of upstanding adults who were never touched as a child renders the opposite viewpoint irrelevant. There is nothing barbaric or savage about spanking, any more than there is about treating a child like an object or ignoring them, both suggestions of alternate punishments I have seen here. I will repeat something I stated in an earlier post - punishment must be both cruel and unusual, or else it is NOT A PUNISHMENT! ALL of the alternatives put forth do fit that desciption, if they are applied properly to a child they will be effective with: excess labor (extra chores), shunning (some time-outs, ignoring), forcable confinment (some time-outs, 'go-to-your-room'), revokation of something (no TV, music, etc.), verbal and emotional abuse (a good dressing-down or scolding), and yes, even physical harm (spanking). Any and all of these can be taken too far without too much effort, but all are effective.

Until you can rise above the demand for something that, as I've stated above, doesn't and can't exist, this discussion is literally going nowhere fast. You are basing your entire arguement around the demand for a fallicy, and yet are relying on that same fallicy to give you legitimacy. Very well: I demand that you provide an example of a situation were ANY SINGLE ONE of the punishments you would put forth as an alternative to spanking is THE ONLY LOGICALLY SOUND possible alternative, and is in fact ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. But forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting...

JGL53

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Donnmathan
...Frankly, your implication that all people who don't find spanking morally objectionable are sadistic bullies is both wrong and highly offensive! I am not a sadist - I do not like to smack people; quite the opposite, and I do view children as people. [/QUOTE

My main point was that, at a minimum, spankers have not clearly thought through the question to realize that there are less violent alternatives that achieve the same results desired, i.e., the disciplining of children. Whether you or other spankers are
sadists or bullies - well, yeah, I believe you are - unthinkingly, for the most part. And that ameliorates it a bit.


The subject we're discussing here is the the spanking and similar types of violent abuse of CHILDREN. My opposition to the death penalty is due only to the possibily of innocent people being executed. War - against a Hitler for example, is justifiable in my opinion, as is violence in self-defense. But those are other subjects, involving JUSTIFIED violence (You don't understand the difference?). If you wish, we can debate those on another thread. Start one.

I just stating in my previous post that any number of other disciplinary actions may be used - why are you (and others) hung up on "time outs' as the ONLY alternative to spanking? You seem to be intent on proving my point that you suffer from a lack of creative imagination on this subject. As to the child possibly being a masocist - perhaps you should actively seek out an ADULT in order to play your reindeer games. And please leave the kids at home.

I realize it's in theory impossible to get a scientific answer to this question. I just put that in to be fair. And I never argued that my position was or had been demonstated to be correct through some double blind cross over study. My position that a reasonable, thinking, civilized person who is a parent SHOULD be able find methods to discipline children that does not include hitting, slapping, etc. Since many HAVE done this (I gave the example of Ashley Montigue, remember?), then way can't ALL? Seems a reasonable question to me, and you apparently can give no reasonable answer. You and yours yammer on about about how time outs may not work for a certain child, or the problem of temper tantrums in public, or different personalities, or that many or most people who were spanked as children were not psychologically harmed (I don't think I ever said it 'universally harms all children - if I did I misspoke - but how could we ever really know if the damage is universal or not?).

Apparently you do not find the idea of hitting children morally repugnant. Fine. Good for you. I DO, however, and NOTHING you or anyone else could ever say will change my innate reaction. If and when enough people do come to the realization that spanking is unnecessary, morally repugnant, and COULD cause unnecessary physical or psychological harm (why take the chance?), then it will be outlawed. Until then, spank away, if that's what makes you happy.

All of the punishments you list, EXCEPT spanking, seem proper to me. None of them seem cruel or unusual - except spanking. Hitting someone, children included, when it is not necessary, is stupid behavior, ipso facto. As for you and many others being spanked as children and turning out ok - well, most women who are subjected to corporal punishment by their husbands may not be psychologically harmed, or seriously physically harmed either, for all I know. That doesn't make it right. It's still against the law. So, I think I'll go with innate revulsion on both the wife and child physical 'discipline' questions, and oppose them both equally. Is that ok?

You 'demand'? My, my, you ARE the strict disciplinarian, aren't you? (( I can only imagine that your ferocious countenance and threatening body language would be sufficient to cower any small child into behaving like a little angel.))

Now, I never said that there was a 'single' punishment in any particular case that would be THE alternative to spanking. My position is that there is always SOME alternative that will work as well as spanking, without the chance of POSSIBLE harm, physical or psychological, that is inherent with spanking. E.g., if hitting is accetable at all, it is possible that a parent will get 'carried away' with the mild form of spanking you envison - perhaps even more that just possible. I don't see 'time out', giving chores, and the other forms of non-violent punishments getting so easily out of hand. Those usually take some thought at the getgo. Spanking doesn't. In a nutshell, spanking is just hitting someone smaller than you - just because you can.

Certainly, if it were IMPOSSIBLE in a certain instance to discipline a child WITHOUT spanking, then spanking would be justified. I take it as a given that such is the case. But I am willing to learn, as I have already stated. Give me an example that contradicts my admittedly non-scientific assumption (based on moral revulsion) and I will come over to your side of the aisle.

I don't DEMAND an example. I merely ask for one. You and your ilk have none? Case dismissed.

dk

Since conventional wisdom is anti-spanking I'll agree.

What's wrong with timeout..
What does timeout teach a kid. Well it teaches them about solitary confinement, boredom and jail. When you do something bad Don't pass go Don't collect $200 dollars you Go directly to jail. Put a kid in jail, solitary confinement, and what do they learn, they learn about isolation, boredom and they are a bad boy, I’m bad, I’m bad, I’m bad.

What’s wrong with deprivation...
Taking TV, gameboys... ect. away from a kid is risky. What’s the problem. Well the kid hits a friend with a spoon. Punishment, not TV for 2 days. In 10 minutes the kid has already forgotten about the dirty deed, but the punishment continues. What does the kid learn, they learn they are a bad kid every time they want to watch TV for the next 2 days. .

What else...
Reward the kid for good choices, and ignore bad behavior...
Problem, many kids find bad behavior its own reward.
---

So why spank a kid.
First, its short and sweet.
Second, it immediately associates the dirty deed with punishment.
Third, the threat of a spanking becomes an act of mercy that, can compresses... appeals for justice, confession, contrition, forgiveness, mercy, punishment and restores the kid in few minutes to full stature, I am a good kid that doesn’t hit people with big wooden spoons.

Since the 1950s experts have been down on spanking. Why? On the supposition that spanking teaches a kid to be violent, because violence begets violence. There's no evidence to support the premise. In fact, there's a plethora of evidence that kids are more violent today, more disobedient today and more disrespectful today. Everyone agrees the world has become a much more dangerous world for kids. Why? Because kids can only be protected if they respect and obey their parents. Spanking teaches a kid obedience and respect for parents, and by extension authority. Other punishments teach a kid they are bad, and can't be forgiven because the punishment goes on and on and on for hours, days and weeks, no matter how sorry the kid is, no matter much regret the kid feels, no matter much resolution and contrition. The kid is bad, and the punishment is law.

JGL53

Spanking is 'short and sweet" , it's immediate and kids are generally too stupid to associate long term punishment with the misdeed - they all apparently have faulty memories - spanking is humane compared to the cruelty of confinement, and the lack of spanking is the causes of rising crime rates.

Well, goll durn there dk, I never even thought of any of that. You are a genius. Thanks for straightening me out. I can't wait to have a child of my own so I can spank the little devil, so as to make sure he grows up to be model citizen like you.

BTW, you left out the 'spare the rod and spoil the child' argument. Just an oversite on your part? I mean, the old testament god is on your side on this. BTW, do you also follow his rules about not touching women during their periods because they are 'unclean', putting all homosexuals to death, etc.? (This is all off the topic, I know, but I was just wondering.)

Diabolical Vengeance

one word: relax. watch jenny jones or jerry springer or any other white trash talk show and you'll see enough examples after a while. (as well a few candidates for genocide but thats a different story )

I suppose i'm not qualified since i'm not a parent nor do i endeavour to be one. As a child I was rarely spanked because i had good parents who knew how to discipline their children. If I was ever spanked it was because i'd crossed the line and done something really awful, and i'm not talking about spilling ice cream or anything like that, but like say I hurt someone, gravely disrespected my parents, basically being out of control and not listening to anyone and all 'peaceful' means at discipline had failed. There are limits that peaceful means can achieve. I study international relations and what happens on that scene is really only a microcosm (or macro?) of human society.

I'm not sure i clarified myself well enough but i said spanking should be done as LAST RESORT IE: rarely, if ever, used at all. I realize physical force is an abhorrent thing to many weak kneed people such as yourself but there are times when it is necessary. I'm not advocating hitting kids with closed fists, or whipped belts, baseball bats or anything like that, just a simple open handed slap on the bum. Thats all, nothing more, nothing less.

Donnmathan

I can see that we have a few real issues here, don't we? JGL53, in one post you called me a (perhaps not in so many words)sadistic monster, a pedophile, and a bullying ogre. Taking things from the top...


The discipline I am talking about is a reasoned proccess, with little or no emotion involved, and certainly no enjoyment. Without the enjoyment of the process of hurting someone, the label 'sadist' can be tossed out. The fact that I am using spanking based on the fact that it acts on the child's most basic instinct, that of self preservation, means I most certainly have thought the situation through. That and the fact that I do advocate the use of other punishments if they fit the situation and personality of the child, in place of or in addition to spanking.

My very assertion is that a proper spanking, rather than an all-out, out-of-control beating, IS justified violence, of the same order that allows a country to go to war without guilt. You may not agree with my assertion, but please refrain from lumping a reasoned punishment together with the result of unrestrained and brutal emotion - can't you understand the difference?

First, I am only using the one alternative as an example; it would take up far too much space to make the same statement for each and every alternative! As for your filthy suggestion, it is you that thought to put such a connotation on the word I used. Masocist is defined simply as one who enjoys pain; the implication of my statement is simply that it would be foolish to use a punishment the child views as a reward, and there are so few who might view a spanking as a reward. Your assertion that I might enjoy such a thing is nothing but the fevered imaginings of an obvious fanatic. I also wish to point out that you should be more careful what you say; were I truely the kind of person you seem to believe I am, I could make a case that your half-formed accusation of pedophilia is bordering on defamation, and quite illegal.

Very good - you have provided one actual example and made vague assertions that there are more; congratulations! I stand as my own example, and assert that with as widespread as spanking has been in previous decades, there are many more. Seems we are at an impass - arguing the merits of two systems that are equally valid if applied properly. I must also point out that Bill Gates is a self-made billionare; if he could do it, so could anyone - why haven't we?

First, your equating spanking a child to wife-beating is an utter absurdity. A parent is both legally and morally obligated to discapline a child; a wife-beater has neither, as he is assulting a legal equal. Calling an apple an orange doesn't change the flavor.

Second, all of the punishments I listed can be taken too far and cause harm, given half a chance. All of the things these non-physically-violent punishments become are just as damaging to the child, each in their own way, and are also quite illegal. As spanking may become beating, so a time-out becomes emotionally scarring shunning or illegal imprisonment, too many extra chores become enslavement, a scolding becomes verbal, mental, and emotional abuse, the withholding of belongings becomes theft and mental abuse, and so on. All are equally damaging as a beating, which is a spanking gone out of control. None of the above, in their watered-down forms, is illegal or damaging beyond the level of one or two swats on the backside, which is to say, unlikely but NOT impossible.

Uncalled for and untrue; please refrain from these ongoing attempts to dehumanize me. They have no place in this discussion, and are serving only to make you sound less than credible.

Nor have I ever claimed that spanking was the be-all and end-all of punishments, merely that it had it's place as much as any of the others. As to the rest of your statement, the very same sort of person that can deliver a crippling beating can also lock a child in a closet for days without food or water. If you have not heard of any cases like that, I suggest you do a search on the archives of any good-sized city newspaper; you are likely to find quite a few. Odd thing - since the 'child psycologists' and others have decried spanking, I've heard of more and more cases of imprisonment and neglect...

The problem I see here is the assuption that we are dealing with an all-or-nothing case. I submit that spanking is as relevant, and as scientifically justifiable as any other form of punishment for children. You deny it has any utility beyond the gratification of a desire to hurt, which I have continually noted was baseless. Once more you make a request for an example which can't exist, any more than you can prove that any other punishment is impossible to do with out. Your arguements are based on a purely moral view, one which is not held by all (else we would not be having this discussion), and which is not defensable as a proof for your position. You find spanking offensive; given the background you mentioned in an earlier post...

...I can't help but question your objectiveness on the issue. The point is, you have no justification for demonizing spanking than a horrible personal experience and a moral viewpoint. If that is all the case you have, then, as you said...case dismissed.