Do You Believe In Smacking Children ?

[kallipolis]

I write as a practitioner of a martial art, when it has been my personal experience that neither shaming, nor imposing physical pain on a child have any other effect than hardening attitudes, further exacerbated by the awareness that violent actions are habit forming.

 

[dereperez]

I think a good smack in the ass can be in order lest the child be spoiled. I don't believe in smacking the face though. I got quite a bit of it as a child but don't think I deserved it. I may have been a brat at times but I think it is my parents that are dysfunctional and not me.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Which brings us to the point of punishment. Is the purpose to fear punishment or build character?

The purposes are multiple, but the ultimate purpose is to control behavior. Character is a higher goal, and desirable, but character involves inner motives and maturity, which may or may not come in time, but conduct is either undesirable or unacceptable, which is the immediate trigger for some form of discipline.

Like Maslow's hierarchy of needs, the levels of motivation for behavior are layered, and fear is at the bottom. However, in absence of the others working, fear is not off the table.

There are times when an immediate goal is more about safety or similar, such as when children are tempted to go into the street or touch a hot stove. In some circumstances, the potential for dangerous or fatal consequences might invoke a stronger taboo and a corporal punishment. The mind remembers trauma for a reason. Even though a spanking often inflicts negligible pain for a toddler, the circumstances become marked in memory.

Other times, the learning isn't as urgent or a matter of safety, such as in the case of lying. The punishment is often not physical, but more gradual, and the child loses privilege, or a similar punishment, and learns that actions have consequences.

There seems to be a tenet among anti-corporal punishment advocates that the use of corporal punishment inherently teaches violence or is responsible for the violence in the worid, when that is obviously not true. It can be true, just as the psychological methods used to discipline children CAN lead to a contest of wills, and even a psychosis when the perfect storm coalesces.

There are far, far too many people who experienced corporal punishment as children who did NOT grow up to be violent adults for it to be some cause and effect relationship as touted. Personalities and preferences and behaviors are far too complex to reduce to such linear models.

One of the unintended consequences of the whole discipline debate is the elevation children to adult status in some areas prematurely. Children ARE persons and deserve respectful treatment for ethical, moral, legal, and spiritual reasons, but they are not full citizens and imputing adult status or adult rights is a well-intentioned but wrong-headed move. The argument is made that no adult should be spanked so therefore no child should be. If that line is followed, then a child equally has a right to sexual freedom of expression, or rights to use alcohol or drive, whereas we readily recognize that they are minors with minors' rights in those regards.

 

[justanothershyguy]

I think a good smack in the ass can be in order lest the child be spoiled. I don't believe in smacking the face though. I got quite a bit of it as a child but don't think I deserved it. I may have been a brat at times but I think it is my parents that are dysfunctional and not me.

I'm not sure it has much to do with spoiling, but parental laziness must be avoided. Physical punishment can be "effective" at times, but it can also teach a child that violence is okay if it makes you mad. (Most parents get mad before punishing kids, and kids see that and repeat)

 

[NotHardUp1]

I think a good smack in the ass can be in order

Um, don't plant visual images.

 

[dereperez]

I'm not sure it has much to do with spoiling, but parental laziness must be avoided. Physical punishment can be "effective" at times, but it can also teach a child that violence is okay if it makes you mad. (Most parents get mad before punishing kids, and kids see that and repeat)

Pretty much. Kids are impressionable and you don't want them learning at an early age that violence is the answer to "get what you want". Sometimes the children being punished is a reflection of the parents mental (in)stability.

 

[NotHardUp1]

I maintain that that words "can be" are significant. Corporal punishment is not always meted out in angry display, nor do children always perceive it as might makes right. Granted, many people are incapable of raising children, with or without corporal punishment, and they therefore make poster examples of every kind of discipline gone wrong. But, it is far from proven that peaceful, nonviolent adults who were raised with physical punishment succeeded in spite of it. The analysis of a personality is too complex for that, and not a straightforward evaluation like quantitative analysis in chemistry.

 

[Alnitak]

The purposes are multiple, but the ultimate purpose is to control behavior.

Behavior only when the parent is present?

There seems to be a tenet among anti-corporal punishment advocates that the use of corporal punishment inherently teaches violence or is responsible for the violence in the worid, when that is obviously not true.

There are far, far too many people who experienced corporal punishment as children who did NOT grow up to be violent adults for it to be some cause and effect relationship as touted. Personalities and preferences and behaviors are far too complex to reduce to such linear models.

Studies tend to suggest that only when it is severe.

One of the unintended consequences of the whole discipline debate is the elevation children to adult status in some areas prematurely.

The irony is that is how children were viewed from a very young age until recently.

Children ARE persons and deserve respectful treatment for ethical, moral, legal, and spiritual reasons, but they are not full citizens and imputing adult status or adult rights is a well-intentioned but wrong-headed move. The argument is made that no adult should be spanked so therefore no child should be. If that line is followed, then a child equally has a right to sexual freedom of expression, or rights to use alcohol or drive, whereas we readily recognize that they are minors with minors' rights in those regards.

The idea that children should not be physically punished has nothing to do with projecting adulthood on them. There are better alternatives that don't inflict needless pain since studies suggest physical punishment does not produce consistently desirable behavior.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Behavior only when the parent is present?

No, like good grammar, the intent is to institute the behavior so that it continues, albeit for changing reasons as the learner progresses from mere compliance to true understanding, gaining the knowledge of intrinsic worth. But, like grammar, the teaching involves negative incentives as well as positive: the child may no value clear meaning and communication at a young age, but may well aver from the stigma of a low grade.

Studies tend to suggest that only when it is severe.

I think there can be no argument against extremes being physical abuse. Unfortunately, the war of rhetoric often reaches for inflammatory terms like "abuse" with too little warrant, similar to the well-meaning words used to describe food insecurity -- "at risk" is not the same as hungry or deprived.

The irony is that is how children were viewed from a very young age until recently.

To the contrary, children have been almost universally treated like women and chattel for the long trek of history, with almost no rights in law, most famously subject to death at the will of adults (parents) in both Mosaic Law and Roman Law, among others.

The idea that children should not be physically punished has nothing to do with projecting adulthood on them. There are better alternatives that don't inflict needless pain since studies suggest physical punishment does not produce consistently desirable behavior.

As my comment noted, even in this thread the argument had already been posited, in different posts, that it is wrong to physically spank adults or do violence. In addition, I don't concur with the premise that physical punishment of adults is either barbaric or unwarranted. Like the punishment of children, it is the last resort, but a valid consequence.

And, having taught in the public schools, I can assure anyone that studies will also show that non-physical discipline also produces inconsistent results. There are plenty of ill-behaved children from both camps.

 

[Alnitak]

I think there can be no argument against extremes being physical abuse. Unfortunately, the war of rhetoric often reaches for inflammatory terms like "abuse" with too little warrant, similar to the well-meaning words used to describe food insecurity -- "at risk" is not the same as hungry or deprived.

Well obviously the word abuse carries with it some strong emotions and physical punishment isn't abuse in the sense of cruel but may be to bad effect. In a similar vein, grounding or denying social activities too often or for too long may curb a child's social development and is therefore abusive.

To the contrary, children have been almost universally treated like women and chattel for the long trek of history, with almost no rights in law, most famously subject to death at the will of adults (parents) in both Mosaic Law and Roman Law, among others.

I mean in the respect to the length of childhood - being quite brief in history. It is still in some respects, with the age of consent in some jurisdictions as low as 12, and a similar age as the youngest a juvenile may be tried as an adult.

And, having taught in the public schools, I can assure anyone that studies will also show that non-physical discipline also produces inconsistent results. There are plenty of ill-behaved children from both camps.

Okay anecdotal evidence though is not very scientific, lacking controls and small sample size.

The idea of non-physical punishment is to establish consistently desirable behavior, e.g. justifying why behavior is wrong, comparing a child to well behaved peers (which worked for me), whereas a child may not balance reward vs. physical punishment in the absence of authority.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Oh, wholly agreed on the length of childhood. I've posted before in Hot Topics that we tend to exaggerate both childhood and youth and to not very good effect.

Basically, puberty began the transition to adult status., and in many ways, I think that was right. Similarly, if an adolescent of 15 murders his entire family, it seems idiotic to suggest in law that his punishment is null and void the day he reaches his majority: http://www.abqjournal.com/733714/news/nehemiah-griego-to-be-incarcerated-until-age-21.html

I guess that is why I strongly oppose physical punishment of teens. By that age, they really are advanced enough in reasoning capacity to make physical punishment highly unlikely to be effective or productive.

As for anecdotal evidence, i concur to limited degree. It has been proven more than a few times that great theory fails miserably in practical application. Parents and teachers indeed do have experience, that may be subjective, but is often collected from multiple sources and verified. All that said, even the best science if often biased, and most science about physical discipline is born of there being a pre-existing belief among researching behaviorists that it is somehow primitive or barbaric.

 

[Soilwork]

I've known a lot of adults who insist that getting beaten by their parents "never did me any harm" and every one of them are fucked up, broken, messed up, warped assholes. The passive aggressive types who love to snipe from the darkness. The really damaged ones. You can spot them from miles away.

 

[Alnitak]

Oh, wholly agreed on the length of childhood. I've posted before in Hot Topics that we tend to exaggerate both childhood and youth and to not very good effect.

Basically, puberty began the transition to adult status., and in many ways, I think that was right. Similarly, if an adolescent of 15 murders his entire family, it seems idiotic to suggest in law that his punishment is null and void the day he reaches his majority: http://www.abqjournal.com/733714/news/nehemiah-griego-to-be-incarcerated-until-age-21.html

I guess that is why I strongly oppose physical punishment of teens. By that age, they really are advanced enough in reasoning capacity to make physical punishment highly unlikely to be effective or productive.

Well there is a hierarchy in wisdom isn't there? Some people do in fact know whats better for others than they do.

 

[Soilwork]

Not the face, bottom, legs, my mum would grab the first thing that was handy and chase me round the house with it, even a chair.

Yeah that's normal human behavior.

So your mother taught you that humans solve their problems by grabbing a makeshift weapon and attacking the person who upset them even if they were a defenseless child that just had bad parenting.

Got it. That explains a lot.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Well, in fairness, Cormac conspicuously omitted the significant detail of what precipitated his mum's lion-taming act.

As he must admit, her hair never did grow back AND the authorities did give his picture to all the local chemists and a ban on the sale of certain acids.

 

[NotHardUp1]

I've known a lot of adults who insist that getting beaten by their parents "never did me any harm" and every one of them are fucked up, broken, messed up, warped assholes. The passive aggressive types who love to snipe from the darkness. The really damaged ones. You can spot them from miles away.

But, "beaten" and mere spankings are not the same. Sex isn't rape, as an analogy.

Whereas ALL of your examples may be true and accurately described, as Matt posted earlier, extremes do produce that. Basic corporal punishment is not by definition a "beating."

 

[Telstra]

Gentle harmless smack is fine if the kid is in the wrong and keep doing it.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Are you for or against it ?

I was smacked regularly, never did me any harm.

BTW, why is Bender holding a Wii pistol?

 

[rareboy]

It made me what I am today.

 

[Cormac135]

Yeah that's normal human behavior.

So your mother taught you that humans solve their problems by grabbing a makeshift weapon and attacking the person who upset them even if they were a defenseless child that just had bad parenting.

Got it. That explains a lot.

Wow, that must explain why i don't like geriatic formuliac porn then, it all makes sense now.