Corporal Punishment

[Zebra1552]

But they're trying to prove that spanking is bad, not that lower class spanks more.

Um... in order to show that spanking is bad, you need to study those that do it and look at the results. Thus, they study the social class that does it the most. Good grief, it's like you think spanking is good or something. In which case I'd tell you to take a child psych class. Even the hag of a teacher I had sophomore year had the sense to condemn it for its psychological effects on kids.

So if they're trying to prove that spanking is bad, it would make more sense to question different societal classes to see the results. What if they asked middle class people about spanking and did a study on the kids and found that spanking hadn't affected their test results?

Okay, so what you're saying is they should just ask people their opinions and then by THAT determine whether or not it's detrimental. That's ridiculous. Opinions are subjective. It makes sense to do a longitudinal or case study of people who DO spank, not just review the opinions of those who typically don't.

Yes, I've taken stats. I used to work for a political consulting firm where we were constantly reviewing stats. That's why I don't think this is a fair survey.

It's perfectly fair. You're not going to study the classes that don't do it to see how spanking affects kids, you're going to study the classes that DO do it. Your assertions make no logical sense.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Okay, so what you're saying is they should just ask people their opinions and then by THAT determine whether or not it's detrimental. That's ridiculous. Opinions are subjective. It makes sense to do a longitudinal or case study of people who DO spank, not just review the opinions of those who typically don't.


It's perfectly fair. You're not going to study the classes that don't do it to see how spanking affects kids, you're going to study the classes that DO do it. Your assertions make no logical sense.

Okay, maybe this will clear it up. When you do research, you take samples from every possible realm. If they were doing a study on how spanking affected lower class children, this research would be wonderful. However, they did a study on spanking and came to the conclusion that spanking was detrimental, but they only studied lower-income families. The article does not specify that they only picked lower income families that spanked...they said they picked lower income families because they are more likely to spank and then they went on to say that they are more likely to spank because of culture issues and for lesser reasons.

Had they done a study that included families from across the board, I'd feel a bit better about this study. It appears as though they picked lower class families because there's a myriad of factors involved that help tilt the scales towards spanking being bad. I think everyone could agree that lower-class families are looking at disadvantages educationally speaking whether these families spank or not (I mean, the NAACP practically shoves it down our throats how minorities had it really bad) so the thought that they used test results from a thinking test of kids who had been spanked as empirical evidence that spanking is bad to me is bunk.

 

[Zebra1552]

Okay, maybe this will clear it up. When you do research, you take samples from every possible realm. If they were doing a study on how spanking affected lower class children, this research would be wonderful. However, they did a study on spanking and came to the conclusion that spanking was detrimental, but they only studied lower-income families. The article does not specify that they only picked lower income families that spanked...they said they picked lower income families because they are more likely to spank and then they went on to say that they are more likely to spank because of culture issues and for lesser reasons.

Ahem:
"The new study focused on children from low-income families because prior research suggested that spanking is more common among them, Berlin said. This may be because of the added stresses of parenting in a low-income situation, or because of a "cultural contagion" of behaviors among people. For example, in some families this study examined, a grandmother would spank a child, or neighbors would encourage physical discipline, she said."

So where exactly did they not specify that they chose lower income families that spanked?

Had they done a study that included families from across the board, I'd feel a bit better about this study.

You've yet to answer my question: why would they include families that typically DO NOT SPANK if they're looking for the effects of spanking? This study piggybacks the previous studies done about spanking.

It appears as though they picked lower class families because there's a myriad of factors involved that help tilt the scales towards spanking being bad.

Did you notice that conservative Christians were mentioned as people who spank?
"Previous research had also found that parents who spank are more likely to be younger, less educated, single, and/or depressed and stressed, Berlin's study said. Spanking is most commonly used among parents who were spanked themselves, who live in the South, and/or who identify themselves as conservative Christians. These parents also tend to believe in the effectiveness of spanking or believe the child is at fault in a given situation, the study said."

I think everyone could agree that lower-class families are looking at disadvantages educationally speaking whether these families spank or not (I mean, the NAACP practically shoves it down our throats how minorities had it really bad) so the thought that they used test results from a thinking test of kids who had been spanked as empirical evidence that spanking is bad to me is bunk.

It's bunk to examine people who have actually been spanked to see the effects it has on kids? That's not bunk, that's logic. You're not going to look at 'normal' kids to see how spanking affects them, you're going to look at kids who were spanked- which is usually lower SES families, or, as the article points out, people who were spanked, live in the south, or are conservative Christians.

You miss the other points of the article anyhow:

Others say parents should not resort to spanking at any age. Susan Newman, social psychologist and author of "Little Things Long Remembered: Making Your Children Feel Special Every Day," said parents should discourage bad behaviors by taking away privileges such as dessert, or setting an earlier bedtime. They should also reinforce good behaviors verbally, saying how nice it is when their children share, for example.
The study corroborates what clinical psychologist Laura Markham, who was not involved in the study, has observed about the negative effects of spanking. Many mothers describe their children as fussy, resistant and demanding at age 1, which is a critical junction in the parent-child relationship, she said in an e-mail.
"If the mother sees this fussiness as willful misbehavior and begins verbally punishing or spanking, rather than empathizing with the child, the child's behavior deteriorates into more tantrums and other frustrating behavior," said Markham, who also offers advice at AhaParenting.com.


Newman also noted that children are too young to understand when parenting behavior is wrong, even at the level of abuse. Physical violence gets passed down in families because the only parenting skills people know are the behaviors that they saw at home, she said.
Spanking, moreover, reinforces negative memories in the child's mind, Newman said. Parents should aim instead to build "prominent, happy memories" of childhood for their kids, she said.

All emphasis mine.

This study corroborates other studies that have found similar results... I wonder why the studies all say similar things if the research is bad? Explain that.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

mainly because they're using lower class income families as their test studies and they're even saying that these families that they study are more likely to use spanking for lesser offenses. I've made it pretty clear that spanking should only done under certain situations. Crying or generally being annoying isn't one of them - and yes, I agree wholeheartedly that spanking for that reason IS detrimental to the child.

I never said they should use families that don't spank, I said they should've used families from each of the classes. So, find families in all the classes who spank and then start the study from there. Don't just pick lower income families just because research says they are more likely to spank. I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying and why I find this study suspicious.

Basically, what it seems you're saying is that because research shows that lower income families are more likely to spank, that middle to upper class families don't spank and their kids are perfectly fine.

If that's the case, I direct you back to where I pointed out the Hiltons, the Kardashians, the Richies and so on and so forth. Perhaps one could do a study on just the upper class kids and make the correlation that since they weren't spanked, it ruined their lives because most of them turned out pretty crappy and get in trouble all the time.

 

[Zebra1552]

mainly because they're using lower class income families as their test studies and they're even saying that these families that they study are more likely to use spanking for lesser offenses.

Because that's what the research has found in the past. Gosh, imagine them relying on past research. Like that's such horrible thing.

I've made it pretty clear that spanking should only done under certain situations. Crying or generally being annoying isn't one of them - and yes, I agree wholeheartedly that spanking for that reason IS detrimental to the child.

I don't care what you think is or isn't detrimental as far as spanking is concerned, any way you slice it it's not negative reinforcement, it's punishment, and that is ALWAYS detrimental no matter how you present it to the child. It exemplifies the very behavior you want to curb, thereby giving a double standard.

I never said they should use families that don't spank, I said they should've used families from each of the classes. So, find families in all the classes who spank and then start the study from there. Don't just pick lower income families just because research says they are more likely to spank. I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying and why I find this study suspicious.

I don't misunderstand a thing. I disagree with what you're saying about spanking being okay, and futhermore there is no logical basis for what you propose with the study. Any families from other classes are going to skew the results unless they are given a certain proportion inside the study group that actually relates to the findings.

Basically, what it seems you're saying is that because research shows that lower income families are more likely to spank, that middle to upper class families don't spank and their kids are perfectly fine.

No, it means the results of those families are not going to represent the norm at all and are going to be outliers, skewing the results. I said that earlier, if you read my post in its entirety. Did you?

If that's the case, I direct you back to where I pointed out the Hiltons, the Kardashians, the Richies and so on and so forth. Perhaps one could do a study on just the upper class kids and make the correlation that since they weren't spanked, it ruined their lives because most of them turned out pretty crappy and get in trouble all the time.

That's not what the study is about, so you have presented a red herring argument. The study had a specific objective: to find out what the effects of spanking were. It accomplished its goal. Do you somehow think you are smarter or more qualified than professionals who have studied this for longer than you've been alive?

 

[peacebwithu2]

I have already said it early in this thread:
Before we can meaningfully discuss whether "spanking" "works", "is effective", "productive" or is "necessary" we would have to mention the goals we have.

We must do what is in the best interest of the Child and not ourselves

 

[peacebwithu2]

Generally speaking spanking is not good . There are times it can be effective but in all honesty the only thing spanking ever did for me was cause me to fear ,,,

 

[quatona]

We must do what is in the best interest of the Child and not ourselves

Agreed, but that´s way to unspecific.
I suspect that even proponents of corporal punishment claim for themselves that they are acting in the best interest of the child.
Thus, apparently they have different priorities, goals, contents and and purposes for the upbringing of children than me, and a different idea as to what the best interests of a child are.
E.g. a couple of times in this and similar threads "behaviour modification" has been mentioned as a primary purpose and "discipline" and "obedience" as particularly desirable results...

 

[quatona]

Generally speaking spanking is not good . There are times it can be effective[...]

Which would be such desirable and positive effects that you are thinking of here?

 

[peacebwithu2]

Which would be such desirable and positive effects that you are thinking of here?

I didnt say anything about POSITIVE effects i said effective that doesnt mean its a good thing to do ..I dont think spanking renders any positive .effects ,at all

 

[roflcopter101]

Corporal punishment should only be done when the kid has done something extremely bad or extremely stupid. That was how I was raised, and I think it is a good way to be raised.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Corporal punishment should only be done when the kid has done something extremely bad or extremely stupid. That was how I was raised, and I think it is a good way to be raised.

This is rational, and probably the guidelines I use. I guess people can now argue about what constitutes extremely bad or extremely stupid!

 

[quatona]

I didnt say anything about POSITIVE effects i said effective that doesnt mean its a good thing to do ..I dont think spanking renders any positive .effects ,at all

Thanks for clarifying.


I didn´t mean to put words in your mouth - but in my understanding of the English language saying you are acting "effectively" implies that it has the intended effects it to have.

If I knock over a pedestrian with my car, his injuries are surely an effect of my driving, but I would be hesitant to describe this incident as "effective driving".

Actually, we tend to call an action that has merely or predominantly undesired effects "ineffective" or "counterproductive" rather than "effective".
But then, I´m not a native English speaker...

 

[quatona]

This is rational, and probably the guidelines I use. I guess people can now argue about what constitutes extremely bad or extremely stupid!

I don´t need to argue about this. Since it is a guideline you use to describe your atttitude towards it you could simly explain what you think constitutes extremely bad or extremely stupid so that we know what you mean, practically.

 

[Risen Tree]

Something to note here:

Over the course of this entire debate, I did not once see anybody successfully refute the claim that the goal of a spanking is to hurt the child.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Something to note here:

Over the course of this entire debate, I did not once see anybody successfully refute the claim that the goal of a spanking is to hurt the child.

Because it's not the goal. The goal is to teach a lesson. Spanking, when done correctly, causes minimum and momentary pain, like slapping a child's hand away from an open flame.

 

[quatona]

Because it's not the goal. The goal is to teach a lesson. Spanking, when done correctly, causes minimum and momentary pain, like slapping a child's hand away from an open flame.

So the goal is to inflict pain in order to teach a lesson.
I tend to think that hardly anybody (except for maybe sociopaths and/or psychopaths) inflicts pain on others as a purpose in itself.
Thus, everyone who inflicts pain on others could easily - using your line of reasoning - claim that it is not the goal.

As for the "teaching a lesson" part: I agree that it may teach a lesson, but a wrong one. The lesson learned is that touching an open flame results in being spanked by your parents - which is a misleading lesson.

Bottom line: Teaching lessons and classical conditioning are two different things. Actually, they are opponents even.

 

[Mling]

So the goal is to inflict pain in order to teach a lesson.
I tend to think that hardly anybody (except for maybe sociopaths and/or psychopaths) inflicts pain on others as a purpose in itself.
Thus, everyone who inflicts pain on others could easily - using your line of reasoning - claim that it is not the goal.

As for the "teaching a lesson" part: I agree that it may teach a lesson, but a wrong one. The lesson learned is that touching an open flame results in being spanked by your parents - which is a misleading lesson.

Bottom line: Teaching lessons and classical conditioning are two different things. Actually, they are opponents even.

*nods* precisely. The way I usually think of it is that the spank adds an element that muddles the real lesson.

Ultimately, the real lesson should be to do right for its own sake, avoid wrong, for *your* own sake.

Obviously, you need to start with bare bones basics for little kids, and focus on teaching empathy all the time. Adding in the fake, unnatural, illogical consequences just results in the main lesson being lost and replaced with "I shouldn't do X, because if I get caught, mom or dad will spank me." Morality, safety and empathy shouldn't be dependent on whether or not you get caught, and that's exactly what's learned when somebody builds this fake world around a kid where consequences are *inflicted,* rather than growing organically out of a situation.

If a kid is reaching for a hot flame--the *very* first time--grab his hand to keep him from doing it. Nothing can be accomplished from hitting that can't be accomplished with grabbing. Then, let him hold his hand *near* it, to show how warm it gets, or let him briefly touch something that's been near the fire long enough to get hot (point being to let feel something unpleasant and mildly painful, but not to be actually burned).

The lesson that fire burns is natural, and sticks with you for life.

The lesson that fire is forbidden fruit, and if mom catches you going near it, she'll get mad, just adds temptation.



Also, sorry for sort of abandoning my thread--I haven't had internet access, since I just moved.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I see. So it's okay to let your kid nearly get burned by an open fire, but not to spank them. That's some leap of logic ya got going there.

This is now a circular argument. I'm not a psychopath, I don't abuse my kids and I don't have any leftover resentment or violent tendencies from being spanked myself.

 

[quatona]

I see. So it's okay to let your kid nearly get burned by an open fire, but not to spank them.

Since your rationale was "teaching lessons": Yes.

Ok or not - I am doubting that there is only one person who has "learned the lesson" that an open hurts by being spanked. Rather I suspect, that everybody has learned this lesson by burning themselves when at least once touching open fire. That´s the way we "learn lessons".

You don´t teach consequences by preventing the consequences and replacing them by spanking - or punishing in general.

Thus, when the goals are "teaching lessons", I think it would be a better idea to pull away their hands whenever they are about to touch open fire, saying "no" (and, depending on the age, warning them that touching an open flame hurts). At one point - when it doesn´t come with real risks (like putting the finger in a candle light - I would let them burn their fingers and later comfort them.
This way they learn three important lessons:
1. Your parents aren´t warning you for nothing. They want to prevent you from harm.
2. Open fire hurts.
3. Your parents accept, love and comfort you even if you make a mistake.

That's some leap of logic ya got going there.

Your are welcome to point out the logical leaps.

This is now a circular argument.

I'm not a psychopath, I don't abuse my kids and I don't have any leftover resentment or violent tendencies from being spanked myself.

Still under the impression this thread is about you personally?