Parenting through corporal punishment

[pahl]

Is it right for a parent to hit his/her child when the child has done something wrong?

Is it a good method? Is it needed, or are there better ways of parenting wich does not include physical punishment?

I belive that hitting a child is wrong and that there are better ways of raising the child. But obviosly not everyone share this view.

[Lotharia]

I believe it's a matter of method and degree. A swat on the behind by an IN-CONTROL parent can be useful and proper. A beating is never appropriate. I believe it all got twisted up by efforts to legislate it -- how to describe LEGAL and PROPER methods and degree of corporal punishment? Easier to legislate it all out. Pity for our next generation, IMO.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: pahl Is it right for a parent to hit his/her child when the child has done something wrong? Is it a good method? Is it needed, or are there better ways of parenting wich does not include physical punishment? I belive [sic] that hitting a child is wrong and that there are better ways of raising the child. But obviosly [sic] not everyone share this view.

I think it's necessary in the more developmental years i.e. three to six years old so you'd never had to do it again. It sort of establishes your authority and tells the kids what to do in matter where otherwise there would be no obvious consequences for their actions e.g. back-talking to adults.

Then, when the child is disciplined from the beginning, spanking is no longer necessary, they would be expected to just follow your rules with no problems. Then again, if problems occur after that, talking about it is best.

Of course, it's unreasonable to spank a sixteen-year-old, but then again, according to the behavior of many such teenagers in the U.S. for instance, they should get a spanking. That's because they probably weren't disciplined in earlier years, and if they were, they were probably corrupted by the lack of discipline of their peers.

In my opinion, a "society" that doesn't even consider the option of spanking produces spoiled kids that have insufficient discipline. They of course would realize that they shouldn't walk onto a street during traffic, but they wouldn't effectively refrain from other things.

Also, the only reason some kids end up going to therapy or something like that because they were spanked as kids is because they live in the said "society" where spanking is looked down upon, and they are convinced that they were "abused" by their parents. That's weakness right there.

A parent shouldn't be scared to exercise force for their children's sake; parents aren't supposed to be their children's pals.

[Cephus]

Of course it's a good method, in moderation. It should be the last resort, but I don't think you can be a proper parent without being willing, at least, to use corporal punishment on your child.

I have a friend who is a 911 operator and she gets calls all the time from parents who want to police to come and correct their children, our society has turned parents into pansys who are afraid to actually be parents. The kids are in charge and I fear for the next generation.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: pahl Is it right for a parent to hit his/her child when the child has done something wrong?

In the early years when the child is really too young to understand other imposed consequences such as the ubiquitous "time out," spanking is likely the only effective method of instilling the understanding that certain behavior is not acceptable.

Is it a good method? Is it needed, or are there better ways of parenting wich does not include physical punishment?

See above. There's nothing wrong with spanking but the goal should be to teach the child why the behavior for which he is punished is wrong. I think spanking begins to lose its effectiveness when the child starts developing the ability to understand why his behavior is (at least according to the parents) wrong.

I belive that hitting a child is wrong and that there are better ways of raising the child. But obviosly [sic] not everyone share [sic] this view.

You try explaining to an eight month-old why he shouldn't stick his finger in the electrical outlet or why he shouldn't try to grab the cup of hot coffee on the coffee table. Children, by nature, are going to try to push the envelope to see what their limits are. Often, just telling the kid "No" isn't enough to establish the boundaries.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Cephus Of course it's a good method, in moderation. It should be the last resort, but I don't think you can be a proper parent without being willing, at least, to use corporal punishment on your child. I have a friend who is a 911 operator and she gets calls all the time from parents who want to police to come and correct their children, our society has turned parents into pansys who are afraid to actually be parents. The kids are in charge and I fear for the next generation.

No, they're afraid of the neighbor calling Child Protective Services on them and having some overzealous social worker coming along and taking their children away.

[pahl]

But there are other, better ways of raising a child. Children do not do what their parents tell them, but rather what they do. So if you hit a child they will learn to hit others.

I was never hit once by my parents that i can recall and i turned out good. I and my siblings where never spoiled children, and (at the risk of sounding pompous) acctually recived a lot of praise from other parents for our manners.

I dont believe that its necessarily wrong to hit a child in a parenting purpose, but i do think that there are better ways that dont include any kind of beating.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: pahl But there are other, better ways of raising a child. Children do not do what their parents tell them, but rather what they do. So if you hit a child they will learn to hit others.

I think that's a slippery slope fallacy. Children will hit others regardless of what their parents do. The parents, however, must spank the children if their children are hitting others, for instance.

Quote by: pahl I was never hit once by my parents that i can recall and i turned out good. I and my siblings where never spoiled children, and (at the risk of sounding pompous) acctually [sic] recived [sic] a lot of praise from other parents for our manners. I dont believe that its necessarily wrong to hit a child in a parenting purpose, but i do think that there are better ways that dont include any kind of beating.

Of course, it's ideal that the child has perfect behavior. This, of course, depends on the behavioral standards of the parents and society. If they live in a so-called society where disrespect for elders is okay, then of course they would be raised in a good manner even if they do that. But then, the society itself wouldn't be good-mannered.

Then again, I think that it is still possible to be raised effectively in a good society without spanking, but it's a rarity. You, for instance, seem like an exception. Spanking as a form of physical conditioning in a child's developmental years is often necessary.

It's not a bad thing, in my opinion, to not spank, but it is a bad thing to automatically discard the option of spanking.

[pahl]

Have you seen super-nanny or any of the clones of that show? Those methods work and does not require spanking.

Of course, i have to agree that in the right degree, spanking a young child for misbehaving does not have (or has few) negative effects.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: pahl Have you seen super-nanny or any of the clones of that show? Those methods work and does not require spanking.

I've seen those shows, and I'm a critic of those nannies. I don't think their particular methods really fixed those primitive kids; maybe they made them more submissive for the camera though and provided a temporary relief.

Quote by: pahl Of course, i have to agree that in the right degree, spanking a young child for misbehaving does not have (or has few) negative effects.

Yeah, I think it's wrong to call it child abuse. It's not like a drunken father is coming home from the bar and is pointless whipping his kids with his belt.

Here's a South Park video about child discipline that I thought might be relevant.

[The Bacon Guy]

To anyone supporting corporal punishment:

It is not effective. Those that say it is are at loggerheads with the majority of psychological opinion backed up by numerous studies. In fact, a major and credited study from Straus, Sugarman, and Giles-Sims (1997) found that hitting children in response to antisocial behaviour actually increased the behaviour.

Those who say that spanking is the only option in some situations are not being imaginative enough. There are a great number of other options, most of which are as, and usually more, effective in any situation. Non-violent child discipline

Studies suggest that it does have long term effects, most of which are damaging. You can’t argue out one side of your mouth that it has the effect of correcting the child’s behaviour, then claim that it has no long term effects. A huge, fairly recent meta-analysis of sixty years worth of corporal punishment studies from Gershoff (2002) found that corporal punishment of children resulted a myriad of negative consequences, including increased delinquent and antisocial behavior, increased risk of child abuse and spousal abuse, increased risk of child aggression and adult aggression, decreased child mental health and decreased adult mental health.

It is a violation of the child’s rights. Striking any other human being would be considered assault, no matter how much the offender argues that it is an effective method of behavioural correction. The child has not broken any law, so his human rights should remain intact.

It is counterproductive to promoting equality and justice. Legalising corporal punishment of children leaves the application of the punishment in the hands of the parents, therefore making it arbitrary and subjective.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy To anyone supporting corporal punishment: It is not effective. Those that say it is are at loggerheads with the majority of psychological opinion backed up by numerous studies. In fact, a major and credited study from Straus, Sugarman, and Giles-Sims (1997) found that hitting children in response to antisocial behaviour actually increased the behaviour.

I think that there are still confounding factors that ought to be considered. For instance, this observational study conducted by Straus, et al had subjects from within a society where spanking is already viewed as a "taboo." That is, children who are spanked are sympathized with in their societies, which say that they have individualistic rights versus their parents' quasi-oppression.

So, of course children in the study wouldn't adhere to the conditioning effects of the physical punishment because they and other biased people who support the charade of the anti-spanking New Age movement would see it simply as abuse and thus pointless violence.

Also, many of the studies that say spanking causes harm don't consider the fact that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. So, just because a subject who undergoes spanking treatment is sad doesn't mean he/she is sad because of the spanking. The controls in the studies and experiments are sometimes not sufficient to stop such confounding variables from influencing conclusions.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Those who say that spanking is the only option in some situations are not being imaginative enough. There are a great number of other options, most of which are as, and usually more, effective in any situation. Non-violent child discipline

These imaginative techniques may work some of the time, but they're not as effective as spanking. Simply listing a wikipedia reference that has no references itself isn't sufficient proof per se.

I could also list studies that support spanking as not harmful but rather beneficial, such as those by Dr. Diana Baumrind, Dr. Elizabeth Owens, Dr. James Dobson, Dr. Robert Larzelere etc. In fact, a recent study by Baumrind was actually supported by Dr. Murray Straus, who is ironically the first guy you mentioned who did the study on spanking's pseudo-harmful effects.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Studies suggest that it does have long term effects, most of which are damaging. You can’t argue out one side of your mouth that it has the effect of correcting the child’s behaviour, then claim that it has no long term effects. A huge, fairly recent meta-analysis of sixty years worth of corporal punishment studies from Gershoff (2002) found that corporal punishment of children resulted a myriad of negative consequences, including increased delinquent and antisocial behavior, increased risk of child abuse and spousal abuse, increased risk of child aggression and adult aggression, decreased child mental health and decreased adult mental health.

See what I said above about these studies. Also, I've mentioned from the beginning that damage may occur when the society the children live in convinces them that spanking is bad. It's not spanking that explicitly causes their harm, its the society per se.

Should I go over the basic psychological concept of conditioning? If you apply a negative stimuli to a subject when he/she/it performs a certain action, the subject will soon learn (n.b. be conditioned) not to do this action to avoid that stimuli.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy It is a violation of the child’s rights. Striking any other human being would be considered assault, no matter how much the offender argues that it is an effective method of behavioural correction. The child has not broken any law, so his human rights should remain intact. It is counterproductive to promoting equality and justice. Legalising corporal punishment of children leaves the application of the punishment in the hands of the parents, therefore making it arbitrary and subjective.

This kind of systematic application of rights is just the problem I'm talking about.

Also, real parents could care less about equality when it comes to disciplining their kids and their kids' bona fide interests. As for justice, spanking is teleologically just because it supports the greater good.

It's your opinion that spanking is wrong, and that's just as arbitrary and subjective as that of parents. However, parents have a large majority of other pro-spankers with that same arbitrary and subjective opinion in order to make spanking intersubjectively just.

I realize that pointless, sadistic beating is wrong. But disciplinary spanking of children particularly in the developmental years should be allowed and is actually the best option for parents to exercise. At least don't discard the option.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Chancellor No, they're afraid of the neighbor calling Child Protective Services on them and having some overzealous social worker coming along and taking their children away.

Some are, certainly, but in many cases, you have parents who don't care. They are only parents because they were too stupid to use birth control. They have neither the intelligence, maturity or interest in actually raising children, they only keep them around because the state says they can't leave them at the mall. Far too many parents just park their kids in front of the TV or with a video game because the kids get in the way of the parents having fun.

That's just pathetic.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Cephus Some are, certainly, but in many cases, you have parents who don't care. They are only parents because they were too stupid to use birth control. They have neither the intelligence, maturity or interest in actually raising children, they only keep them around because the state says they can't leave them at the mall. Far too many parents just park their kids in front of the TV or with a video game because the kids get in the way of the parents having fun. That's just pathetic.

This lack of discipline in parents leads to a lack of discipline in children. The people in that pseudo-society are truly spoiled and, yes, quite pathetic.

We don't have to exercise spanking to effect that discipline, but I consider it the best option in children's developmental years for its conditional effects, and the option should never be ignored because of fear.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Epistemologist I think that there are still confounding factors that ought to be considered. For instance, this observational study conducted by Straus, et al had subjects from within a society where spanking is already viewed as a "taboo." That is, children who are spanked are sympathized with in their societies, which say that they have individualistic rights versus their parents' quasi-oppression. So, of course children in the study wouldn't adhere to the conditioning effects of the physical punishment because they and other biased people who support the charade of the anti-spanking New Age movement would see it simply as abuse and thus pointless violence.

The fact is that it has a very real potential to be harmful. Can you guarantee that spanking a particular child will not result in long term harm?

Quote by: Epistemologist Also, many of the studies that say spanking causes harm don't consider the fact that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. So, just because a subject who undergoes spanking treatment is sad doesn't mean he/she is sad because of the spanking. The controls in the studies and experiments are sometimes not sufficient to stop such confounding variables from influencing conclusions.

The confounding variable would have to be one which applied consistently in all studies and for all children studied. I don’t believe in coincidences like that.

Quote by: Epistemologist These imaginative techniques may work some of the time, but they're not as effective as spanking.

Prove it.

Quote by: Epistemologist Simply listing a wikipedia reference that has no references itself isn't sufficient proof per se.

I didn’t link to it as proof; I linked to it so people could educate themselves.

Quote by: Epistemologist I could also list studies that support spanking as not harmful but rather beneficial, such as those by Dr. Diana Baumrind, Dr. Elizabeth Owens, Dr. James Dobson, Dr. Robert Larzelere etc. In fact, a recent study by Baumrind was actually supported by Dr. Murray Straus, who is ironically the first guy you mentioned who did the study on spanking's pseudo-harmful effects.

Baumrind’s study was a criticism of the studies which claimed spanking to be harmful. It does not prove that spanking is beneficial, or even that it is not harmful.

Quote by: Epistemologist See what I said above about these studies. Also, I've mentioned from the beginning that damage may occur when the society the children live in convinces them that spanking is bad. It's not spanking that explicitly causes their harm, its the society per se.

What causes the harm is irrelevant. The harm occurs.

Quote by: Epistemologist Should I go over the basic psychological concept of conditioning? If you apply a negative stimuli to a subject when he/she/it performs a certain action, the subject will soon learn (n.b. be conditioned) not to do this action to avoid that stimuli.

There is no evidence to suggest that this is the case for spanking.

Quote by: Epistemologist Also, real parents could care less about equality when it comes to disciplining their kids and their kids' bona fide interests. As for justice, spanking is teleologically just because it supports the greater good.

Prove it.

Quote by: Epistemologist It's your opinion that spanking is wrong, and that's just as arbitrary and subjective as that of parents. However, parents have a large majority of other pro-spankers with that same arbitrary and subjective opinion in order to make spanking intersubjectively just.

Argumentum ad Populum.

Quote by: Epistemologist I realize that pointless, sadistic beating is wrong. But disciplinary spanking of children particularly in the developmental years should be allowed and is actually the best option for parents to exercise.

Prove it.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy The fact is that it has a very real potential to be harmful. Can you guarantee that spanking a particular child will not result in long term harm?

Your whole response was that I should "prove it" that spanking isn't bad. Well, what "proof" do you want? Psychological studies? "Experiments" done by researchers with an agenda? The truth is, you can't give me any totally unbiased studies, and I probably can't either. There are some good studies from many of the people I named, but how can we tell good from bad?

And yes, spanking has a potential to be harmful if people like you yell fire and call even parental discipline "abuse." You convince kids they have a problem.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy There is no evidence to suggest that this is the case for spanking.

Not when the spanking that occurs is actually meant to be a conditioning stimuli.

I'm betting most of these so-called researchers and maybe even you have been convinced that they were beaten up or traumatized in their childhood. Or maybe they're just New Agers. Whatever it is, there's nothing wrong with spanking kids particularly in their developmental years, when it's actually the best option.

And so, I stick with all the statements I said before. You just don't get it, and you just won't get it.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Epistemologist Your whole response was that I should "prove it" that spanking isn't bad. Well, what "proof" do you want? Psychological studies? "Experiments" done by researchers with an agenda? The truth is, you can't give me any totally unbiased studies, and I probably can't either. There are some good studies from many of the people I named, but how can we tell good from bad?

So neither of our views can be supported by evidence. This however does not leave us on equal footing. It is you that is proposing to infringe upon a person's basic human rights, so it is up to you to prove that the greater good in the name of which you do this will be achieved.

Quote by: Epistemologist And yes, spanking has a potential to be harmful if people like you yell fire and call even parental discipline "abuse." You convince kids they have a problem.

It is shown to be potentially harmful and we have no way of determining in which cases it will be harmful. So your solution is to go blindly and do it anyway? Brilliant...

Quote by: Epistemologist Not when the spanking that occurs is actually meant to be a conditioning stimuli.

You have already stated that the evidence cannot be used to support either of our viewpoints.

Your view in this and other threads amounts to infringing upon people’s rights for some arbitrarily determined “greater good”. I disagree with this entirely, but obviously I can’t prove my opinion to be right any more than you can your’s.

What I can say is that if you are going to infringe upon a person’s rights and possibly cause them long term harm in the name of achieving a greater good, you had better be damn sure that this greater good will actually be achieved. This is something which you have already acknowledged you cannot do.

Quote by: Epistemologist I'm betting most of these so-called researchers and maybe even you have been convinced that they were beaten up or traumatized in their childhood. Or maybe they're just New Agers.

Ad Hominem. Less of it please.

Quote by: Epistemologist Whatever it is, there's nothing wrong with spanking kids particularly in their developmental years, when it's actually the best option.

Another unsubstantiated statement? Dear me…

Quote by: Epistemologist And so, I stick with all the statements I said before. You just don't get it, and you just won't get it.

I get what you are saying; you have just failed to make a convincing case for it,

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy So neither of our views can be supported by evidence. This however does not leave us on equal footing. It is you that is proposing to infringe upon a person's basic human rights, so it is up to you to prove that the greater good in the name of which you do this will be achieved.

No, it is you who are proposing to infringe upon a parent's natural instinctive right, "so it is up to you to prove that the greater good in the name of which you do this is achieved."

Quote by: The Bacon Guy It is shown to be potentially harmful and we have no way of determining in which cases it will be harmful. So your solution is to go blindly and do it anyway? Brilliant...

Your solution is to criminalize it and disrupt the rearing process that has worked for millenia and has an ignored explanation for supposedly causing harm in some biased studies? "Brilliant..."

Quote by: The Bacon Guy You have already stated that the evidence cannot be used to support either of our viewpoints.

I stated that the evidence isn't totally trustworthy.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Your view in this and other threads amounts to infringing upon people’s rights for some arbitrarily determined “greater good”. I disagree with this entirely, but obviously I can’t prove my opinion to be right any more than you can your’s.

It seems that you've narrowed your view of rights to those John Locke wrote about i.e. "life, liberty, and the property." Or maybe what the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution lists as rights i.e. religion, assembly, press, petition, and speech. Besides, the greater good should outweigh the systematic application of rights regardless of consequences according to teleological ethics.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy What I can say is that if you are going to infringe upon a person’s rights and possibly cause them long term harm in the name of achieving a greater good, you had better be damn sure that this greater good will actually be achieved. This is something which you have already acknowledged you cannot do.

If spanking is used by parents only as a conditioning stimuli, then there wouldn't be problems. In studies, for instance, it often goes beyond that because researchers might be trying to prove that spanking is harmful or have some other ulterior agenda that introduces bias.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Ad Hominem. Less of it please.

No, I was just explaining a possible source of bias.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Another unsubstantiated statement? Dear me…

I was just restating my conclusion.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy I get what you are saying; you have just failed to make a convincing case for it,

Then I suppose you've failed as well.