Corporal punishment for children

[Twelvefret]

Originally Posted by Psalad

Yep! True.

Good, nice to hear that you understand there are differences.

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by flaggerphil

I did not spank my kids often but I NEVER spanked in anger.

I said "does NOT necessarily equate" because there are SOME people who will spank in anger.

[Psalad]

Originally Posted by Twelvefret

Good, nice to hear that you understand there are differences.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not being snarky.

There are lots of ways to hit someone.

You can slap. You can spank. You can punch. They are all different, but they have one thing in common. They are all hitting.

It's really interesting that the people who are making a fine point about the difference between spanking and hitting seem to be the same people who complain about politically correct speech usage. It sure seems to me that "spanking" is just a nicer, PC way of saying "hitting."

[Herb Hunter]

It is always exasperating to hear someone defend anything traditional solely on the grounds that, “it didn’t hurt me or my children”. The rare person who survives a lethal dose of arsenic could, with that logic, say that arsenic isn’t lethal. In order to determine if the use of varying degrees of violence is effective as a teaching policy one has to look at the data, something it doesn’t appear anyone here defending the swatting of children has done.

Incidentally, the rate of physical punishment in 1950s Sweden was the same as it is now in the USA - roughly 90%. It is now down to around 10% it having been made illegal to use corporal punishment on a child. There is no penalty for disobeying that law. Instead, parents found guilty of the crime are counseled on alternative methods.

In 1975, fifteen or sixteen was the average age when corporal punishment was discontinued today, it is around 12. The incidence of such punishment has diminished from more than once daily to 3 or 4 times per week. However, the percentage of parents using violence has remained about the same. It is used least in New England and most in the South. This is all according to Sociology Professor Murray A. Straus, Co-Director of the Family Research Laboratory at UNH.

[Teleman52]

Originally Posted by Herb Hunter

It is always exasperating to hear someone defend anything traditional solely on the grounds that, “it didn’t hurt me or my children”. The rare person who survives a lethal dose of arsenic could, with that logic, say that arsenic isn’t lethal. In order to determine if the use of varying degrees of violence is effective as a teaching policy one has to look at the data, something it doesn’t appear anyone here defending the swatting of children has done.

Incidentally, the rate of physical punishment in 1950s Sweden was the same as it is now in the USA - roughly 90%. It is now down to around 10% it having been made illegal to use corporal punishment on a child. There is no penalty for disobeying that law. Instead, parents found guilty of the crime are counseled on alternative methods.

In 1975, fifteen or sixteen was the average age when corporal punishment was discontinued today, it is around 12. The incidence of such punishment has diminished from more than once daily to 3 or 4 times per week. However, the percentage of parents using violence has remained about the same. It is used least in New England and most in the South. This is all according to Sociology Professor Murray A. Straus, Co-Director of the Family Research Laboratory at UNH.

Actually a couple of the links that I posted earlier in the thread (specifically the newsmax article and the ok state paper on page 3) addressed the Swedish spanking ban. You should read it.

Where exactly do they get this 10% number? Did they just ask people? It seems to me, if it was illegal, very few would say that they spanked their child.

I don't see how anything you said relates to the effectiveness of corporal punishment though. Not trying to be rude Im just not seeing the relation here

Also I think your arsenic analogy is flawed. MOST People who drink arsenic are not fine, while most people who were spanked are indeed fine and are some of the most well put together people in the world. That's why you hear so many people say it

[Dirk Hofman]

People say spanking is OK "because my parents did it and I turned out OK" may have this perspective because...

• It's the only frame of reference they have, and it's nearly impossible to see outside that perspective
• People don't easily identify themselves or their parents as flawed unless serious trauma or issues have occurred, repeatedly (and even then sometimes not)
• It is not clear that spanking seriously harms people

Basically when people say, "Spanking is bad for kids" those who spank or were spanked seem to hear that the way they were brought up is "wrong". In fact all it means is that the way these people (myself included) were brought up was potentially less than optimal, which is different than "wrong".

I started by spanking my kids when they were younger, once or twice. I did it the calm way, after the anger had subsided. I didn't find it to be effective, unless the goal was having my kids fear me, which wasn't the goal. I don't find the need to do it anymore, and I'd defy anyone to describe my children as out of control, or entitled or spoiled. Just doesn't match the facts.

I find that people who push this notion that un-spanked kids are spoiled and "part of the problem with society now" are generally unable to back those kind of statement up with facts. But it seems to make folks feel better to identify non-spanking as a contributor to the general decline in behavior in our society, or at least what they perceive as such.

The truth is that crime and all kinds of abuse are down across the boards in this country starting in about 1992. To imagine spanking or the lack thereof plays a part in this would require some proving.

If there is support for the statement:

most people who were spanked are indeed fine and are some of the most successful, well put together people in the world

I'd love to see it. Can anyone back this up? I guess we'd need a definition for "fine", "successful" and "well put together" which would be hard enough. No doubt my request for proof will not dissuade those who believe it. I would like to see any studies or other empirical evidence if such exists, however. Anecdotal evidence is interesting but ultimately biased and unconvincing.

[Twelvefret]

Originally Posted by Psalad

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not being snarky.

There are lots of ways to hit someone.

You can slap. You can spank. You can punch. They are all different, but they have one thing in common. They are all hitting.

It's really interesting that the people who are making a fine point about the difference between spanking and hitting seem to be the same people who complain about politically correct speech usage. It sure seems to me that "spanking" is just a nicer, PC way of saying "hitting."

Why would I need to be unpleasant? We agreed that hitting may be done for reasons other than anger or hate.

[Psalad]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

I started by spanking my kids when they were younger, once or twice. I did it the calm way, after the anger had subsided. I didn't find it to be effective, unless the goal was having my kids fear me, which wasn't the goal. I don't find the need to do it anymore, and I'd defy anyone to describe my children as out of control, or entitled or spoiled. Just doesn't match the facts.

It's interesting.. I actually completely agree with you, but the rational part of my brain points out that you are actually doing the same thing... what I did/experienced turned out fine so it's the right way.

I truly believe for 99% of people corporal punishment is wrong, but I know parents who have had children who seem to have only reacted to fear based punishment. I don't know the details so I don't know for sure. I find corporal punishment distasteful, but I just don't think it's any better to extrapolate from either anecdotal perspective.

From my amateur perusal, there is no question there is preponderance of evidence that shows corporal punishment is generally not any more effective and potentially harmful for many. But that also leaves room for the potential that there may be children who might benefit from it. I believe that to be an incredibly tiny minority... but that's just my own impression.

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by Psalad

It's interesting.. I actually completely agree with you, but the rational part of my brain points out that you are actually doing the same thing... what I did/experienced turned out fine so it's the right way.

I don't see it that way at all.

First, I'm not doing what my parents did. I tried it and it didn't work for me. I think what I'm doing is right for my kids, but I don't take it any further than that, extrapolating my own view as some kind of right or wrong for everyone else or society.

I personally think that some kids might (might) only be reached by physical confrontation. I personally don't think the rare spanking is going to do a lot of damage. I've personally found other ways of getting my kids' attention far more effective. I can't prove any of those statements and am interested in any (non anecdotal) evidence which supports or contradicts my view.

I disagree with people who espouse the "spanking is part of the equation for maintaining order in society" types of arguments. One, because my personal experience doesn't fit that, but more so because there seems to be no evidence to support the idea. I think it's lazy thinking. I think anecdotal evidence is unavoidable in making choices for ourselves. I think it's to be avoided completely when trying to convince others of a general trend or when advocating for public policy (which no one is doing in this example).

[Teleman52]

Dirk, I actually edited out the word succesful because I don't think success has anything to do with being mentally stable. But I will concede that there is no way to back up what I said. There's also no way to back up what these studies are saying, which is that spankings have some kind of negative physchological effect. There's no way to single out spanking as the cause.

I think if spankings do have a negative effect, than they are outweighed by the positives.

I don't even think it makes my kids fear me, literally everytime I spank one of my kids, he cries lightly and then gives me a hug. Everytime, that's not an exaggeration.

(I'm talking about either a slap on the butt with an open hand, or a belt. Done lovingly, not child abuse of course)

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

I think what I'm doing is right for my kids

I think that anyone who is of sound mind is doing just that, what they think is right for their kids. Then that's what matters, people have different ways of doing things and there's nothing wrong with that. If your trying to do what's best for your children, then your doing all you can do

[seannx]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

People say spanking is OK "because my parents did it and I turned out OK" may have this perspective because...

• It's the only frame of reference they have, and it's nearly impossible to see outside that perspective
• People don't easily identify themselves or their parents as flawed unless serious trauma or issues have occurred, repeatedly (and even then sometimes not)
• It is not clear that spanking seriously harms people

Basically when people say, "Spanking is bad for kids" those who spank or were spanked seem to hear that the way they were brought up is "wrong". In fact all it means is that the way these people (myself included) were brought up was potentially less than optimal, which is different than "wrong".

I started by spanking my kids when they were younger, once or twice. I did it the calm way, after the anger had subsided. I didn't find it to be effective, unless the goal was having my kids fear me, which wasn't the goal. I don't find the need to do it anymore, and I'd defy anyone to describe my children as out of control, or entitled or spoiled. Just doesn't match the facts.

I find that people who push this notion that un-spanked kids are spoiled and "part of the problem with society now" are generally unable to back those kind of statement up with facts. But it seems to make folks feel better to identify non-spanking as a contributor to the general decline in behavior in our society, or at least what they perceive as such.

The truth is that crime and all kinds of abuse are down across the boards in this country starting in about 1992. To imagine spanking or the lack thereof plays a part in this would require some proving.

If there is support for the statement:

I'd love to see it. Can anyone back this up? I guess we'd need a definition for "fine", "successful" and "well put together" which would be hard enough. No doubt my request for proof will not dissuade those who believe it. I would like to see any studies or other empirical evidence if such exists, however. Anecdotal evidence is interesting but ultimately biased and unconvincing.

+1
Well said.

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by Teleman52

Dirk, I actually edited out the word succesful because I don't think success has anything to do with being mentally stable. But I will concede that there is no way to back up what I said. There's also no way to back up what these studies are saying, which is that spankings have some kind of negative physchological effect. There's no way to single out spanking as the cause.

That assumes the studies (which IMO don't need to be backed up, they are empirical evidence) haven't isolated the spanking behavior from other factors, which from what I read is a potentially faulty assumption. For example:

Several
longitudinal studies have directly tested this hypothesis by examining cross-lagged
associations between spanking and children’s aggression, comparing the path from
spanking to aggression (the extent to which spanking predicts changes in children’s
aggression over time, controlling for initial levels of spanking) with the path from
children’s aggression to spanking (the extent to which children’s aggression
predicts changes in spanking over the same period). In one study of more than 3,00
preschoolers, increases in spanking from ages 1 to 3 predicted increases in
children’s aggression from ages 3 to 5, over and above initial levels and maternal
warmth (Lee, Altschul, & Gershoff, 2013).

In general I've found that those doing studies are among the best at understanding the limitations of their own studies and controlling for those as much as possible.

Too often people criticize science without really giving the studies a hard look, or criticize with an agenda, over-valuing minor criticisms and under-valuing the rigor of the study when it conflicts with pre-existing belief. This certainly extends beyond this topic.

I think if spankings do have a negative effect, than they are outweighed by the positives.

I don't even think it makes my kids fear me, literally everytime I spank one of my kids, he cries lightly and then gives me a hug. Everytime, that's not an exaggeration.

(I'm talking about either a slap on the butt with an open hand, or a belt. Done lovingly, not child abuse of course)

I think that anyone who is of sound mind is doing just that, what they think is right for their kids. Then that's what matters, people have different ways of doing things and there's nothing wrong with that. If your trying to do what's best for your children, then your doing all you can do

Yep, no general disagreement. It's a tough issue.

[buddyhu]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

In general I've found that those doing studies are among the best at understanding the limitations of their own studies and controlling for those as much as possible.

Too often people criticize science without really giving the studies a hard look, or criticize with an agenda, over-valuing minor criticisms and under-valuing the rigor of the study when it conflicts with pre-existing belief. This certainly extends beyond this topic.

+1. Most folks who devote substantial time and energy to doing a study (or who build a career from getting published) want their work to be the best it can be, so that it is not easily refuted (because the best journals only take the best research, which is research that stands up to serious scrutiny.

And many folks who criticize research and science do so with global arguments that reveal an incomplete understanding of research, researchers, and professional journals. It is the "surveys" that are done via phone, or which are backed by partisan foundations that are to be mistrusted...but I understsnd that the uninitiated may not know the difference between a respected professional journal, and a rag or internet site that offers "junk research" that drives traffic or increases circulation.

[Twelvefret]

I guess we have all encountered children, very small, toddlers, who can be directed with a look, while others will get the same looks and jester their defiance.

I've heard parents refer to a self willed child as having a strong will, as if it is a good thing. When you tell that child to stop, because they are doing harm or a younger sibling, and they do not obey, catastrophic results can occur.

Some children respond to time out and just play. Others sit their a sulk as if they've been mistreated and the parent is wrong.

Some parents are so self absorbed, they have no time for children. Other parents are so permissive, the children are raising themselves.

I have seen unruly children and angry children from those that spanked and those that did not.

Because individuals are involved and the complexities of the parent child environment so diverse, how would anyone construct a body of research that came close to matching real life or accounting for even most situations?

[Psalad]

Originally Posted by Twelvefret

Because individuals are involved and the complexities of the parent child environment so diverse, how would anyone construct a body of research that came close to matching real life or accounting for even most situations?

You are asking the wrong question. The body of evidence shows something is probably true for most people. Not sure anyone is suggesting there is just one answer.