Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-04-2012, 08:35 AM
bg7
 
7,694 posts, read 10,495,482 times
Reputation: 15298

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by SPECFRCE View Post
It appears to couple Spanking with Abuse and that is not true.
As stated once before

This following statement is fact. "Spanking" and "abuse" are not interchangeable synonyms. A spanking is not automatically a form of abuse.

No they are not synonyms, because spanking, is just one form of abuse. There are many others. Hence they are not synonms, abuse is the genus and spanking is a species of it.

But if you feel "spanking" is being unfairly defined, then why not describe it in a new way. So shall we call it "controlled hitting"? (And using the term "controlled" is being generous, because parents who spank usually do it when they are angry at their kids or feeling they are losing control of their kids)

Controlled hitting. Sounds like abuse to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-04-2012, 10:05 AM
 
Location: near bears but at least no snakes
26,633 posts, read 28,419,191 times
Reputation: 50424
Originally Posted by iprazhm
How else are non-spankers going to demonize spanking unless they make it something it is not? They must lie about what it is to make it sound bad, otherwise they have no arguement. Thats how liberals work.

To make a conservative angry, tell him a lie.

To make a liberal angry, tell him the truth.

This has nothing to do with politics. Plenty of us liberals are in favor of spanking.
This IS about some people who don't understand spanking and think it's child abuse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2012, 10:14 AM
 
Location: near bears but at least no snakes
26,633 posts, read 28,419,191 times
Reputation: 50424


Some Kids Are Never Spanked - Do They Turn Out Better?

Dec 30, 2009 11:00 AM EST




For decades, research on spanking was challenged by the lack of a control group to compare against - almost all kids (90+%) had been spanked at least once, at some time in their early lives. New research shows that now up to 25% of kids are never spanked, so it's a fair question: How are they turning out? Are they turning out better? Surprisingly, they're not.


In NurtureShock, we described some extensive cross-ethnic and international research on spanking by Drs. Jennifer Lansford and Ken Dodge.
Their data suggested that if a culture views spanking as the normal consequence for bad behavior, kids aren’t damaged by its occasional use.
To explain this shocker, the scholars suggested that in cultures or communities where spanking is common, parents are less agitated when administering spankings. Spanking almost never—when combined with losing your temper—can be worse than spanking frequently.*
But what about the third option: not spanking them at all?
Unfortunately, there’s been little study of this, because children who’ve never been spanked aren’t easy to find. Most kids receive physical discipline at least once in their life. But times are changing, and parents today have numerous alternatives to spanking. The result is that kids are spanked less often overall, and kids who’ve never been spanked are becoming a bigger slice of the pie in long-term population studies.
One of those new population studies underway is called Portraits of American Life. It involves interviews of 2,600 people and their adolescent children every three years for the next 20 years. Dr. Marjorie Gunnoe is working with the first wave of data on the teens. It turns out that almost a quarter of these teens report they were never spanked.
So this is a perfect opportunity to answer a very simple question: are kids who’ve never been spanked any better off, long term?
Gunnoe’s summary is blunt: “I didn’t find that in my data.”
The study asked teens how old they were when their last spanking occurred, and how often they would get spanked as a child. That was cross-referenced against the data on bad outcomes we might fear spanking could lead to years later: antisocial behavior, early sexual activity, physical violence, and depression.
But Gunnoe went further. She also looked at many good outcomes we might want for our teens, such as academic rank, volunteer work, college aspirations, hope for the future, and confidence in their ability to earn a living when they grow up. Studies of corporal punishment almost never look at good outcomes, but Gunnoe wanted to really tease out the differences in these kids.
What she discovered was another shocker: those who’d been spanked just when they were young—ages 2 to 6—were doing a little better as teenagers than those who’d never been spanked. On almost every measure.
A separate group of teens had been spanked until they were in elementary school. Their last spanking had been between the ages of 7 and 11. These teens didn’t turn out badly, either.
Compared with the never-spanked, they were slightly worse off on negative outcomes, but a little better off on the good outcomes.
Only the teenagers who were still being spanked clearly showed problems.
Gunnoe is now looking at how parenting styles might explain these patterns—especially the mystery of why the never-spanked are doing worse than expected.
Gunnoe doesn’t know what she’ll find, but my thoughts jump immediately to the work of Dr. Sarah Schoppe-Sullivan, whom we wrote about in NurtureShock. Schoppe-Sullivan found that children of progressive dads were acting out more in school. This was likely because the fathers were inconsistent disciplinarians; they were emotionally uncertain about when and how to punish, and thus they were reinventing the wheel every time they had to reprimand their child. And there was more conflict in their marriage over how best to parent, and how to divide parenting responsibilities.
I admit to taking a leap here, but if the progressive parents are the ones who never spank (or at least there’s a large overlap), then perhaps the consistency of discipline is more important than the form of discipline. In other words, spanking regularly isn’t the problem; the problem is having no regular form of discipline at all.

_____________
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2012, 10:33 AM
 
Location: near bears but at least no snakes
26,633 posts, read 28,419,191 times
Reputation: 50424
The gist of the above Newsweek article is that there is really no difference between those who have been spanked and those who have never been spanked, in fact the spanked can actually turn out better. They conclude that the problem lies with inconsistency, not type of discipline.

It also states that more research will be done and that it has not been done before because, until recently, there were not enough non spanked kids to study.

I think that once the researchers have studied the non spanked, the conclusion will be that there is almost no difference in the outcome (but the spanked may come out a little better) and then these hysterical people who equate swatting a little kid on the bottom with CHILD ABUSE may finally come to their senses.

The article highlights the fact that spanking of teenagers is NOT appropriate. Spanking is for little kids who don't have the level of understanding that older kids have. They won't understand an explanation well enough and it won't make a good enough impression to change behavior. I think we all know this--those of us who were spanked and understand what it is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2012, 10:46 AM
 
Location: Brooklyn New York
18,356 posts, read 31,429,080 times
Reputation: 27748
and then they wonder why kids are freaking nasty and fresh, if more parents gave thier snotty bratty kids a smack on the behind they would be so rude and disrespectful.


I am the parent, I make the rules, not a child.


I hate these so called modern parents, they ,make me sick.


kinda like theresa's kids on Real Housewives of new jersey. she is a classic example, all three of her kids need good smacks

Last edited by nightcrawler; 10-04-2012 at 11:30 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2012, 11:34 AM
 
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
9,352 posts, read 19,938,879 times
Reputation: 11620
Quote:
Originally Posted by likeminas View Post
Wrong again!!


First off, my children will not burst into uncontrollable tantrums, that's something I will address and teach them from a very early age.
Now, you can put all the blame you want on the school system, peers, etc... And I agree that to a certain extent they influence the upbringing of a child, but the most crucial and defining influence is at home.

A child's early behavior is 70% the parent's responsability and 30% other factors, IMO.

If you have to get physical at any level, you have a child raising a child....
And if the child’s behavior seems uncontrollable without it, you lost the battle from the beginning... not enough patience and communication.


In any case, there are better and more efficient ways to discipline your child besides hitting him, you know.

I will admit that I am childless by choice.... but have been around and helped raise enough of them to recognize the absolute absurdity of this fantasy.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by likeminas View Post
I can't rep. you again but I wholeheartedly agree with this.

Hitting your child demonstrates that it's all right for people to hit people, and especially for big people to hit little people, and stronger people to hit weaker people.
Children learn that when you have a problem you solve it with a good smack on the head. A child whose behavior is controlled by spanking is likely to carry on this mode of interaction into other relationships with siblings and peers, and eventually a spouse and offspring.
It's a dangerous slippery slope, if you asked me.


And for the record, as a child I was spanked less than a handful of times.
I was not traumatized by it, but at the end of the day I don't think it was an effecttive way to discipline me.
But when my mom took away my TV or didn't allow me to play with friends for a week, I was MUCH MORE affected than when she spanked me on the buttocks.

In any case, I'm breaking away from that 'family tradition', and I will be disciplining my children in a non-physical way.
Evolution is a beautiful thing.
HUGE HUGE difference in spanking (a swat on the behind or hand) and a smack in the head.... the two can not be equated.....


what so many of these parents fail to realize is that spanking and abuse are two completely different animals.... and I can tell the difference.... if I see a child being ABUSED absolutely I will (and have) intervene.... but the discipline of a swat on the butt or hand.... THAT is none of my business.....

and for the person that said only young and uneducated people use spanking as a disciplinary tool.... i beg to differ.... my mother was 32 and had a master's degree in education and my dad was 30 and a c.p.a. when i came along and he added attorney to that by the time my younger brother came along.... and you better believe we were spanked when we deserved it..... jasper was right, though.... it must be only in certain circumstances or it loses it's effectiveness....

i feel for parents today who have to be so fearful of how they interact with their children.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2012, 11:39 AM
 
17,183 posts, read 22,751,203 times
Reputation: 17472
Quote:
Originally Posted by djacques View Post
Does the book say "keep spanking them for two hours"?
Not necessarily, but it says things like this:

Quote:
On p.59 they recommend whipping a 3 year old until he is “totally broken.”
She then administers about ten slow, patient licks on his bare legs. He cries in pain. If he continues to show defiance by jerking around and defending himself, or by expressing anger, then she will wait a moment and again lecture him and again spank him. When it is obvious he is totally broken, she will hand him the rag and very calmly say, “Johnny, clean up your mess.” He should very contritely wipe up the water.
There is no indication of how long that may take.

Quote:
On p.46 the Pearls say that if a child does obey before being spanked, spank them anyway. And “if you have to sit on him to spank him, then do not hesitate. And hold him there until he is surrendered. Prove that you are bigger, tougher.” “Defeat him totally.”
Never reward delayed obedience by reversing the sentence. And, unless all else fails, don’t drag him to the place of cleansing. Part of his training is to come submissively. However, if you are just beginning to institute training on an already rebellious child, who runs from discipline and is too incoherent to listen, then use whatever force is necessary to bring him to bay. If you have to sit on him to spank him then do not hesitate. And hold him there until he is surrendered. Prove that you are bigger, tougher, more patiently enduring and are unmoved by his wailing. Defeat him totally. Accept no conditions for surrender. No compromise. You are to rule over him as a benevolent sovereign. Your word is final.

More quotes here:
Quotes from To Train Up A Child | Why Not Train A Child?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2012, 12:38 PM
 
1,014 posts, read 1,186,835 times
Reputation: 837
The problem is that many people do not know how to discipline a child without spanking (as that is the only method modeled to them) & like someone else already pointed out the worst thing for a child is to have inconsistent forms of discipline or no discipline at all.

The people who say, "I was spanked & I turned out fine." You turned out fine except for the fact that you chose to discipline your child with spanking, versus equally effective methods that do not involve spanking. There are also studies on the self-esteem of children who were spanked vs. not spanked that do indicate that while temporarily effective, may not be in the best interests of children. You may think that's fine, but I say if there is a way to effectively discipline a child without physical force then there is no reason to defend spanking the way that some people do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2012, 12:45 PM
 
Location: near bears but at least no snakes
26,633 posts, read 28,419,191 times
Reputation: 50424
I don't know what PEARLS is--and I don't think I want to know. If you are reading garbage like that (judging from the excepts printed out in here) then no wonder you don't understand simple spanking. No wonder you think it is child abuse.

There are people who will take anything too far and turn it into something that it is not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2012, 12:47 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
2,894 posts, read 5,885,482 times
Reputation: 2186
Quote:
Originally Posted by latetotheparty View Post
I will admit that I am childless by choice.... but have been around and helped raise enough of them to recognize the absolute absurdity of this fantasy.....



HUGE HUGE difference in spanking (a swat on the behind or hand) and a smack in the head.... the two can not be equated.....


what so many of these parents fail to realize is that spanking and abuse are two completely different animals.... and I can tell the difference.... if I see a child being ABUSED absolutely I will (and have) intervene.... but the discipline of a swat on the butt or hand.... THAT is none of my business.....

and for the person that said only young and uneducated people use spanking as a disciplinary tool.... i beg to differ.... my mother was 32 and had a master's degree in education and my dad was 30 and a c.p.a. when i came along and he added attorney to that by the time my younger brother came along.... and you better believe we were spanked when we deserved it..... jasper was right, though.... it must be only in certain circumstances or it loses it's effectiveness....

i feel for parents today who have to be so fearful of how they interact with their children.....


Your parents could be nobel laureates and that still doesnt change the fact that on average the higher your education level, the less likely you're to use hitting as a discipline method.
There's a large body of research correlating these two factors.
Just so you know; Your parents are the exception to the rule and not the other way around.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top