I am just as biased as any human being.ElliottCarasDad said:
This being said, care to explain & develop your thoughts on the above quote?
SPANKING revisited...
- Thread starter bssage
- Start date
This being said, care to explain & develop your thoughts on the above quote?
All I can say to this is that I don't remember a single case where I suspected a teacher of amusing himself by spanking me. I cannot comment on the reaction of a two year old, because even if I remembered that far back, I wouldn't have a suitable situation to base it on. But I can't remember ever receiving a spanking that I perceived as random in school. Perhaps the child's age is also an important factor here.parentastic said:
I'm not sure what it is, but in most of parentastic's posts (not just in this thread), you come off as condescending, elitist, overly opinionated and always wanting to be right about your views. While I respect everyone's right to have their own opinion about things, I must say that your posts annoy me for all the the above reasons. If you never considered being a lawyer, you really should, with as much as you like to counter argue. Also, I would give ANYTHING, to be a fly on the wall if and when you have kids and they are being completely unreasonable, you've gotten maybe 4 hours of sleep over the last 48 hours and let's see how much of your learned reading you successfully implement then. It's easy to criticize methods of parenting on a forum but it's a whole different ball game when you're going through it.
Now having said that... I disagree with parentastic's idea that spanking should not be done, and I completely agree with bssage and singledad's views on how/when to spank and fully intend on doing the same with my son.
Now having said that... I disagree with parentastic's idea that spanking should not be done, and I completely agree with bssage and singledad's views on how/when to spank and fully intend on doing the same with my son.
One of the problems with this thread historically is that it tends to degenerate to the point of insults and hurt feelings. The big reason I assume the forum vets have stayed fairly clear of the thread.
We have not de-evolved to that point yet (I think) but are close. I just want to use caution. One lesson I have learned on PF is just because you don't agree with someone does not mean there aren't things to be learned.
I tell people that I will always listen. I may not agree but I will always listen.
We have not de-evolved to that point yet (I think) but are close. I just want to use caution. One lesson I have learned on PF is just because you don't agree with someone does not mean there aren't things to be learned.
I tell people that I will always listen. I may not agree but I will always listen.
Really if you just feel spanking is wrong. Hey that fine by me. Really. It may not appear this way but I am not advocating for spanking. I do not think spanking should be a primary form of discipline. I do not think spanking should be common or routine in anyone's household. But I and a body of more educated peeps feel that it can be both a useful productive tool as a back up to other good parenting resources.
What are your sources. Not picking up much in his bio.
Nice to make a factual statement without any evidence to back it up. The small doses is kinda the point of the tread. Correct me if I am wrong people. I dont think anyone is saying spanking is OK in large doses? If the benefit outweighed the risk. Which the risk I believe is small or insignificant.
Bomb in the brain. Really? More of the same. Jumps around from study to study. No way to tie whatever he is referencing at any given time to a study. Not much detail into the methodology of whatever study he is referring to at any given time. Just a compilation of data supporting someone who has vested interests in selling books and air time. Sorry just seems unprofessional to me. Even the qualifying form is weighted, leading and poorly written. http://acestudy.org/files/ACE_Score_Calculator.pdf Only soliciting abused or severely abused.
My problem is when people in their enthusiasm use flawed, fragmented, biased <U>reports</U> on studies to force their opinion and impose guilt on others. You want to change my opinion? Show me reports that illustrate supporting and non supporting facts. Allow me to make my own critical judgments on those facts. Show me something that is 5 video's or a hundred pages of stuff that only supports your view and it makes me suspect. Like I am being sold.
Parents are always in a perpetual guilt marry-go-round. We are bombarded by our children, our peers, special interest groups and the media. I put forward that a parent who never feels the tug of guilt must be somehow living in a vacuum. Being a special needs parent, I may be overly sensitive to parental guilt. This thread may be my way of fighting back. Don't think your going to drop a load of guilt at my feet and walk away. I Have Had Enough. Maybe other parents here feel my pain.
IMHO sometimes being a good parent takes actual work, critical thought, some due diligence. Am I a good parent? I wont know that until my adult children tell me so.
IMHO We should not always take what we see written, view on tv, or heard on the radio as fact. I have developed a habit of asking some qualifying questions when presented with alternative paths. What is in it for them (normally books)? What is the real source of information? What is the risk/benefit? And last does it make sense to me, my gut feeling ?
If I spank my kid two years ago. Or tomorrow. I did/or will do so with the intention and understanding to make things better for them. My eyes are kept wide open.
I am sure, without a doubt, absolutely. That mistakes have been, and will be made. But I am as sure, or hopeful that they can be overcome as long as I can keep my ego in check. My want, to be right at bay. And my eye on the prize which is them happy, healthy, and productive as they can be.
IMHO
Will a reasoned conditional spank result in long term harm to you children? My opinion is No.
Can a reasoned conditional spank be a useful parenting resource as a backup to other reasoned discipline? My opinion is yes.
Should spanking be a primary form of discipline? My Opinion no. I would suggest getting more qualified advice if this is the case.
Last edited:
I get what you cite about the brain chemicals, but the short term detriment, taken without any time context really renders the the conlusion pretty useless. Sure, it makes sense that a child can't comprhend immediately after a spanking, but what about after the spanking? So, say a spanking is given, and then some time to settle down, and then a lesson taught verabally. "Do you know why I spanked you?" "Do you understand why what you did was wrong?" etc. I think all those lessons can be taught and comprehended 10 or 15 minutes after tthe spanking was given. Surely the frontal cortext isn't disabled for very long. If it were they'd never be able to function again.parentastic said:
Also, you said something about not violating another persons physical rights (sorry if I paraphrase, I can't scroll back to see while posting.) I think you can't possibly make that large of a blanket statement. Using that declaration, you'd not pull a person back from a cliff, or not jump on them to save them from a flying bullet. The point is merely that statements that appear to be absolute can rarely be so absolute.
And lstly about the lead pipe analogy - Nobody removes lead pipes to prevent that danger. You buy a pre-1930's hoem, do you gut it to the studs? No, you mitigate the danger with reasonable responses. You what the EPA recommend, you only consume water from the cold water source, you let it run cold before using it etc. Ironically, copper pipes newer than 5 years old but constructed with lead solder are more of a risk than old copper pipes. What about brass fixtures, common source of lead, but none of us remove them. The point it dangers are relative. With a little care you can mitigate their negative effects.
Okay, so why do you spank in the first place then?IADad said:
If the child can make the connection between the explanation after a spanking and the unacceptable behavior, then he can make that connection just as well, if not a lot more effectively, without the spanking.
If he can't - then no amount of spanking will make him see that connection.
Either way, what's the added value <I>for the child</I> ?
I call it physical integrity.IADad said:
It's bullying, in other words.
You are missing my point.IADad said:
It's not the touching or the physical aspect. It's the bullying.
It's forcefully going against someone's will and impose your own will through the use of superior force, using fear, pain and humiliation.
Maybe we don't live in the same world. Lead poisoning can be very serious and nowadays it's illegal to install lead pipes in a new house. If you'd be aware of the long term effects and you'd learn your family could be contaminated, I venture to think you would probably consider it.IADad said:
But again - that's not the point.
The point is that if something proves to be detrimental on the long run over prolonged exposure, it's not unreasonable to expect small dosages to be poisonous too, even if you can't necessarily see the effect of the poisoning immediately. At the least, I wouldn't want to wave it off as totally safe on the basis of low frequency.
Yes, as I said many times, yes! Care and love, a supportive family, and so many other small and not-so-small everyday gestures can and will mitigate most of the detrimental effect of occasional, low frequency and low intensity spanking. Which is why it's so difficult to measure a short term effect. But the fear, the pain and the humiliation are still there for the child.IADad said:
I have no doubt you have a good heart, good intentions, and good points to make but its painfully obvious you dont have any children.
It reminds me of my sister (no kids) PhD at a family gathering giving my brother (4 girls) and me (2 kids) parenting advice wondering why we were looking at each other laughing.
It reminds me of my sister (no kids) PhD at a family gathering giving my brother (4 girls) and me (2 kids) parenting advice wondering why we were looking at each other laughing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IADad
[/URL]
<I>Sure, it makes sense that a child can't comprhend immediately after a spanking, but what about after the spanking?</I>
Quote:
Originally Posted by IADad
[/URL]
<I>Also, you said something about not violating another persons physical rights (sorry if I paraphrase, I can't scroll back to see while posting.)</I>
Quote:
Originally Posted by IADad
[/URL]
<I>I think you can't possibly make that large of a blanket statement. Using that declaration, you'd not pull a person back from a cliff, or not jump on them to save them from a flying bullet. The point is merely that statements that appear to be absolute can rarely be so absolute.</I>
Quote:
Originally Posted by IADad
[/URL]
<I>And lastly about the lead pipe analogy - Nobody removes lead pipes to prevent that danger.</I>
I think you missed his point
Quote:
Originally Posted by IADad
[/URL]
<I>The point it dangers are relative. With a little care you can mitigate their negative effects.</I>
Originally Posted by IADad
<I>Sure, it makes sense that a child can't comprhend immediately after a spanking, but what about after the spanking?</I>
the time out or any other form of discipline. To reinforce the lesson to be learned . Seems obvious to me.
I believe we have covered that several times throughout the thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IADad
<I>Also, you said something about not violating another persons physical rights (sorry if I paraphrase, I can't scroll back to see while posting.)</I>
Bully: Nice guilt ridden word. Says Bad Parent! If the intention was to strictly cause harm. But the intent of a disciplinary spank is prevent harm or distress in your childs life. There should not be any intent to harm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IADad
<I>I think you can't possibly make that large of a blanket statement. Using that declaration, you'd not pull a person back from a cliff, or not jump on them to save them from a flying bullet. The point is merely that statements that appear to be absolute can rarely be so absolute.</I>
I think you are missing his
Gotta love that word. Its not protecting its bullying.
Exactly like shoving someone back, protecting from unknown danger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IADad
<I>And lastly about the lead pipe analogy - Nobody removes lead pipes to prevent that danger.</I>
Kinda like: caffeine, vitamin C, (probably any vitamin available) wine, water, aspirin, sunshine, heat, cold, insects, fried foods, sleep, awake, ect...
I think you missed his point
Quote:
Originally Posted by IADad
<I>The point it dangers are relative. With a little care you can mitigate their negative effects.</I>
This fact is located where??
Last edited:
Well of course you are biased, you have a website with your screen name and a thread there on spanking under "Child Abuse and Violence", so you obviously have an agenda.parentastic said:
An interesting note to me is that while most parents here have comments posted both with questions and advice, all yours seem to be just advice, what does that say about you?
Have a good day.
Here is the defintion of bullying...
Habitually is the key word and most parents are not habitual spankers. It is used on rare occasions only when nothing else works.
mom2many, its the opposite in my experience. every parent i know who smacks either threatens constantly 'sit or ill smack/do you want a smack' of just does it with zero warning.
maybe as i was a teen mum most of my peers were also young parents and that is why?
the 'alternative' parents i now choose to mix with all use gentle discipline, and have never had the 'need' to smack.
maybe as i was a teen mum most of my peers were also young parents and that is why?
the 'alternative' parents i now choose to mix with all use gentle discipline, and have never had the 'need' to smack.
I have never heard anyone say smack, but it's probably just a play on words. However parents warn children of consequences all the time and with many things....a time-out, going to bed early, not getting any more dinner if they continue to screw around at the table, loosing privileges if they continue to act rowdy or ornery. A spanking is no different, it's a warning.alter ego said:
I'm just copying this across from the other conversation:
The first thing to realise is that for most of human history, parents were completely infanticidal. Child sacrifice and infanticide among tribal societies was common, and the Romans and Greeks exposed their children, and paedophilia was considered normal in those societies. (The same does not apply to hunter-gatherer societies.)
It was not until in the 400s AD when early Christians considered children as having souls at birth that this was stopped but there was still a belief that children had evil tendencies that had to be beaten out of them. Routine pederasty of boys continued in monasteries and elsewhere, and the rape of girls was commonplace. Children were often abandoned by their parents into fosterage.
The 12th century saw the first child instruction manuals and rudimentary child protection laws, although most mothers still emotionally rejected their children, although sometimes the loss of a child would now be mourned which was a precursor to the empathy that would later develop. Children were still often treated as erotic objects by adults.
During the 16th century, particularly in England, parents shifted from trying to stop children's growth to trying to control them and make them obedient. Parents were prepared to give them attention as long as they could control their minds, their insides, their anger and the lives they led. This advance in parenting styles led to the possibility of scientific advances that were not previously possible as human grew up more healthy psychologically.
According to Lloyd deMauses book “the origins of war in child abuse” no single example of a parent who would not have been considered to be guilty of severe child abuse has been historically documented before around 1700AD
At the beginning of the 18th century, mothers began to actually enjoy child care, and fathers began to participate in younger children's development. The aim remained instilling parental goals rather than encouraging individuality. Psychological manipulation and spanking were used to make children obedient rather than previous methods which were more inhumane. These advances led directly to the Enlightenment, it is only when changes in childhood occur that societies begin to progress. The only reason why Watt could invent the steam engine was that his parents taught him to read and write at a young age and let him tinker about with their kettle, this was alien in history.
While the above “socialising” method of child rearing is still the most common today, beginning in the mid-20th century, some parents adopted the role of helping children reach their own goals in life, rather than trying to "socialize" them into fulfilling their own wishes. Less psychological manipulation, more unconditional love. This maybe seems clear, it wasn’t that long ago that most parents were telling their children what careers they should go into but that seems much less common now, there is a greater inclination to encouraging children in whatever they want to do in life, even if it’s be a musician or artist. This “helping” mode of childrearing, which I am certain each of us here strive for, creates children who are more empathic towards others in society than earlier generations.
Lloyd DeMause believes the abolition of corporal punishment and verbal abuse in the home will bring the end of war as the language of violence is not passed on. Indeed the countries who have banned corporal punishment in Europe have become less violent as a consequence.
The first thing to realise is that for most of human history, parents were completely infanticidal. Child sacrifice and infanticide among tribal societies was common, and the Romans and Greeks exposed their children, and paedophilia was considered normal in those societies. (The same does not apply to hunter-gatherer societies.)
It was not until in the 400s AD when early Christians considered children as having souls at birth that this was stopped but there was still a belief that children had evil tendencies that had to be beaten out of them. Routine pederasty of boys continued in monasteries and elsewhere, and the rape of girls was commonplace. Children were often abandoned by their parents into fosterage.
The 12th century saw the first child instruction manuals and rudimentary child protection laws, although most mothers still emotionally rejected their children, although sometimes the loss of a child would now be mourned which was a precursor to the empathy that would later develop. Children were still often treated as erotic objects by adults.
During the 16th century, particularly in England, parents shifted from trying to stop children's growth to trying to control them and make them obedient. Parents were prepared to give them attention as long as they could control their minds, their insides, their anger and the lives they led. This advance in parenting styles led to the possibility of scientific advances that were not previously possible as human grew up more healthy psychologically.
According to Lloyd deMauses book “the origins of war in child abuse” no single example of a parent who would not have been considered to be guilty of severe child abuse has been historically documented before around 1700AD
At the beginning of the 18th century, mothers began to actually enjoy child care, and fathers began to participate in younger children's development. The aim remained instilling parental goals rather than encouraging individuality. Psychological manipulation and spanking were used to make children obedient rather than previous methods which were more inhumane. These advances led directly to the Enlightenment, it is only when changes in childhood occur that societies begin to progress. The only reason why Watt could invent the steam engine was that his parents taught him to read and write at a young age and let him tinker about with their kettle, this was alien in history.
While the above “socialising” method of child rearing is still the most common today, beginning in the mid-20th century, some parents adopted the role of helping children reach their own goals in life, rather than trying to "socialize" them into fulfilling their own wishes. Less psychological manipulation, more unconditional love. This maybe seems clear, it wasn’t that long ago that most parents were telling their children what careers they should go into but that seems much less common now, there is a greater inclination to encouraging children in whatever they want to do in life, even if it’s be a musician or artist. This “helping” mode of childrearing, which I am certain each of us here strive for, creates children who are more empathic towards others in society than earlier generations.
Lloyd DeMause believes the abolition of corporal punishment and verbal abuse in the home will bring the end of war as the language of violence is not passed on. Indeed the countries who have banned corporal punishment in Europe have become less violent as a consequence.
Last edited:
This is also the main argument developed my Alice Miller, one of they key psychoanalytic figure in the field of psychology (now recently deceased). She developed her case in the book For you own good: <I>Hidden cruelty in child-rearing and the roots of violence</I> (1980), available at FSG.PianoLover said:
My response is directed at these assertions. Not at PianoLover.PianoLover said:
Source? I know that the Spartans exposed "weak" infants or offered them back to the gods. It is a misunderstanding of Greek history to extrapolate "Spartan" to include all "Greeks." I do not know about the Romans except that they went to war with Carthage in part because they, the Carthagians, sacrificed children to their gods.PianoLover said:
Again, source? And what does this have to do with anything in this thread? Slavery was also commonplace. So was wife abuse. Women were chatel then. I honestly do not see the connection. This would be like equating the Rape of Nanjing with the practice of Geisha. I could probably come up with some convoluted line to connect the two, but would that make me right?PianoLover said:
Some women still emotionally reject their children, and most of those women do not spank them. Child pornagraphy is still rampant. What does this have to do with spanking?PianoLover said:
Okay, now I've lost all possibility of taking this source seriously. Really? Now we are reading the minds of parents from 500 years ago? Neat trick.PianoLover said:
Well, this is blatently erroneous information. Unless deMauses is creating his own definition of "considered" "severe" "historically" and "documented." There have historically been tribal protections of children and we don't have to go back that far to find protection of children before 1700AD. If he is talking only European legal system, maybe he is right, but I'd like to see his sources.PianoLover said:
Again, we are reading the minds of hundreds of thousands of people who have been dead for ages. This interpretation of child rearing through the ages is extremely simplistic and a massive generalization based on bias and entrenched preconceptions.PianoLover said:
No bias here.PianoLover said:
This simplistic take on things would be comical if it weren't being used as an agenda to criminalize loving, caring parents.PianoLover said:
If we are to follow this incredible line of thinking, sex should be banned because women have been raped throughout history.
Last edited:
Except usually, the "other things" that happened <U>before</U> it escalated all the way to spanking - the other things that didn't "work" - were threats, punishments and control - in other words, a bigger, stronger overbearing person using intimidation on smaller and weaker people on a regular basis, each time discipline is needed.mom2many said:
I am sorry if it isn't pretty, but the word seems pretty accurate to me, even if the purpose is absolutely not to provoke guilt.
They're not assertions they are historical facts documented in <I>The Emotional Life of Nations </I>and <I>The Origins of War in Child Abuse </I>with copious examples and reference to evidence.
Spartans basically exposed all children, the ones who survived were deemed not weak, their idea of schooling was to beat the crap out of children then send them out with a knife to opress some Helots.
with regards to your point:
"Some women still emotionally reject their children, and most of those women do not spank them."
All six of the child-rearing categories (Infanticidal, Abandoning, Ambivalent, Intrusive, Socialising, Helping) still coexist today it's not like everyone has suddenly changed but there has been a clear progression towards the more psychologically healthy methods.
and:
"What does this have to do with spanking?"
Spanking, as you describe it, by loving, caring parents, who in your view are being criminalized are found leaning from the "helping" mode towards the "socializing" mode if you can see it as a continuum. I say they are being criminalized in your view because I don't see someone who hits a child to teach them a lesson as the victim in the situation, the victim is the child who has been spanked when it's completely unnecessary to use physical punishment as a greater and greater number of parents are proving. I'm not a fan of any sort of consequence which is chosed deliberately because it is unpleasant but even time outs and such like are miles ahead of hitting.
We can't say violence is wrong between adults then say it's ok to hit a child. That's like a 60 foot tall giant hitting an adult. If it's wrong for an adult to hit an adult it's 100 times more wrong for an adult to hit a defenseless child. What could be more terrifying than being in position where someone who is the source of your security in life is physically harming you and you cannot escape. The mere though of it should bring disgust to anyone, it's traumatising.
Remember it used to be socially acceptible for a man to hit his wife for not complying with his wishes. It wasn't right then and it still isn't right now. Violence is never justified except in the extremes of self-defence.
Spartans basically exposed all children, the ones who survived were deemed not weak, their idea of schooling was to beat the crap out of children then send them out with a knife to opress some Helots.
with regards to your point:
"Some women still emotionally reject their children, and most of those women do not spank them."
All six of the child-rearing categories (Infanticidal, Abandoning, Ambivalent, Intrusive, Socialising, Helping) still coexist today it's not like everyone has suddenly changed but there has been a clear progression towards the more psychologically healthy methods.
and:
"What does this have to do with spanking?"
Spanking, as you describe it, by loving, caring parents, who in your view are being criminalized are found leaning from the "helping" mode towards the "socializing" mode if you can see it as a continuum. I say they are being criminalized in your view because I don't see someone who hits a child to teach them a lesson as the victim in the situation, the victim is the child who has been spanked when it's completely unnecessary to use physical punishment as a greater and greater number of parents are proving. I'm not a fan of any sort of consequence which is chosed deliberately because it is unpleasant but even time outs and such like are miles ahead of hitting.
We can't say violence is wrong between adults then say it's ok to hit a child. That's like a 60 foot tall giant hitting an adult. If it's wrong for an adult to hit an adult it's 100 times more wrong for an adult to hit a defenseless child. What could be more terrifying than being in position where someone who is the source of your security in life is physically harming you and you cannot escape. The mere though of it should bring disgust to anyone, it's traumatising.
Remember it used to be socially acceptible for a man to hit his wife for not complying with his wishes. It wasn't right then and it still isn't right now. Violence is never justified except in the extremes of self-defence.
Last edited: