Correlation is not causality.

It's also brought out in similar studies that the top predictor of bullying in children is poor communication skills. It may be that a child

It's also a major assumption that violence is always wrong. The school yard is a tough place, and so is life in many cases. I'd rather my kids punch a bully back then come to me crying, though I'd be very upset to find my kids the bully. (and pretty surprised too, they are half not big kids)

Lone Cabbage: you are right about some things, but I think the focus here is on the damage to the parent-child relationship.

Kids are very dependent on their parents. We forget how scary this is. Kids need to trust their caretakers.

The goal is to take kids from powerlessness to self-empowerment. Trust and identification with parents are essential to developing a sense of competence and trust that the world is good.

Spanking does not serve this long-term goal.

Spanking is only useful with very small children, as Pavlovian conditioning for avoidance of danger. And usually it's just a smack.

It is no longer useful once the child starts becoming a little human with their own will.

(That does NOT mean parents of still-irrational pre-schoolers should waste their time with long rational explanations, or with trying to get assent from the child, as many PC non-spankers do in their narcissistic projection. Just pick the kid up and say "NO".)

Ben-David: Yes, if a child can reason, spanking is basically pointless. With a few exceptions. We tend only to spank (quick shocking but painless slap), in response to the child hitting either parent or a smaller child.

Lesson: There is always someone bigger than you. Think before you hit.

"Compared with children who were not hit, those who were spanked were more likely to be defiant, demand immediate satisfaction of their wants and needs, get frustrated easily, have temper tantrums and lash out physically against others."

Which is probably why they're getting spanked, not due to the fact they are being spanked.

Amy, please consider using a plugin for subscribing to comments. I found one you can use here for the movable type platform: http://plugins.movabletype.org/comment-subscribe/

Your return readership will increase, and comment sections will be more lively when people know a new comment has been made on a post they're following.

My parents spanked us. With a wooden paddle. On our bare butts. When we were little. I think the spankings stopped around 3rd grade or so, when it was more effective to be sent to our rooms and/or grounded. I'm not a violent person by any means; I'd rather walk away than argue or fight with someone.

I spanked my girls maybe 3 or 4 times in their entire lives. Once when #1 was almost 3, and ran into the road without looking both ways first. Smacked her right on the behind, one time. That was enough. Number 2 was a little tougher. I had to spank her more than once just to get her attention. Not proud of that, either. But that's just the kind of kid she is. She'd rather push back than just do what she'd been told. She's better now, but it was touch and go there for a while. I get better results taking away privileges.

No, it said the study accounted for differences:

"And because her group also accounted for varying levels of natural aggression in children, the researchers are confident that "it's not just that children who are more aggressive are more likely to be spanked."

The most salient point is that spanking doesn't teach anything. The child doesn't learn why what he/she did is wrong, just that a parent will hit them. I agree with Ben-David that spanking is only effective with very young children to ward off danger, and then, just a swat. After children are old enough to reason, they respond better to punishments that are directly related to what they did, ideally a natural consequence, and having a discussion once when they're calm.

I have to agree with you and your concern. What kind of parent would hit their kids to teach them this is wrong. I hope in few generations this violent upbringing will stop as it already did for a great share of families in the western world but we still se a lot of exceptions where the parents hit their kids to educate them. Poor souls (parents&their kids)

One of my little brothers was a biter at about age 5.

Bit dozens of kids in sunday school, so many infact that he was banned, and when kept in his mothers class bit a number of ladies there as well.

Bitch had no problem smacking me around but would never lay a hand on "her" child

This went on for six months with groundings, explinations, and timeouts, then he bit me, so I bit him - he never bit any one again.

sometimes applying force is the only option.

Luj, biting him back was consequential. It taught him the lesson in a way that someone else hitting his butt wouldn't have.

If a child doesn't eat his food, he goes hungry. If he loses a toy, he has to do without it. If he bites someone, he may get bit back. These are lessons that children learn through the natural consequnces of their actions. It's much more effective than spanking. With spanking, a child only learns that they can make mom or dad mad enough to hit them, but they often don't understand why, and in the worst cases, the spankings are inconsistent and almost random. One day, they do something and get hit for it, the next time, nothing happens. This doesn't teach anything but that adults are erratic and aggressive.

Really? Were the spanked kids more aggressive to begin with, and that's why they were spanked? I really fail to see how you "control" for innate aggression in 3 year olds. How on earth is that something you can quantify? Were they in daycare, because that's been "proven" to up aggressiveness too.

Of course, there are plenty of studies showing good outcomes for spanking, too, but Amy and others like to selectively ignore those. Here's one

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,581882,00.html

What sort of society would imprison people to teach them kidnapping is wrong? What sort of society would kill people to teach murder is wrong? What sort of society would say a glass of wine is ok for mommy and daddy and not for you? What sort of society would say the shitty 32 year old driver can have a liscense, but not the good 15 year old driver? We can do this all day.

Kids were much better behaved when I was young. That doesn't prove that spanking was the cause, or was responsible for the better manners of my era, but Amy wouldn't have been able to write her book if manners were now what they were then.

I'll go with experience on this one, sorry. You get what you tolerate.

Spanking sets up a viscious cycle. I've rarely met a child abuser who didn't first try to blame it on their child being unmanageable. Kids learn what their parents model. If you're aggressive, they'll be aggressive, and then you'll feel even more justified spanking them because they're "so hard to control."

Yes, there are children with difficult personalities, but I've never met one that HAD to be spanked.

There's just no good reason to discipline that way when there are effective, less violent measures. Unfortunately, this has become something of a christian battlecry, as if spanking is condoned by God, and government is trying to take this "right" away from parents.

Lovely's got the magic words:

natural consequnces

- - - - - - - - -
Bingo!
Because you're supposed to be working yourself out of the job of parenting, as you teach your kids how life works, and help them build more and more self-mastery = ability to choose for themselves.

Plus "your actions have consequences" builds towards a sense of efficacy and competency, rather than fearful compliance.

Anyone else wonder what these kids are going to grow up and do for attention when the parents did this: "denying the child any attention, praise or interaction with parents for a specified period of time (that is, the parents ignore the child)"?

Unfortunately, this has become something of a christian battlecry, as if spanking is condoned by God, and government is trying to take this "right" away from parents.

Well, that book of theirs does say "...spare the rod and spoil the child." As in, "if you don't discipline the child, and the child will willfully misbehave". The manner of discipline is chosen by the parents, of course, and most reasonable parents will more than likely do their best to try to discipline without violence.

I think that today, though, with more adults publicly getting away with unacceptable behavior, a lot of kids have the idea that they can get away with whatever they want, as well. Parents can set the best example in the world, but when their kids are exposed to other, outside influences, all bets are off. Kids will make up their own minds as they get older. Parents can only do the best they can, and hope it takes. Whether it does or not is ultimately up to the individual.

Oh please, M4, they're referring to brief timeouts. That's not going to hurt a child.

Spanking is a kind of attention. Many kids purposely act out figuring negative attention is better than no attention at all.

You sound like a very intelligent, good mom in all other respects. Why do you feel you have to spank rather than time-outs?

LS, are you REALLY saying biting a little kid is okay, but spanking not? I (and CPS) consider one of those abuse, and it's not spanking.

I've spanked. It's one tool in my arsenal of consequences. My twins have tested as gifted (IQ over 130), do great in school, are outgoing and warm and friendly, are not violent, and are so well behaved their teachers ask to clone them and other parents in the schoolyard vie to have them in their groups on feild trips. The other 2 are younger but seem on the same track. My nephew has never been spanked, and until he got moved to a better in-home daycare, he was aggressive as hell. Getting beat repeatedly as a kid will have consequences. Appropriate spanking will too-positive ones.

I spank sometimes because time-outs don't work on my kids. I see no difference whatsoever in literally forcing a child to stay somewhere and in smacking the butt. Mostly, I've spanked for safety things that will kill them very quickly-going in the road (had to spank once on that, and once only) and the like. I don't seem like a good parent, I am a good one. The proof is in the pudding when it comes to parenting.

Spanking is a kind of attention. That's why foster parents would rather have an abused kid than a neglected one-lack of attention is very, very bad on the psyche. Ignoring your kid when they misbehave can be damaging-just as much so as the odd swat on the butt.

A kid biting another kid is different. Obviously, I wasn't suggesting parents do it. The kid (Luj) taught the other kid the law of natural consequences.

Your spanking has nothing to do with your children's giftedness, so don't make that correlation. Perhaps you are just lucky enough to have smart, easygoing kids, which should mean that you don't spank often (I hope).

Gifted kids, however, will push the hell out of your buttons, and you can't keep spanking them as they get older (and smarter and bigger), so you should explore some other methods.

He was under 5 and I was over 16 lovelysoul

My kids like going to their room. Kids are not one size fits all. Being gifted doesn't have a thing to do with spanking. It has one hell of a lot to do with me, though, as one's capacity for intelligence seems to be inherited from the mother. Which would explain the freackin' imbecilic kids many smart rich men make with bimbos.

lol, Luj. Well, still underage. It worked, right?

And wouldn't a kid biting another kid to teach the first kid biting has consequences BE one of those acts of aggression you're decrying? Much less a nearly grown adult, or adult?

"Which would explain the freackin' imbecilic kids many smart rich men make with bimbos."

Uh, was that a dig at me? lol

My son's IQ is 155, and my daughter's is 140, for the record. I know a little something about giftedness.

If your kids like their rooms, put them in a corner for a few minutes, or find some privilege to take away. Spanking is the lazy way out.

It's true that spanking a kid teaches them to fear their parents. But maybe that is the point? The idea that a little fear is a good thing?

I think it also depends on how and for what level of offense the spankings are adminstered. Spanking for every offense is wrong. And spanking as a punishment should end at some point in the child's life.

As little kids, my sister and I were spanked when we misbehaved. We were always told what we'd done wrong and why we were being spanked. Spankings were administered by hand only (no switches, boards, or implements of any kind). And we weren't spanked for every little misdeed, only for major ones. And we were usually warned in advance so the anticipation was always worse than the actual punishment.

Around five or six years of age, we went to our parents and told them we were too old to be spanked. They listened and agreed. Our spanking punishments were changed to groundings and extra chores.

And my dad was an expert at finding work around the house for kids who needed to be kept busy - pulling weeds, scrapping paint, raking leaves, etc. Tom Sawyer's aunt had nothing on him.

No, LS, it was not a dig at you. Are you a bimbo? I wouldn't think so.

Spanking is not the lazy way out, just like parents who don't spank aren't all lazy parents with bratty kids either. It's a tool. Works for some, not for others. Do not presume to tell me how to raise my kids. After all, I hardly think a swat on the butt is nearly so violent or barbaric as ripping the skin off a helpless newborn baby's very sensitive male organ simply because you prefer the look of it sans skin.

what I always wonder is how the parents spank.

Some parents are careful to not spank when angry and not in public, and on the but.

Other parents just scream and hit you on the arms and back.

Some argue that using a ping pong paddle is better - it is wide and slow moving due to wind resistance, and also the child does not associate your hands with pain. I don't know about that, maybe it's true.

My parents did it wrong, that doesn't mean there is not a right way. I'm never having kids though so I don't have to worry about messing them up.

It does depend on the degree and whether spanking is done in anger or not. At best, it should be used very sparingly, not as the main form of punishment.

And, M4, I'm not trying to tell you how to raise your kids, but as a mom of two gifted kids myself, I'm suggesting that spanking won't cut it for long. Now that they're little, it may work for you, but gifted kids are better behaved when you use reason rather than force. As they get older and smarter, it can become a real battle of wills to parent a gifted child, so you'd be doing yourself a favor to explore other disciplinary methods and start putting them in place now. You're not going to be stronger than them forever.

I spanked my son a few times, and my ex was always ready to spank, but I regret that. As he got older, I found that reasoning with him was so much better than bullying him into submission. He had to deal with bullies at school, he sure didn't need those tactics at home.

Without knowing more than what was posted, this appears to yet another very sloppy study making very sloppy conclusions.

Amy, have you read Judith Rich Harris's book(s)?

I think you'd enjoy her work.

Didn't we have this debate a few weeks or months ago?

...this appears to yet another very sloppy study making very sloppy conclusions.

These types of studies, usually done by a social sciences major with only one or two basic statistics classes, tend to fall into the trap of equating correlation with causality. Just because two things happen together more often than not, does not mean one causes the other. It's sloppy statistics (and sloppy science) to conclude causality from a correlation study.

The correlation does raise interesting questions, however. But it doesn't prove anything.

And the sample size of 2,500 seems small to me. As did the same sample size in the last two studies we debated.

My problem with spanking is that it can too easily transition into abuse. The parent is often angry when the spanking occurs and if the child continues to cry, the hits get harder. Not only that spanking a kid for crying is just wrong. Then spanking teenagers opens a whole psycho-sexual can of worms. I was a victem of such abuse back in the 1960's and it did me no bit of good, only resulting in a lifetime of depression.

Lovely to momof4:
M4, I'm not trying to tell you how to raise your kids, but as a mom of two gifted kids myself, I'm suggesting that spanking won't cut it for long. Now that they're little, it may work for you, but gifted kids are better behaved when you use reason rather than force. As they get older and smarter, it can become a real battle of wills to parent a gifted child, so you'd be doing yourself a favor to explore other disciplinary methods and start putting them in place now. You're not going to be stronger than them forever.
- - - - - - - - -

... more to the point - if your kids are gifted, that means they are more perceptive and better than most kids at making cause and effect connections.

So what educational goal is served by spanking?

Again: the long term goal is to produce humans who INDEPENDENTLY do what is right.

All parental authority is, in this long view, a temporary scaffolding.

Gifted kid = less need for scaffolding until a kid "gets" a larger picture. Yes, I know very well that intellectual gifts do not correlate to emotional maturity. But they do correlate to an ability to figure out the cause and effect of "my actions have consequences"

Beyond very young kids, spanking is one of the most EDUCATIONALLY impoverished ways for parents to discipline kids. If you have a kid that is quicker than most to understand things - shouldn't you be using "informationally richer" parenting tools that build on your child's gifts?

I'll never forget years ago watching in horror as my sister in law dragged her son in another room with tears in her eyes telling him this was going to hurt her as much as it hurt him. He was 6. His infraction? He was too slow to respond when called in from the yard which was considered extremely disrespecful. I attempted to intervene but it didn't help.
I never hit my kids, ever. My former in-laws told me I was a horrible mother for sparing the rod. I always told them the proof was in the pudding and I have 3 very nice kids who are far from perfect, but pretty nice people. And btw, my ex was an abusive pig and so was his father, so was it any wonder they thought that hitting a kid was showing love?

If you're spanking them "frequently", as that report suggests, well... to use internet speak "ur doin it rong".

I can recall being spanked, as a child, twice. And because it was so uncommon it was very effective and had no correlation to any violent tendencies.

My parents were both spanked as children. Not anything close to abuse, but just spankings as punishment like we're talking about here. Both decided independently not to spank their children (or child, really, since they had only me). I remember once when I was a kid my mom saying she couldn't imagine hitting a child, in anger or otherwise. I think that's my big problem with spanking. You're not supposed to do it in anger (so the advocates tell us), but if it's not in anger, it's been coldly and rationally thought out. How is that better? I absolutely do not believe that spanking equals abuse or that spanking will always lead to abuse, but how can someone coldly hit a child? I can't even fathom it.

Conan's right, there are other forms of discipline for kids who aren't affected by being sent to their rooms. This was my parents' method, because even if I was sent to my room with no books, I had an active enough imagination that I could still entertain myself. They wanted to make sure I knew I had to do something unpleasant as a consequence of whatever it was I had done. Today, I am a thoughtful, rational, caring person. Maybe just correlation, but haven't we all pretty much agreed that most children are a product of their parenting?

I get what some of you are saying about spanking. My grandmother swatted me on the back of the legs once when I was throwing a fit (I was three, I think, and I wouldn't wear shorts without pockets and was having a brief freak-out about it). It sure got my attention and it didn't really even hurt, it just surprised me enough to calm down. I can understand the use of swats like that. I can't really understand a well thought-out plan to spank. I can't help thinking that there will always be a better way.

As for the study accounting for things like the child being aggressive anyway, I interpreted the article as meaning that they weeded out some of that data. That, or there was some sort of formula that gave less weight to those cases. I haven't seen the actual parameters of the study, but I'm looking. It's interesting to me that there is so much digging in of heels when it comes to studies on spanking not working. Not that it's horrible and wrong, but that it doesn't work. There is mounting evidence that it doesn't work and that there are more effective forms of discipline, but it's like people desperately want to justify their own parenting styles. I get that, really. But it seems to me there is much scoffing that "correlation doesn't imply causality," which is what I was trained to look for in all my psych classes. This study jumped out at me because the people seemed to realize that and are presenting their evidence anyway because they believe that there is causality. That's why I sent Amy that study and not others I've read recently.

And because it was so uncommon it was very effective and had no correlation to any violent tendencies.

Meaning that your violent tendencies didn't stem from the spankings?

Bah. Sounds, as stated above, very much like a poorly designed / executed study. "This study controls for the most common risk factors that people tend to think of as being associated with aggression..." - like....heredity? Maybe? Think that perhaps parents who spank may be, just maybe, a little more aggressive than those that do not? And that impulse to react physically might be something that is transmitted genetically?

Not saying that is the whole answer, but that this study apparently does not actually "control" for external influences. At least not well.

All of you who will never hit:

How will you prepare your kid for being hit by some thug?

There is no way to tell someone about it. If you treat your youngsters like china dolls, they can and will go to pieces if they are attacked in the slightest.

And as adults, they will call the police rather than talk to you - and they will get laws passed to make sure what you do is illegal, so they can continue to call police to deal with it. Apparently, they also develop the fantasy that passing a law solves a problem. Where do you think thousands of laws come from?

MO4: "I don't seem like a good parent, I am a good one."

"Being gifted . . . has one hell of a lot to do with me, though, as one's capacity for intelligence seems to be inherited from the mother."
____________________
Good grief! Have you considered a little humility to go along with that ego? Sheesh!

"The proof is in the pudding when it comes to parenting."

Not necessarily. I know several sets of parents who did everything right (IMO of course) and still have a child go waaaay off the rails. I also have seen the worst excuses for adults produce remarkable children. Your statement *might* have merit were you the only influence on your children, but you aren't.

. . . and that's a good thing for your kids - and mine too, for that matter.

"How will you prepare your kid for being hit by some thug?"

I don't believe that spanking and teaching your child to defend him/herself is even close to being on the same page.

I grew up with a father who didn't (doesn't) understand the concept of reasoning out issues. It's his way or you get called any number of names, and you're physically threatened. My mom is the opposite. I somehow manage to make it through my life 1) without fighting with everyone I meet 2) without getting regularly hit by thugs.

However I will say this: Boys grow up pushing each other around, and I think this is okay. I was on the train a few months back and some miserable old SOB started pushing me - right into the person in front of me. The train was still moving and the doors were closed: there was NO WHERE for me to move. He was just pushing. I asked him to stop and he kept pushing - then said "move your ass"! In retrospect, I shoulda smacked him. Especially since I've since learned he pushes women on the train all the time. He'll push you out of his way to get on the train before you, etc. If I smacked him it would have been defensible, and clearly, he doesn't respond to verbal requests to stop. Also, after it happened I didn't want to make a fuss so I just moved on.

I didn't react strongly enough b/c I was *too surprised*. I didn't know what to do! It was the first time something like that ever happened and I didn't want to make a big stink. After talking to some people about it, most of the guys were like "why didn't you push him back?!". Well, it didn't occur to me! I was too shocked! But it seems it's a girl vs. guy thing: if you don't grow up getting pushed around and smacked in the face, it probably won't be your natural reaction to do that back.

But again. This has nothing to do with how parents should treat kids. It's a big fucking difference for a parent to smack a kid (emotional authority and physical power) and two kids smacking each other (social learning process and natural boy tendencies). Just some thoughts.

"Think that perhaps parents who spank may be, just maybe, a little more aggressive than those that do not? And that impulse to react physically might be something that is transmitted genetically?"

I think it would be a better argument to say that it is not genetic but maybe cultural differences in parenting styles but most probably that these parents that spank *frequently* and who are more inclined towards aggression (particularly with the children who end up violent) were they themselves raised by violent families or by one or more trauma survivors.

Everyone is genetically predisposed to aggression (aka: the "fight" response from the reptilian brain) - its where this begins to override their logic and rational thinking (hitting kids repeatedly with the opposite result, e.g. the child becomes even more unmanageable) where aggression becomes dysfunctional and at a level which would produce unpleasant long-term consequences for the children. I would say this has little to do with genetics (or even culture) and more to do with being raised in or having prolonged exposure to a dysfunctional family environment for a moderate to long period of time.

People who are from these environments and who have not done the appropriate therapy work are in no position to deal with the amount of energy and egocentricity that children bring to the table (because ALL kids are like this) without defaulting back to their early family systems and their misplaced aggressive fight-type behaviors.

I dont believe genetics is the place to start for parents that:

a) Hit their child frequently and;
b) Wind up with problem/violent children

From my personal experience, this study may not have all the factors but these outcomes cannot be dismissed. I think as someone said above - it's frequency. I also agree with everything Ben-David and LS said too.

"I didn't react strongly enough b/c I was *too surprised*. I didn't know what to do! It was the first time something like that ever happened and I didn't want to make a big stink. After talking to some people about it, most of the guys were like "why didn't you push him back?!". Well, it didn't occur to me! I was too shocked! "

For me, getting *spanked* by my parent(s) (and worse) repeatedly gave me the freeze response when I encountered aggression later on in my life instead of a fight response. There is a second component to this (male vs female) that I noticed for me, that showing aggression as a woman in our culture is deemed "unlady-like", so that was the second deterrent to aggression I later observed.

Hitting in a dysfunctional way causes great harm to children. Violent kids become perps, and generally speaking, the ones that take the other route (like me) are more prone to become victims later in life.

Ugh, I just really think people should stop and think about it before they use physical discipline on children.

How will you prepare your kid for being hit by some thug?

That should be completely separate from administering discipline. Karate, boxing, football, and baseball all teach kids how to take a punch or get hit. And they don't develop a lifelong resentment of you from it.

Do you really want your kid in the playground getting punched by a bully and laughing as he says in front of the entire school, "That all you got? My old man hits harder than that." Unless you're raising John Bender, I think not.

"How will you prepare your kid for being hit by some thug?

There is no way to tell someone about it. If you treat your youngsters like china dolls, they can and will go to pieces if they are attacked in the slightest."

Are you serious? Well, then, how will I prepare my daughter to be raped - by raping her?

The family should be the soft spot to fall for kids. The world teaches enough toughness on its own. Let children be loved and nurtured by their parents while they're still innocent. They should have a peaceful, quiet, non-violent upbringing.

The most abusive parents I've met as a GAL justified it by saying they were "teaching" their child to be "tough". Unfortunately, these have usually been men...who were probably, themselves, "taught to be tough" through militant-style discipline. It doesn't usually have a good outcome, unless your goal is to raise an emotionally cold, disconnected human being.

Violence, in any form, has no place in parenting or the family. That includes parents who scream and yell. They may never place a hand on their child, but they are causing harm by engaging in verbal aggression and abuse. Actually, I think kids who grow up with tons of yelling, screaming, and cursing do far worse than those who might get an occassional swat on the butt.

But the point is that ANY violence - spanking or verbal aggression - is potentially toxic to a child. It's like asbestos or lead paint. We don't how how much it takes to cause harm, and some kids may not suffer any effect at all, but WHY would you purposely choose to have it in your home?

Disclaimer: I am not an actual parent.

I am, however, a member of society, and I do wonder about which is the cause and which is the effect in these statistics.

In other words, do aggressive kids by their nature get more spankings, resulting in statistics that show the spanked kids are the aggressive kids, without the spanking causing the aggression?

If less aggressive kids don't get spankings to begin with, doesn't that screw up the data by putting ONLY aggressive kids in the study group?

They say that there are only two kinds of people in prison.

Those who were hit to much growing up.
And
Those who weren't hit enough.

Its a gross oversimplification.

But discipline is not a gentle process.

Ask your parents how THEY were disciplined, ask your grandparents how THEY were, and those of you lucky enough if any, ask your great grandparents.

Picking switches and spanking didn't ruin children or society then, and it won't ruin either of them now.

Arguing that giving a kid a little tap on the butt for being mean to a sibling or destructive to the house will turn them into a violent thug, is the same sort of idiocy that says that giving children toy guns now will make them prone to gun violence later.

Nothing ever brought me back into line as a child like my mother's words, "Wait until your father gets home."

I grew up just fine. Without that discipline, I have no doubt about how I might have turned out. The phrase "not good" comes immediately to mind.

There is a BIG difference between spanking and abuse.

If you treat your youngsters like china dolls, they can and will go to pieces if they are attacked in the slightest.

There's no middle ground between hitting your child and treating him like a china doll? Odd view of parenting you have there. I was never spanked and was taught not to hit other people. But I was sure as hell taught that I should defend myself. Even as a child, I had no problem pushing back if pushed, and I was short and scrawny with big glasses so I got picked on a lot. My classmates at one time even named a particularly virulent strain of cooties after me. My mom and dad made it clear that it was not okay to let myself get pushed around, and they made me try to take care of things myself before coming to them. I've never been in a real physical altercation as an adult, but I know that I would not hesitate to defend myself if need be. I'm pretty scrappy. So, yes, you can prepare your child for the world without hitting him.

Picking switches and spanking didn't ruin children or society then, and it won't ruin either of them now.

What the article is saying is that there are better and more effective ways to discipline, not that spanking will be the death of Western society as we know it.

As far as disciplining goes, a favorite example of mine is this one posted here a while back. A mother cancelled her daughter's birthday party for being a little hellion. The daughter later tearfully told her that it hurt her feelings that her mommy did that. The mother's response? "Good." That's a good lesson. The girl knew what would happen if she acted up, she acted up anyway and had to face the consequence. Then she learned that punishments are supposed to be hard on her. As the mom said, "If you weren't upset, it didn't teach you anything."

"Picking switches and spanking didn't ruin children or society then, and it won't ruin either of them now"

Robert..how noble a goal.

So the data shows spanking
1. could be helpful
2. might be harmful

Unless you know for sure, why would you?
Hit a child. Really?

Why the equivocation? Answer the question:

How will you prepare your kid for being hit by some thug?

I ask this because there is a difference, a fundamental one, between the discipline demanded by a loved one and violence. You must make it clear.

"Organized sports" is not the complete answer, because they have rules which are enforced. Neither is "violence has no place" - because the media tells your kids constantly that guns make them rulers, that shooting people gets you ahead, that getting even beats anything else.

There is no such thing as "human rights" except those dispensed by humans. Animals, some of which walk on two legs, do not give a damn about your sense of style or some pie-in-the-sky fantasy you have about justice. Have any of you noticed that criminals do not obey rules, no matter what you call them? The operative syllable in the term, "law enforcement" is force.

Don't miss that. Don't even blink at that. It's true, and if you haven't thought about it, you're missing a helluva lot more than whether somebody else beats their kids.

Your gentle, tender, innocent and unassuming model citizens can be victimized by some thug. Preparing them is no bigger a deal than teaching them where meat and fish come from, how to earn a living or save money - but some don't have the stomach to tell the truth.

This isn't just about guns. Follow its link to "A Nation of Cowards".

Robert I come from a culture prone to this type of discipline (Ukraine). Ive seen no positive effects from such upbringing. I also very much doubt that the line between discipline and abuse is often walked by people prone to use violence as a teaching tool. What i have seen is generations of progressively more violent and unbalanced people. Those who had parents who use violence instead of words rarely learned to solve problems diplomatically and rationally and instead HAVE to use violence to raise their kids regardless if it will lead to the best outcome in that situation or for that individual child. You know the saying "when all you have is a hammer" dont you. You know what happens when a parent who only knows phisical disipline has a kid who doesnt respond to violence? A kid who reasons that violence is for training mindless animals and not for raising people. The parent uses MORE violence. My folks started with spankings and graduated to beating me until i couldnt stand up. I had to get dental work done twice because of my father. You know what my mother said when beating me turned me from a straight A student/envy of every relative/neighbor to a 22 year old high-school drop out diagnosed with major depression, anxiety, and hypersomnia (had to sleep at least 14 hours a day every day felt tired all the time)? She didnt beat me hard enought.

Im seeing the same thing happen to my little cousin Misha. I use to baby sit the little guy. He started out as quite, shy, polite, and well behaved kid and quickly became an out of control monster. His parents are well educated people with masters degrees. They have lots of money and live in a big house in a nice neighborhood. Whats happening is they work a lot and have a long commune to and from work. They are tired and dont have the time or energy to properly raise a young child. So what do they do? They turn to trusty physical discipline of course. The problem wasnt lack of physical discipline so the solution isnt more physical discipline but its how they were raised and what they know best. What they get in return is a little monster who terrorizes everyone at home/school and who i no longer babysit despite the fact that he still likes me and his parents want me to. Why? Because while he gave me no trouble long after he started terrorizing everyone i can no longer deal with him. A few hours of my time a week can not undo the damage done to him and i dont enjoy exercises in futility. I use to be able to teach him math and the alphabet and not the bullshit trick/bribe the kid into sitting still for 10 minutes way. We would play some ball or watch a movie and then i would get out some paper and we would study for a half hour to an hour. I could get more knowledge into him in a week than his mother did in months. Now i cant even get him to learn the rules for a card game that he asked me to teach him. Now he hits me and wreaks my stuff and cant behave himself for a minute. Guess what his parents are doing now that he is like this? Why drugging him of course. Obviously they dont advertise it but there is no way that i can not notice it.

Raising kids is exhausting and time consuming. Beating kids is fast and easy. Ask yourself when have you known the easy way to be the best way.

Sorry that my post is so long. This is obviously an emotional issue for me so my thoughts are all over the place.

Humility is stupid when worth is proven. But yes, let's say I am a horrible mother with future felons for kids because I have smacked their butts on occasion. If you know a 2 year old that can reason out why going in the street to get __ is dangerous, let me know. They must have an even higher IQ than LS's kids and Einstein (the 3 of whom are, according to LS, pretty much the same. Possible, but not probable).

In the meantime, if I can effect a pavlovian pain avoidance response to dangerous situations in my little kids, I will. Them being alive to hate me for it later is the goal, so I'll gladly suffer it if need be. Having had a marine for a dad and grown to understand him, I rather doubt they will.

Geesh, you act like I'm beating the crap out of 16 year olds with iron pipe (which may indeed be the correct method for some 16 year olds). In the words of my DH, "act like you've got a pair!" and quite worrying a little smack will lead to irrepairable harm.

Oh, and Rad, my kids are already being taught to handle things by themselves when possible so I hear you there. Coming to tattle to me results in chores, unless the offense being tattled on is egregious and dangerous in nature, which means by definition it's not tattling. Hell if my kids will cower behind the trash cans hiding from bullies at lunch when no teachers are around like a couple kids in my high school did. Nor will they quietly acquiece (sp?) while someone touches them inappropriately. They also won't BE bullies. There's a fairly wide line covering taking care of oneself, and I consider learning that area as important as being able to change a tire or perform CPR. Both of which I-and my daughters will-learned before age 16.

Rad, my kids also know where food comes from )family farms are great for that). And about sex, although at age 5 we haven't hit gay sex yet thank goodness. Hiding unpleasant truths in life from your kids is not doing them a favor. My kids know I will die, we all die eventually, hopefully when old. They also know the dozens of people who would take and raise them. I think if DH and I die there might be a custody fight FOR them, actually. But my point-and yours I think-is kids need to be prepared. We say around here at age 18 you get a scholarship or you enlist. My job is to prepare them to get to that point. Where they are strong enough not to be victimized, so they can head out into the world.

momof4 why am i not surprised that you hit your kids.

I lurk here so im familiar with the regular posters.

I think what's needed here is more anecdote - preferably, no, scratch that, ONLY those that assume and confirm what you already believe - more armchair psychologizing, and more cocksure confidence based on the above factors. What we don't want is a dispassionate discussion about data and methodology, especially about something empirical.

I get the point D and i kinda agree with you. Just remember where you are though.

For those interested in the science of the study:

I found the abstract of the study at the Pediatrics website. The full study will be available in the May issue but requires subscription to view online.

The abstract says that Maternal reports of CP, children's aggressive behaviors at 3 and 5 years of age, and a host of key demographic features and potential confounding factors, including maternal child physical maltreatment, psychological maltreatment, and neglect, intimate partner aggression victimization, stress, depression, substance use, and consideration of abortion, were assessed.*

*Catherine A. Taylor, Jennifer A. Manganello, Shawna J. Lee, and Janet C. Rice
Mothers' Spanking of 3-Year-Old Children and Subsequent Risk of Children's Aggressive Behavior
Pediatrics published online April 12, 2010 (10.1542/peds.2009-2678)

For the methods, results, and conclusions, please follow the link to the abstract.

Something else interesting: the American Academy of Pediatrics officially recommends against corporal punishment for the reasons cited in the study. They are advocates for children and a credible organization. They may just be worth listening to.

"They must have an even higher IQ than LS's kids and Einstein (the 3 of whom are, according to LS, pretty much the same. Possible, but not probable)."

I don't know why you say that. I was actually incorrect about my daughter's IQ - I said 140, but it's actually 131 (it's been a long time since grade school). But I didn't equate my children with Einstein, who, if he was ever IQ tested, would've taken something like the old Stanford-Binet test, which had higher ceilings, and he likely would've scored over 200.

My ex took that test in the 60s and scored 180, as did many other highly gifted people. It was not unusual for some to score over 200.

By contrast, the test my kids took (Stanford-Binet 4th Edition) had lower ceilings, meaning you can't score higher than a certain point. 155 is a very high score on that test. My son was in 3rd grade when tested, which was around 12 years ago.

Today, your kids probably took an even lowered ceiling test. A lot of gt parents are upset about this because they cannot really tell HOW gifted their kids are...just gifted. Some, who suspect their kids to be very highly gifted have them take the old Stanford-Binet, but it's not ideal, as it's so old, it tends to give much higher results than is accurate. So, sometimes, you will hear claims of a 200+ IQ and that's why.

Your kids may not even have been tested on the Binet. They've come up with new tests now. It seems that in our PC world, the educators don't really want to know a child's true IQ, as it might intimidate others. They're happy with a score of 130 - put them in gt classes, no need to know more.

What I'm saying is that your kids may, in fact, have a much higher IQ than 130. They may be smarter than mine. They may be smarter than Einstein. It's impossible to know because of the differences in testing.

he American Academy of Pediatrics officially recommends against corporal punishment for the reasons cited in the study.

Is this the same AAP that said pediatricians should interview their young patients in private and ask if their parents had guns in the house so they could then berate the parents for endangering their children?

Yes yes, let's listen tot he experts. They all have "studies" backing them. So stop eating fat and load up on those fruits and carbs, right?

One of my 2 majors was in sociology. I know how studies in social sciences are conducted. I am not impressed. Especially after sitting through one class where the prof was irrate that a study had shown daycares upped aggression (are all you antispankers advocating doing away with daycare too? After all, we want to raise children the best way possible, right?) so she decided to argue that increased aggression was a good thing.

I'm not saying parents should spank. I'm not saying they shouldn't. I'm saying unless you want to take their kids and raise them for them, you need to let nonabusive parents do their thing. There are enough truly beaten kids out there to worry about.

I'm not a parent so I have very little to contribute here. Other than to say - I have spanked a friend's daughter. She said she was eighteen and I saw no reason to question that!

Just trying to lighten the mood...

I know how studies in social sciences are conducted. I am not impressed.

On a more serious note M4, I agree. The social sciences are rife with poorly designed methodology, inappropriate statistical tests, lack of controls (I agree with someone way above - how the hell did they control for 'natural aggression'). To be fair, it's a hard field to conduct a controlled test in. You can't normalise conditions the way you can for laboratory mice, not without serious child abuse that would probably invalidate your results anyway. But that's no excuse for misrepresenting the results.

I think all of you are arguing at cross purposes between a smart slap on the bottom or back of the leg, and a sustained beating. I got a few of the first and learnt not to go there pretty quickly. I've also seen some kids who needed a bit more before they got the idea. People forget that humans are naturally violent, kids need to be taught that it's wrong, and brief pain/shock is how small children learn. Same as grabbing something hot. It's not violence per se. Same as hitting a dog on the nose with a rolled up newspaper. You're not beating the dog, you're getting your point across.

Dogs can't communicate. If you could say to your dog, "We don't pee on the rug, and next time you do that, you're not getting you afternoon walk," then you wouldn't need to hit it with a rolled up newspaper.

The point is that we don't know how much is too much with spanking. Almost everyone claims they rarely spank, or only use a little swat, now and then, and that may be true for many, and it probably doesn't do much harm when used sparingly. But there are people who don't know when they've crossed that line of causing emotional harm and reasonable doubt regarding where that line is.

And, like I said, when there are other non-violent and effective methods, why do it? Why take the chance? Parents who wouldn't dream of having their kids in a house with "a little" lead paint or "a little" asbestos, figure they'll take their chances that "a little" spanking won't do any harm.

I don't get that. These studies may be flawed in some ways, but there's enough there to suggest that spanking is probably not the best choice. If it was anything else, most parents would err on the side of caution.

I don't need any studies to know that it feels wrong to tell my child that I'm going to hit him to teach him a lesson. I also don't need any studies to know that if my immediate reaction to something he did was to hit that maybe I was not giving him the best life lesson. I also don't need to state my IQ to say that there are many better ways to teach children other than hitting them. And Momof4, nobody is saying you're abusive, just that maybe there's a better way.

You can't really communicate with a three year old either lovelysoul. You might think you can because they can talk, but the ability to reason and project into the future (the afternoon walk for example) just isn't there. The dog analogy holds. Of course, it's only effective if they understand the linkage between the action and the punishment. So it needs to be carefully applied of course.

Yes, you can reason with a 3 yr old, especially a bright one. My son was reading at 4, so he certainly could understand that he'd lose his favorite toy or sit in the corner for a few minutes if he misbehaved.

In fact, he was in a Montessori preschool that ran like clockwork. The teacher had every child sitting at attention, eager to learn. They were 3 to 5 yrs old. She never once hit them, and I daresay even advocates of spanking would be furious if a teacher - who has to maintain order with 20 or more kids - ever hit their young child.

So, if a teacher can manage that many toddlers without resorting to spanking, I submit that all parents should be able to do so too.

I don't hit my dog, either. Time outs are the most effective punishment for her. All good dog trainers recommend against hitting dogs as punishment. You're not teaching them anything except to be afraid of you. Dogs trained with positive reinforcement and time outs as punishment are shown to be better pets and more well-trained. I would think this would work with a three-year-old if we're continuing the dog analogy.

you need to let nonabusive parents do their thing

Even if it's shown that that way is not the best and most effective way? If there were definitive proof that spanking does not work and is in fact detrimental, would you still say this? Or even just that it doesn't work? Would you still discipline your kids this way when there are more effective ways?

I, too, want to know exactly how they were able to control for potential confounding variables, but they do explain the exact things they accounted for in the abstract I linked. Or is anybody bothering to actually read it?

I'm not saying that spanking is the ONLY tool a parent should use. But it is one with definite applications. When I was small, sometimes a spanking was used, sometimes I had toys taken away, it depended upon what I'd done.

Some of you have suggested that the impact of a spanking is "uncertain".

I'd say that this is a rather stupid assertion. Why? Because we DO know. Chances are every single one of your grandparents was subject to that form of discipline. So what was the impact? An independent self reliant and generally moral society. Not perfect certainly, but improving. We didn't see a nation of violent criminals result.

And the change in disciplinary methods in the 1950s that raised the generation of children to their teen years by the 1960s has resulted in what? Progressively WORSE social standards. That is what we DO KNOW.

We have to keep in mind here, few children are so consistently problematic in their behavior that they get spanked every day of their young lives.

When I was a boy, it happened maybe...7 or 8 times in a year that I can recall, if that much.

How can anyone say it is "easy" to hit their child?

Nothing was harder than spanking my daughter when she was throwing objects at her brother.

The phrase, "It hurts me more than it does you" is absolutely true.

Disciplining children isn't easy, nobody likes to see their children with even a scraped knee, a hurt expression, or sad in any way. But a good parent disciplines their child in the way that will reach that child best.

Some children might never need a spanking, they might be the gentlest most even tempered of children and never need more than a time out.

My little sister never needed so much as a time out, a look from our father (who I might add was THERE for our whole young lives) and she'd start crying.

Me, I was harder headed and required much harsher methods than a look. She grew up to be a Marine officer with 2 tours in Iraq, eventually leaving to marry a naval officer and settle in California in a military out placement office.

I grew up to be an Army NCO with 3 tours of duty an ongoing service. My older brother and older sister were as different as I and my younger sister, differing approaches yielded identical results in personal character.

Spanking is not always the right approach, but with some children it is the best approach. Trying to determine some magic formula that will work with every child is the same sort of marxist style idiocy as creating the "new man", and will have the same results, failure.

Leave parenting to parents, keep the government out of it.

Well, if it's such a harmless and effective way to discipline, then why don't we allow teachers to do it? Let's put spanking back in schools.

It is often easier to swat at a child than to come up with a less violent punishment, but we expect teachers to do this - to maintain discpline with large groups of kids, of varying personalities, without resorting to hitting them.

I swear, even some of the most abusive parents I've dealt with would have an absolute cow if a teacher spanked their kid! THEY can hit, but nobody else better presume to discipline their child that way.

It's a weird double standard. There are much better forms of discipline, and if a teacher can employ them while caring for 20+ kids a day, a parents can certainly employ them with a few kids at home.

Just pretend you're a teacher for one week, and you're not allowed to hit. You may be surprised at the other forms of discipline that will work.

That is the ONLY reason I ever spanked - because I didn't know better. As a new mom, I had no training and hadn't learned much about other forms of discipline - how to distract a child, who's having a tantrum, etc.

It was my mom - a preschool teacher - who showed me that it can be done without spanking. Believe me, she had some difficult to manage kids in her 45 years of teaching. If she could handle whole classrooms of kids without spanking, no parent has a valid excuse.

We can play this all day. One person never spanked their kids, and their kids turned out great. Another person spanked from time to time, and their kids also turned out great. Which leads me to believe that spanking is not the huge freaking deal we want to think it is. Beating does not equal spanking. Some kids need a tap on the ass. Some kids don't. Some parents become abusers. Some parents don't. Some kids laugh at you when you threaten a "time-out." Other kids learn best that way.

I had a conversation with my husband about discipline methods, and he tried to get me to promise that I would never spank our future children. I refused. This was before we were married, so I gave him the option of not marrying me if this disturbed him, but I reserved the right to spank if it seemed appropriate. All kids are different. They deserve parents who can respond appropriately to them.

All of this made me think of my mother, who never spanked me, but she did chase me around the house with a rolling pin from time to time. I hid in the bathtub and never got spanked because I was too fast and hid too well. This sounds pretty awful, but I laugh now thinking of it. My mother was not defined by her willingness to chase me around with a stick, nor was my childhood.

Late, but:

Dr. John Rosemond wrote: "To spank or not to spank is not the question. The question is: Does a particular punishment stop the bad behavior from recurring, or not?"

And, obviously, anyone who's spanking a preschooler constantly is not seeing the behavior stop - or lessen.