Spend an afternoon in the supermarket where I work, listening to the average of one really loud scream or tantrum every 10 minutes because asshole parents bring brats who won't behave and won't even try to make them. Then tell me with a straight face that spanking is a bad idea.

It might help if you first name something that works better.

“And so spanking persists, even though it can neither be defended on the basis of the available empirical data nor on the basis of sound psychological theorizing.”

Sound psycological theorizing......what the fuck is this? and please point to where I can figure out how to recognize it independently from some snooty psycologist telling me that is what he is *doing.*

Maybe a legitimate study would seperate out and eliminate from the study, both kids who dont respond to any kind of discipline, and parents who are actually beating kids rather than spanking them.

Then with the group of spanked (but not beaten) kids, and a group of unspanked kids, hand the data over to another set of researchers and see if they could discern from observation which kids were spanked, and which were not, and what the negative effects were, without knowing which were which.

Would that be too scientific for ya?
Then after pulling the abisers out, and the kids

I know correlation is not causation, but the decline in spanking is correlated to rise in helicopter parenting as well as the rise in snowflake young adulthood as seen at Yale and all over.

And I also think there is a difference between an occasional spanking and beating your kids.

If those kids don't like it they can drop out of kindergarten and get a job and pay their own damn rent.

With spanking as with guns, football, the military, and comic book super heroes: America, born in war, has an ongoing romance with violence.

"Of course, life has not caught up with the research findings."

Wow. It's the other way around.

I also want to know how you get the attention of a being totally incapable of reasoning, with an endocrine system flooding it with demands on a random basis.

Wow. Look at all the defensive parents. "How dare you tell me I didn't raise my kids right when I spanked them!"

jdgalt: It might help if you first name something that works better.

You reason with kids by laying out their crime and then the consequences. If you've ever watched those nannying reality shows, like Nanny 911 and Supernanny, you'll see that there are ways to inflict penalties that don't involve beating.

Isab: and parents who are actually beating kids rather than spanking them.

This was laugh out loud hilarious. This is an attempt to create a distinction where none exists. I would consider myself duly enlightened, Isab, if you could explain to me how you can spank a child without beating it. Is there some form of spanking that I've never heard of that doesn't involve making violent physical contact?

There is no distinction between spanking and beating. At best, you might consider spanking to be a subset of beating, defined only by the severity.

Jerry: And I also think there is a difference between an occasional spanking and beating your kids.

No. There isn't.

You might consider spanking to be a mild form of beating, but you cannot spank a child without beating it.

Crid: Clucking. Like a hen, this clucks.

While I've given up on expecting you to say anything meaningful, I can least applaud the fact that you managed to say nothing in six words, as opposed to your usual M.O. of saying nothing in sixty-thousand words.

Radwaste: I also want to know how you get the attention of a being totally incapable of reasoning...

Rad, I've come to the conclusion that you should simply stop talking about children completely. Every single time you mention them, you embarrass yourself silly.

You persist in sagely peeping that "children have no rights as enumerated by the Constitution," despite the fact that children aren't even mentioned by the Constitution as distinct from adults, and despite the fact that the Supreme Court clearly alluded to their Constitutional rights in the Tinker v. Des Moines decision.

And despite the fact that you know this, you, like Sean Hannity, continue to spout bullshit that has clearly been proven wrong to you, because admitting you were wrong is an irredeemable loss of face in your mind, and because you don't feel that children should have constitutional rights, even though they do.

Children are not "utterly incapable of reasoning." They're human beings. As such, they can reason. Yes, their capacity is not as developed -- hopefully, that increases with fullness of years and education -- but they do understand the concept of actions and consequences.

Amy, I think spanking persists simply because it's a faster solution. A swat on the backside is a much quicker than lowering yourself to the child's level, explaining their bad behavior, then laying out the punishment.

Some time ago, I was working as a cashier at a high-end grocery store in my neighborhood. A pleasant looking young mother came through with her child, a tiny tot probably around two.

The child looked longingly at the candy rack, but the mother said, "No, Katie. It's too close to lunch time."

I continued to ring up the groceries, when I noticed that Katie was walking very slowly past my register, clutching her coat closed very tightly.

Please don't tell me I have to call management on a shoplifting two-year-old, I prayed silently.

Fortunately, Katie's mother also noticed. "Katie, what do you have inside your coat?"

"Nuffin'," Katie replied.

"Katie, please take that candy out of your coat and put it back where you found it."

Katie very slowly perp-walked back to the candy rack and placed what she had taken back on the rack. She then turned to face mommy, apparantly understanding that something bad was about to happen.

"Katie, I am very upset with you right now. You took candy when I told you no, and when I asked you about it, you lied to me. We are not going to grandma's house today like we planned."

Katie evidently loved visiting her grandmother, because the announced punishment reduced her to tears. Katie was then told to sit on the bench by the checkout, and her mother, who had lost none of her pleasantness, finished her business with me, collected her groceries, and held out her hand and pleasantly called for her daughter. Katie continued to sob as she took her mother's hand and the two left the store.

That, dear friends, is what's known as "parenting."

Yes, Katie's mother had to take a few extra seconds to compel her daughter to replace what she attempted to steal, and to lay out the crime and punishment, but she managed to get the point across to a theiving two-year-old. As opposed to the two seconds it would have taken to give her a historionic, noisy smack on the bottom.

You want to know what spanking teaches a child? That might makes right and that hitting people is how you get them to do what you want. And that mommy and daddy have severe anger management issues.

And if you brought up you child using such measures, then you will simply have to come to terms with the fact that you didn't discipline your child in the most effective manner and that you communicated bad messages to them. But you were probably doing what was done to you, whatever consolation you take from that. Although frankly, if you, as an adult, don't realize that hitting people is only justified in self-defense, I don't know what to tell you.

Let the foaming, gnashing and snarling begin!

I have to agree with Patrick's assessment here that the objections appear to be quite reactionary, which suggests people are defending their own unchangeable past parenting choices.

It is easier for them to try and defend the indefensible than to admit they might have been in error or that with additional information they could have been better parents.

Oh dear, this is going to devolve into a cut vs uncut situations, right?

"With spanking as with guns, football, the military, and comic book super heroes: America, born in war, has an ongoing romance with violence. The trenchant Christian dogma viewing children as wild sinful creatures whose will must be broken into obedience through instilling fear is undoubtedly another culprit."

Wow, what an idiot to undermine his own argument with such an ignorant, biased statements.

Thank you, Artemis. I decided to taunt the spanking apologists a bit, but you condensed it very well.

One wonders how a parent punishes a child who hits other children on the playground.

Probably snarling like a rabid beast, "You are never [whack!], never [whack!], never [whack!] to hit someone again!"

Spanking ≠ beating. That said, there is a thin line between the two. Just like the lawful execution of a convicted criminal does not equate to murder; one is a discipline process and the other is a wanton crime. Not all discipline can be effected through lectures and time outs.

Young children do not think things through. The small child who chases his ball rolling into the street is not going to be moved to caution by a lecture on the physics of a moving automobile, but might be moved to caution by the memory of a timely swat on the behind.

The trenchant Christian dogma viewing children as wild sinful creatures whose will must be broken into obedience through instilling fear is undoubtedly another culprit.

Civilization, whether Christian or other, is inherently violent, breaking mankind of its primeval instincts of self-preservation. No longer can men knock women over the head and drag them back to the cave. No longer are disputes to be settled with violence. Civilization had to break the wild animal - and it didn't do it with timeouts.

Blaming Christianity for civilization's shortcomings is in high fashion these days among hip atheists and "woke" intellectuals. Well, this one's not on Christianity. Original sin, as a doctrine, is not about beating one's kids, it's about the baser instincts of mankind being subdued for the greater good. A formal baptism ceremony initiates one into the civilized tribe.

America, born in war, has an ongoing romance with violence.

When the Saxons moved into what is today Germany, it was with love and peace offerings. And when they departed and moved into what is today England, the Angles welcomed them with open arms. Because human migration was accomplished peacefully - that is, until those brutal Americans displaced the peace-loving natives, who never fought among themselves or did anything violent.

Violence is human nature, and not uniquely or distinctly American.

Nor is spanking uniquely or distinctly American. Just ask Michael Fay. Think he'll ever vandalize a car in Singapore again?

Sixclaws Says:

"Oh dear, this is going to devolve into a cut vs uncut situations, right?"

This is a very astute observation.

I agree with you that the same way people who have circumcised their children irrationally defend the practice later in life, people who have raised their children with spanking will also irrationally defend the practice later in life.

That there are legitimate arguments against these practices and data that suggests they are harmful is not a cause for reflection for such individuals.

They are already committed so admission of wrongdoing isn't on the table.

Probably snarling like a rabid beast, "You are never [whack!], never [whack!], never [whack!] to hit someone again!" ~ Patrick at February 3, 2018 5:31 AM

What you're describing is not a spanking, it's a beating.

"America, born in war, has an ongoing romance with violence."

The guy's Israeli, by the way -- he's surely actually been in the army and is surely no stranger to violence (buses being blown up, children being murdered in their beds by Palestinian terrorists, etc.).

Conan Says:

"The small child who chases his ball rolling into the street is not going to be moved to caution by a lecture on the physics of a moving automobile, but might be moved to caution by the memory of a timely swat on the behind."

There is a fundamental difference between smacking a child's hand away from a hot stove top burner to prevent grievous injury and spanking a child out of frustration or exasperated.

It is legitimate to jerk back on a toddlers overalls as they run toward the street into oncoming traffic... it isn't legitimate to then start smacking them to make the lesson stick.

A parent who resorts to spanking out of frustration or exasperation because they are unable to use their words is a parent who could use some improvement to their parenting skills.

Conan Says:

"The small child who chases his ball rolling into the street is not going to be moved to caution by a lecture on the physics of a moving automobile, but might be moved to caution by the memory of a timely swat on the behind."

There is a fundamental difference between smacking a child's hand away from a hot stove top burner to prevent grievous injury and spanking a child out of frustration or exasperated.

It is legitimate to jerk back on a toddlers overalls as they run toward the street into oncoming traffic... it isn't legitimate to then start smacking them to make the lesson stick.

A parent who resorts to spanking out of frustration or exasperation because they are unable to use their words is a parent who could use some improvement to their parenting skills.

I added some of Alan E. Kazdin's views and advice on how to change behavior to the post. Refresh or clear your cookies and they should show up (if they aren't).

There is a fundamental difference between smacking a child's hand away from a hot stove top burner to prevent grievous injury and spanking a child out of frustration or exasperated. ~ Artemis at February 3, 2018 5:43 AM

Is there? You and Patrick have allowed no differences. "Spanking is beating" you've proclaimed as you allow no distinction in abruptly dismissing the arguments of others. Violence is violence by your position.

And "smacking" is not gently taking the child's hand and guiding it away from the hot stove top burner - "smacking" is rooted in a violent reaction. The word itself resounds with violence. Smack!

Conan: Spanking ≠ beating. That said, there is a thin line between the two.

No, there isn't. And you haven't even tried to make one. Pronouncements do not make your case.

It is not possible to spank someone without beating them. Don't believe me? Suppose someone "spanks" you. Now, suppose a different person "beats" you.

Which one is not guilty of battery?

"Oh, it's different if you're a child."

No. It's not.

And please, Conan, let's not get silly with the reasonable responses to protecting someone from an immediate threat to their lives or safety.

It sounds like a hoax story that fooled and outraged many people about a woman who hit her head and rendered herself unconscious while jumping into a lake, then sued the man who rescued her, arguing that she was helpless at the bottom of the lake and the man had full control of her.

There were furious, outraged responses before it was clear that the story was a hoax.

If I shoved you out of the way of a speeding car, unless you're a total asshole, you're not going to have me arrested for battery for shoving you.

It's no different than a response to a child running out into the road to chase his ball. Since the threat to the child's life or safety is immediate, you take an immediate response. You yank the kid out of harm's way. There will be time enough to explain safety once the kid is safe.

If a kid is about to stick a fork into an electrical outlet, you grab or swat his hand away. Lecture about safety after the immediate danger is dealt with.

We don't have different rules for children and adults in the situations you describe. An immediate response to remove someone from eminent danger, in either case, is appropriate.

It's hardly the same as telling to cut his own switch when he was caught cheating in school. The threat is not immediate.

Conan: "What you're describing is not a spanking, it's a beating."

Oh, really? What makes the difference? Was it the fact that I described three strikes, as opposed to one?

One swat on the bottom is a spanking, but three is a beating?

943 words with sarcasm for concision: Perhaps you're overwhelmed. Don't care why.

One swat on the bottom is a spanking, but three is a beating?

Patrick at February 3, 2018 6:40 AM

No. A beating leaves a bruise or a mark. Swatting a kid across the butt with an open hand with two layers of fabric between the open hand and the skin is not a beating. By any definition.
I can tell you from personal experience it is possible to hurt a child a lot more by holding their arm tightly as you try and restrain them from running into the street or knocking over an old lady.

Mild pain and surprise without lasting damage is a pretty good way to teach human beings of any age not to do stuff that will get them killed. Too often a no spanking parent is a screaming *no discipline at all* parent ineffectually wringing their hands while their klutzy offspring runs around endangering themselves and others.

Crid: 943 words with sarcasm for concision: Perhaps you're overwhelmed. Don't care why.

Interesting that you care enough to count my words, but don't care why I'm so interested in this topic.

By the way, are you including my quotes of other posters in this word count?

If you must know, I'm admittedly amused by the responses. As Artemis pointed out, it's transparent that this is rooted in defensiveness. To suggest that spanking is not okay is to suggest that those who were spanked as children weren't raised well. Or worse, that those who spanked their kids didn't raise their children well.

Yes, okay, amusement. You want us to take note of your emotional responses, and inquire as to the source of your enthusiasms

It isn't rooted in defensiveness Patrick. You are just wrong. May as well claim 2+2=3. And I suspect the study used the same definitions you use for spanking to get their foolish results.

Have you raised a child? Or is your child rearing experience based on Nanny 911?

> If you must know, I'm

Patrick, that's it exactly. No, we *mustn't* know. I don't understand your presumption that everyone is fascinated with your interior life. It began with your 1st comments here almost 20 years ago

What made you think we "must know"? The tone isn't conversational, it's solipsistic

Pronouncements do not make your case. ~ Patrick at February 3, 2018 6:40 AM

Nor does simply stating that spanking and beating are the same make yours.

Suppose I swat a child's butt if he does something wrong while telling him what he did wrong. Suppose I punch him in the face and walk away. Which is a spanking and which is a beating? Most people can readily tell the difference. And no, they're not both a beating, not matter how much you desperately want them to be.

Discipline vs. violence. Violent discipline? Yes, but disciplined violence, not random. Restrained to the point of teaching a lesson, not wild flagellating smacks from a frustrated or aggravated person. Just because a parent calls her wild flagellating smacks a "spanking" does not make it a spanking.

"Oh, it's different if you're a child." ... No. It's not. ~ Patrick at February 3, 2018 6:40 AM

Yes, it is different. The hypothetical person you have beating and spanking me is not in any way responsible for bringing me up and into adulthood.

And the people who were responsible for that spanked me on occasion. Spanking was a formal process in our house. One was brought forward that evening, told of his transgression, told how many swats the punishment was, and given the requisite number of swats. Done.

Did I get slapped a few times, when I transgressed beyond a parent's ability to adjust? Yep. Parents are human, too. But those were not spankings. Those were not discipline, they were lashing out. Nonetheless, they did teach me a few lessons about pushing things too far.

The person I transgress as an adult has other means of relief available to him. He can sue me. He cannot sue a child. If he violently touches me, an adult, it's assault. If he violently touches a child not his, it's assault. He can sue the parents for the damage the child does to his property - other means of relief.

An immediate response to remove someone from eminent danger, in either case, is appropriate. ~ Patrick at February 3, 2018 6:40 AM

Using violence when nothing else will suffice in order to save someone is generally acceptable, but that's not what was described.

In the case described, a non-violent reaction would have sufficed - i.e., taking hold of the child's hand and gently guiding it away from the hot stove top burner would have accomplished the same result without smacking him.

The smack, on the other hand, might make the lesson last. And might be enough to make sure that the next time the child reaches for the hot stove top burner, he remembers the lesson.

And, with that ball ruling toward the street scenario, I was not describing a situation with a parent at hand and ready to intervene, I was describing the long-ago lesson the stays with the small child's under-developed brain and is remembered when the child's concentration is intently focused on other things - i.e., getting the rolling ball back.

BTW, It's "imminent" danger. Eminent means famous and respected. You'll need to know the difference when you get to law school.

To suggest that spanking is not okay is to suggest that those who were spanked as children weren't raised well. Or worse, that those who spanked their kids didn't raise their children well. ~ Patrick at February 3, 2018 7:12 AM

And to flat out state that spanking is beating is to call those who use that as a method of discipline child abusers, or psychopaths.

Since the majority of comments on this thread seems to be by people who have never admitted having children - Crid, Amy, Patrick, Artemis, myself - you might understand how those with children, the ones dealing with these issues on a day-to-day basis, might look askance at the expertise we seem to think we have.

...with that ball ruling toward the street.... ~ Conan the Grammarian at February 3, 2018 7:40 AM

That's "rolling" toward the street.

Autocorrect assumes that the typist mis-typed a letter over that he missed one - changing a mis-typed "roling" to "ruling," never to "rolling."

My little half brother was a biter, bit kids in preschool, church, playground.

Went on for months, no matter how he was punished or talked to he didnt stop.

Until the day he decided to bite me and I bit him back. In that moment he finally understood that what he was doing wasnt so funny after all

If his parents had done their freaking job the first time he bit someone and inflicted some pain dozens of children wouldnt have been assaulted, and two or three wouldnt have life long scars from where they were bitten so hard my brother caused them to bleed.

In some instances at some ages pain is the only motivator

Close paraphrase of years-old tweet: "I bought a wallet on Amazon. Next time I log on: 'Would you like to buy *another wallet*?' AI has a long way to go before it threatens us."

Love that grocery store anecdote, Patrick! Well said.

Well, here's some of what John Rosemond said...

He's not that opposed to spanking, but he has nothing but praise for those who manage to raise well-behaved kids without spanking. Also, he's pointed out that for many kids (especially the smallest), since spanking only takes a few seconds, it's too easy for a kid to forget it and thus NOT feel guilty for the crime that precipitated it. (Haven't we all heard stories of kids who say things like "I wish they WOULD spank me and get it over with instead of grounding me for a week plus the silent treatment! That's too meeeeeaaaan!")

In 2001, he wrote:

I've asked several recent audiences, "Raise your hand if you think the punishment - in other words, the consequence a child receives for misbehaving - should fit the crime?" Every time, nearly everyone raises a hand, which goes a long way toward explaining why so many of today's parents complain that the consequences they employ don't seem to work, that no matter what they do, their children just keep right on misbehaving in the same exasperating ways.

The old-fashioned parent was unconcerned with the issue of fairness (used in this case to refer to the perception that there is "equity" between the misbehavior and its consequence) when it came to discipline. Rather, he or she was intent upon "nipping" misbehavior in the proverbial bud, which was generally accomplished through a lowering of the proverbial boom.

The old-fashioned parent realized that the size of a given misbehavior should not dictate the size of the punishment. After all, any misbehavior, no matter how small, can become a major problem if allowed to flourish; ergo, the boom.

Modern parents have been brainwashed into believing that any and all old-fashioned parenting practices should be avoided, as they are supposedly damaging to self-esteem. In a sense, that is correct. But then, most old-fashioned parents wanted to raise humble, modest children. Intuitively, before the term came into popular usage, they realized that children with high self-esteem are likely to be obnoxious little brats; ergo, the boom.

As a child, I was boomed on more than a few occasions. So was every kid in my neighborhood. None of us liked it, of course. But when I talk about such boomings with people my age, we all agree that in retrospect these psychologically incorrect disciplinary events (PSIDEs) eventually proved to be blessings in our lives.

As one fifty-something fellow recently told me, "I'd have probably been in prison before I was 20 if my parents hadn't been willing to cause me extreme discomfort when I misbehaved." And, he added, they never, ever spanked him! He meant psychological discomfort; i.e., they lowered his self-esteem; i.e., when he got "too big for his britches," they cut him down to his proper size.

In fact, I talk to lots of people my age who were never spanked. Instead, the first time they violated curfew, they were grounded for a semester; the first time they talked back to their dads, they were made to chop and carry firewood for an entire weekend; the first time they rode their bikes where they had been told not to, their bikes were taken for a month; the first time they goofed off in class, they were made to write long letters of apology to the teacher and every classmate. And so on. No, spanking was not the secret to the reasonably well-behaved baby boomer. The not-so-secret secret was the boom.

Come to think of it, we post-war kids are not the "boomers." Our parents were.
___________________________________

JR (not verbatim) To spank or not to spank is not the question. The question is, does a particular punishment stop the behavior or not?
__________________________________

JR, from his book "The New Parent Power":

In my view, a spanking is a spanking only if the following conditions are adhered to:

-The parent administers it with her or her hand only.
-The parent's hand makes contact with the child's rear end only.
-The hand strikes the rear no more than three times.

Anything else is a beating.
______________________________

JR: Children will not change their behavior because someone else gets upset about it. They will change their behavior when their behavior causes them to become upset (because of the punishment that follows the behavior). Now, that's not complicated, is it?
_____________________________________

JR, from 1996 (I would give the link for this instead, since it's long, but I couldn't find a good one):

My petitioner and I were in the lobby of an auditorium in which I was about to speak in Lancaster, Pa., talking about a relatively minor discipline problem she was experiencing with her 6-year-old son.

I asked how her husband reacted to it.

"Well," she answered, "to tell you the truth, I don't really trust my husband to discipline the kids."

"Why not?" I asked. "Does he tend to be overly physical?"

"Oh, no," she replied. "He doesn't even believe in spanking."

"So what's the problem?"

"He hurts their feelings."

I looked at her for a moment, sizing up my options, before deciding to go for it.

"Well, actually, that's the idea," I said.

She looked dumbfounded. "No! I mean, you can't be serious."

"Yes, indeed, I'm dead serious," I replied. "Discipline doesn't work unless it hurts the child's feelings. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about causing permanent damage. I'm talking about causing a little pain."

"But why?" she asked, mournfully, as if grieving over shattered illusions.

That such formerly self-evident facts of bringing up children have to be explained to today's parents is why today's children, by all accounts, are less-disciplined than children of any prior generation.

Veteran teachers describe them as "self-absorbed" and "disrespectful." Parents say things like "I'd have never talked to my parents the way my children sometimes talk to me" and "Anything (in the way of corrective discipline) my parents did worked, but nothing I do seems to work for long."

To a great degree, these laments can be traced to parents who are not willing to hurt their children's feelings.

Children are not adults. A responsible adult, when he wrongs someone else, is capable of imposing penance upon himself and prescribing appropriate atonement. If, for example, he insults someone in a moment of pique, he will later feel chagrined and apologize. If he possesses a sufficient conscience, no one needs to tell him to feel bad or beg pardon. He does so on his own.

Not so with children. The younger the child, the more necessary it becomes - when the child does something wrong - that an adult impose penance upon the child and mandate appropriate atonement.

Helping a child understand that he did something wrong usually requires making the child feel bad - as in, hurting the child's feelings.

The "sting" of discipline creates a permanent memory, one that serves to inhibit future behavior of the same sort. Without the sting, the memory will not form - nor, therefore, the inhibition.

The accumulation of such painful memories constitutes what is known as conscience, and a person so endowed is capable of being a functional member of society.

This is the "price" humans pay for the relative protection of civilization. When there are too few such "inhibited" individuals, civilization begins to come apart at the seams.

For 30 years or so, American parents - at the well-intentioned urging of misguided mental-health professionals - have been trying to make children "feel good about themselves."

This anti-scriptural, anti-social notion has corrupted American child-rearing and is now -as a generation of insufficiently inhibited children is attaining chronological adulthood -beginning to corrupt America.

These perpetual children, so corporate leaders often tell me, are generally lacking in a sense of loyalty to their employers. They come to work asking not what they can do for the company, but what the company can do/should do for them. They enter into "trial" marriages, which they abandon the moment reality - that a successful marriage is the hardest secular thing anyone can ever accomplish - sets in.

Jurists tell me that all too often today's young people think breaking the law is a big deal only if they lack the money to hire the best attorneys. This isn't Generation X. This is Generation E, for entitled.

For all these reasons, I wanted to shake this woman and scream, "Wake up! Please, for everyone's sake, wake up!"

Instead, I patiently explained what every prior generation of American parents grasped without explanation.

The question becomes: If it has to be explained, will it ever again be understood?
_________________________________________

Finally, a "draconian," non-spanking punishment by Rosemond when his son didn't do his chores at the right time (it happened in the mid-1970s):

https://www.parentguru.com/articles/view/1764?return=%2Farticles%2Findex%2Fkeywords%3Achores%2Ftopic%3A%2Fage

There's a missing paragraph from the last article:

I then take a poll. "What's worse?" I ask. "Imposing a supposedly unreasonable punishment one time and one time only, or fighting the same battle day after day after day after day chastising, yelling, criticizing, complaining, threatening and yelling some more?" Everyone agrees. The latter is far worse.

Crid: Patrick, that's it exactly. No, we *mustn't* know. I don't understand your presumption that everyone is fascinated with your interior life.

Translation: "I don't care about your interior life! I don't care so much that I'm going to create post after post after post on this blog to tell you how much I don't care about your interior life!

"And I don't read your posts about your interior life! I don't care! I don't care so much that I'm going to create posts in which I cite your comments about your interior life in exact detail, and then claim I only skimmed those comments."

I take back what I said earlier. Your posts at least provide fodder for my entertainment. I do derive some sadistic pleasure in watching idiots prove they're idiots.

And your meltdowns are absolutely hilarious.

And I was address "you" singular, not "you" plural. You have a very weird fascination with me, even as you vehemently protest you don't. I never meant to suggest that the entire blog is fascinated with my personal life. Just you.

Ben: Have you raised a child?

Oh, I knew that was coming. Momof4 does that all the time.

Make any post that doesn't coincide with her preconceived ideas as to what pristine parenting looks like, or worse, to suggest she did something wrong, is to invite the question, "Are yooooooooou a parent?"

To answer the question, "No." However, I was raised by a parent, and I've got scads of siblings who all raised children. I see what works and what doesn't. And I see which kids turned out better, more confident, capable, well-adjusted and successful.

Even you would concede that being a parent by no means makes you an expert. There are parents in this world who are absolutely horrible by any objective standard we could come up with.

By the same token, not being a parent doesn't mean I couldn't be an expert on it. Nor does it mean I'm wrong about this.

Isab: No. A beating leaves a bruise or a mark. Swatting a kid across the butt with an open hand with two layers of fabric between the open hand and the skin is not a beating. By any definition.

Yes, it is a beating. And you are not an authority and you don't get to define terms. Not even legal terms. The lawyers that get to define legal terms are the ones who sit behind benches in long, black robes. And as I pointed out to Conan, either one will get you arrested for battery if done to an adult.

And your definition is silly. It is entirely possible to be physically abusive to a child without leaving marks.

Conan:

In the case described, a non-violent reaction would have sufficed - i.e., taking hold of the child's hand and gently guiding it away from the hot stove top burner would have accomplished the same result without smacking him.

I'm not sure we were thinking about the same things. I was thinking swatting a child's hand might be acceptable if you see a child lowering his hand toward a hot stove burner and is less than a second from making contact. In which case, that is a rescue response, and entirely appropriate. As would be the case if a child were about to step into the street in the path of a speeding car.

But those responses are also appropriate when dealing with adults. If you and I were standing on the side of a road and you stepped into the street thinking it was safe, not seeing the speeding car that appeared out of nowhere, yes, I would yank you out of harm's way. If it were Crid, on the other hand... (I'm joking, Crid. Don't get your knickers in a twist.)

But somehow, this spanking business changes the rules. Rough physical contact when effecting a rescue from imminent danger, when no other means will suffice, is acceptable, when done to either children or adults.

But while it's not okay to swat an adult on the bottom, when you do it to kids, it's called parenting.

No, it isn't.

Conan: And to flat out state that spanking is beating is to call those who use that as a method of discipline child abusers, or psychopaths.

Oh, give me a fucking break! I'm not calling anyone anything. A psychopath is someone with no empathy or conscience. To say that someone who employs a misguided sense of discipline must be completely without feelings is ridiculous.

As for being child abusers... well, perhaps, although I feel that might be an exaggeration. I assume that these parents do sometimes discipline their children without having to lay violent hands on them. You know, like grounding, taking away their toys, etc.

All the anti-spanking arguments presented here (grounding, self-esteem, etc.) seem to center around children old enough to be reasoned with. What about those children not old enough to be reasoned with? As far as I can tell, no one advocating spanking is talking about spanking teenagers.

We use this system of discipline with our children:

https://www.123magic.com/

It works well; never need to spank them. It is also really easy to learn and to implement.

"1-2-3 Magic divides the parenting responsibilities into three straightforward tasks: controlling negative behavior, encouraging good behavior, and strengthening the child-parent relationship. The program seeks to encourage gentle, but firm, discipline without arguing, yelling, or spanking."

Conan: What about those children not old enough to be reasoned with?

As I tried to point out in my anecdote about Katie and her mother, there is no such thing as a child who isn't old enough to be reasoned with. Or if there is, it's the kind that doesn't yet have sufficient mobility to get themselves into trouble anyway.

Reason is not something that is non-existent in newly-formed human beings, the magically springs into being on the child's seventh birthday, or whenever.

Even the smallest child has a rudimentary knowledge of actions and consequences. I'm simply pointing out that consequences for children don't have to take the form of laying violent hands on them.

>> Jerry: And I also think there is a difference between an occasional spanking and beating your kids.

>No. There isn't.

>You might consider spanking to be a mild form of beating, but you cannot spank a child without beating it.

That's right Patrick, also, there is no difference between Aziz Ansari and Harvey Weinstein.

There's no difference between anything, and we need spergs like you to tell us so repetitively, 1,000 words at a time.

And lest anyone disagree, they are foaming, snarling, mansplaining, and doing violence.

> Wow. Look at all the defensive parents. "How dare you tell me I didn't raise my kids right when I spanked them!"

Also good, we're all parents who've spanked our kids, just like if I defend speech I dislike or attack policies like police asset forfeiture it means I endorse the speech and am probably a criminal.

you go girl, sperg on you crazy diamond

So John Rosemond, when his kid forgets to do a chore,

+ humiliates the kid in front of his friends
+ gets the kid to do the chore right then and there,
+ sends the kids to his room for the rest of the day,
+ makes him go to bed early,

and then tells everyone in his newspaper column that punishments should fit the crime.

Got it. This guy is the child whisperer.

I'm not sure we were thinking about the same things. I was thinking swatting a child's hand might be acceptable if you see a child lowering his hand toward a hot stove burner and is less than a second from making contact. In which case, that is a rescue response, and entirely appropriate. As would be the case if a child were about to step into the street in the path of a speeding car. ~ Patrick at February 3, 2018 8:45 AM

And how do you make those lessons last? How do you make sure a small child thinks twice about doing those things when there is not an adult nearby to initiate a rescue response?

A lecture about physics and death will not resonate with a child. A quick flash back on pain and humiliation might make the connection in a child's often-distracted mind.

I suspect the studies that show spanking to be counter-effective are defining any physical contact as spanking and are not setting age limits. So, we're arguing two different things.

A teenager subjected to corporal punishment is going to have a very different reaction than a small child - with concurrent long-term effects. Especially since it will take comparatively more force to impart punishment to a teenager than to a small child - force akin to abuse.. And there are better ways to discipline a teenager than corporal punishment.

That is key Conan. The 'study' and Patrick are mixing two very different things. And that political line out of the author makes it obvious he was doing it intentionally. This is the same as 'studies' that show religion causes violence. To most people that seems quite counterintuitive and unexpected. You look a little closer and you find their sample size for 'religion' is 50% or more of 3rd world Muslims. Well duh! Everyone knows 3rd world Muslims are violent. Doesn't say anything about any other religious group. Same with mixing spanking and beating. Beatings are fairly ineffective. Spankings can be very effective. And they are two very different things.

"Ben: Have you raised a child?

Oh, I knew that was coming. Momof4 does that all the time."

Because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I get you are very emotional about this subject. But did the fact that you and Artemis are on the same side not give you any concern?

As for:
"But while it's not okay to swat an adult on the bottom, when you do it to kids, it's called parenting."

Who told you that? When you do it to an adult it can be sexy. Though getting sexy with a stranger or especially with a kid is a huge no no.

Jerry: you go girl

The rest of your post was nonsensical bullshit, not worth responding to, but I have to delightedly point out that it didn't take long for your faggot-hating ass to assert itself.

Silly little man, there's no need to "translate." Tressider did that for years, too. But as she approached middle age, she stopped.

Because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I get you are very emotional about this subject.

Well, amused is an emotion, so I suppose I do get emotional about it.

But did the fact that you and Artemis are on the same side not give you any concern?

Not at all. Should it?

Should the fact that Hitler was kind to animals cause all of us who are also kind to animals rethink our position?

Supposedly, Hilter was also a vegetarian (I keep hearing that he was and he wasn't; I don't know, and I don't care.), does that make vegetarianism bad?

No, if you want to talk about whether vegetarianism is bad, you talk nutrition, sustainability, environmental impact, etc. Not about who else happens to be a vegetarian.

Stupid argument. You should be ashamed of yourself for making it. Amy is also on our side.

And trying to shame me from my position by being smug and patronizing isn't going to work. You're the one who has no idea what you're talking about.

Take this little gem of yours, for instance.

The 'study' and Patrick are mixing two very different things. And that political line out of the author makes it obvious he was doing it intentionally. This is the same as 'studies' that show religion causes violence. To most people that seems quite counterintuitive and unexpected. You look a little closer and you find their sample size for 'religion' is 50% or more of 3rd world Muslims.

Oh, really? So, this study that spanking is not effective and may cause harm, is just the same as the studies that show religion is violent by using an unbalanced sample group?

Do you have some kind of proof that this study used an unbalanced sample group? Or is this just wishful thinking because you want it to be true?

Rhetorical question. I already know the answer.

“Do you have some kind of proof that this study used an unbalanced sample group? Or is this just wishful thinking because you want it to be true?”

Uh, proof works the other way round. It is on the people doing the study to show how they selected their data, and how they removed their own biases.

The reason why psychological studies are mostly all cherry picked bullshit is because they almost all rely on subjective interviews.

Amy has a vested interest in believing in, and massaging this sciency tripe into a work product. Her livelihood is based on it. (More power to you Amy but these types of psychology studies are nothing more than a new aged religion.)

Isab: Uh, proof works the other way round. It is on the people doing the study to show how they selected their data, and how they removed their own biases.

Uh, no, I was right the first time.

If you want to claim that someone's scientific approach is faulty, then it's up to you to point out the flaws. How they did their sample group is presumably right there in the open, like it is with most scientific studies.

You don't get to say, "Oh, their sample was unbalanced," as if that's a given. If you want to debunk a study, then you have to prove the study was faulty.

The premise that a study was done improperly is not the default position.

>Jerry: you go girl

>The rest of your post was nonsensical bullshit, not worth responding to, but I have to delightedly point out that it didn't take long for your faggot-hating ass to assert itself.

In addition to being a child beater, now I'm a faggot hating ass now.

Sperg on you crazy diamond.

Conan:

A lecture about physics and death will not resonate with a child. A quick flash back on pain and humiliation might make the connection in a child's often-distracted mind.

So, because a child is ignorant of the fact that a hot stove burner can harm them, that merits corporeal punishment?

Good to know that not understanding something deserves a beating.

Patrick is needy, but the Super Bowl is going to be great.

Pats by 13. I want Brady to retire. He's probably already out-careered five generations of his own defensive linemen. His wife, who is even prettier than he us, also even has more money. Here's his house. She paid for it, and vacuums all the carpet.

The premise that a study was done improperly is not the default position.

Patrick at February 3,

Actually the defalt position of all real science is: Here is my data, here are my methods, replicate my study and prove me wrong.

So, because a child is ignorant of the fact that a hot stove burner can harm them, that merits corporeal punishment? ~ Patrick at February 3, 2018 10:18 AM

I don't know if your autocorrect is acting up, but your word usage today is off.

"Corporal" punishment relates to physical punishment under law.

"Corporeal" relates to having physical body.

Same root word, but diverging meanings.

And, yes, explaining to a very young child that a 3,500-pound car moving at 30 mph takes so many feet to stop is not going to make them think twice about running into traffic. Hell, grown ups still try to beat the train and it weighs way more than 2.75 tons and can take miles to stop. Remembering that Mom spanked them the last time they ran into traffic will cause them to think twice before running into traffic the next time.

Good to know that not understanding something deserves a beating. ~ Patrick at February 3, 2018 10:18 AM

Now you're just being ridiculous.

Patrick is needy..... ~ Crid at February 3, 2018 10:38 AM

Yeah. I haven't seen him this worked up about anything in a while.

Pats by 13. I want Brady to retire. He's probably already out-careered five generations of his own defensive linemen. His wife, who is even prettier than he us, also even has more money. Here's his house. She paid for it, and vacuums all the carpet. ~ Crid at February 3, 2018 10:38 AM

Even prettier? She'd have to be if she's paying for a $20 million mansion solely on her looks. I mean, he at least has to win a football game or two once in a while - deliver actual results. She just looks good; it's her sole claim to fame, her sole salable asset.

...it weighs way more than 2.75 tons and can take miles to stop. ~ Conan the Grammarian at February 3, 2018 10:43 AM

Sorry, a 3,500 pound car weights 1.75 tons (US tons).

"Now you're just being ridiculous."

Now? I thought he was ridiculous from the start.

and then tells everyone in his newspaper column that punishments should fit the crime.

Got it. This guy is the child whisperer.

jerry at February 3, 2018 9:04 AM
_____________________________________

He did NOT say that. Kindly read this quotation again - I think you missed a word or two.

"I've asked several recent audiences, 'Raise your hand if you think the punishment - in other words, the consequence a child receives for misbehaving - should fit the crime?' Every time, nearly everyone raises a hand, which goes a long way toward explaining why so many of today's parents complain that the consequences they employ don't seem to work, that no matter what they do, their children just keep right on misbehaving in the same exasperating ways."
___________________________________

In other words, he's saying that the punishment does NOT need to fit the crime - that it's better to err on the side of being a little too strict rather than being a little too lenient.

Also, read these again:
____________________________________

"As a child, I was boomed on more than a few occasions. So was every kid in my neighborhood. None of us liked it, of course. But when I talk about such boomings with people my age, we all agree that in retrospect these psychologically incorrect disciplinary events (PSIDEs) eventually proved to be blessings in our lives.

"As one fifty-something fellow recently told me, 'I'd have probably been in prison before I was 20 if my parents hadn't been willing to cause me extreme discomfort when I misbehaved.' And, he added, they never, ever spanked him! He meant psychological discomfort; i.e., they lowered his self-esteem; i.e., when he got 'too big for his britches,' they cut him down to his proper size."
_______________________________

And, what is wrong with what he wrote in 1996?
________________________________

"...After telling this story - as I often do - to a live audience, I ask for a show of hands from those who think my punishment didn't fit Eric's 'crime'; that I had been unjust and despotic. About a third of the folks raise their hands.

"I then point out that precisely because I was so 'unjust,' I never again had to remind Eric to do a chore. One time was all it took.

"I then take a poll. 'What's worse?' I ask. 'Imposing a supposedly unreasonable punishment one time and one time only, or fighting the same battle day after day after day after day chastising, yelling, criticizing, complaining, threatening and yelling some more?' Everyone agrees. The latter is far worse.

"Why, then, are so many parents so reluctant to nip misbehavior in the bud, as I did with Eric? The answer, of course, is that what I did to Eric smacks of what the parent of the '50s might have done. And today's parents have been told - by the Pied Pipers of Enlightened Parenting - that they must not, under any circumstances, rear their children the way they themselves were reared, lest they do irreparable psychic harm.

"And it is precisely because today's parents allowed themselves to be persuaded of this malarkey that they find themselves chastising, yelling, criticizing, complaining, threatening and yelling some more."

Conan:

Yeah. I haven't seen him this worked up about anything in a while.

If believing that what it takes to get you through the night, Conan...

Though frankly, I see this as a candid admission that you're wrong and you don't want to admit it. You have failed in every single point you tried to make, so the topic must turn to me personally. You're not going to win that way, but if it gives you satisfaction, I suppose...

I'm not the least bit worked up. On the contrary, I can't remember a time that a topic on Amy's blog has entertained me more.

What fascinates me about this topic is the magnitude of defensiveness this raised. As you yourself pointed out (rather hysterically) the very suggestion that spanking a child is not only unnecessary, but completely wrong, is to suggest that the parents on this thread who spanked their children did a bad thing by their children. It's also to malign the parents of those in this discussion who were spanked as children.

I can see readily why hackles were instantly raised. It is a shame that so many let defensiveness decide their responses than an honest look at the things they might have done in the past.

All Amy had to do was post an article about how spanking children is wrong, and you could see the backs arching, like angry cats, and hear the collective hiss from so many regulars on this blog. It's a very rare occurrence for Amy to post something that meets with such quick and decisive condemnation. And I'm enjoying it immensely. To think I almost decided to go to the movies today.

Conan: Now you're just being ridiculous.

Not one-tenth as ridiculous as your suggestion that because I say spanking is beating your child and wrong, that parents who spank their kids must be psychopathic. There are people who might believe they have the right to lay violent hands on someone else. Unless their motivation is self-defense, they're wrong. But doing so does not necessarily mean psychopathic.

If my comments cause you to believe I am "worked up," then I would suggest you apply that standard to yourself with your "psychopath" comment and let us know what you come up with.

"Oooh, Patrick is worked up! Tee-hee-hee! Giggle-giggle!" On the contrary, I have rarely been more certain that I am on the right side in a debate.

Though I will concede this: yours are the most reasoned attempts to counter this premise. Although that probably isn't saying much, considering the dumb responses this topic has generated. "Oooh! Artemis is on your side! That automatically means you're wrong!"

And I haven't read Noam Shpancer's article yet, but I suspect one reason many working-class parents, in particular, keep spanking is that they can't help but observe all the failures of middle-class parents who wouldn't dream of (gasp!) making their kids CRY by saying "you did something bad, so we're not going to Grandma's." Since spanking also makes kids cry, the parents end up not making kids pay for their actions at all.

Bottom line: If a kid says/thinks "sure, ma, I can live with that punishment," that's not a real punishment, even if it "fits the crime."

Fun example of kids' logic:

https://www.fborfw.com/stripcatalog/strips/89/FB053189.GIF

And, true story: A mother said she wanted to limit her toddler's TV time but wouldn't turn off the TV because "when I do that, she cries."

Another example of why the punishment should NOT fit the crime (from 2016):

https://www.arcamax.com/homeandleisure/parents/johnrosemond/s-1796468

Excerpt:

"...I’ll wager that you’ve talked yourselves blue in the face, nagged, threatened, and even yelled. You wouldn’t have asked my opinion if any of that had worked. What you haven’t done is confiscate the video game and the cell phone. Well, maybe you have, but then he’s promised to do better (and maybe even done better for two or three mornings) and you’ve given them back. If so, that’s an example of what I call 'trying to stop a charging elephant with a fly swatter' – that is, responding to a big problem with a completely ineffectual consequence.

"If you really and truly want your son to wake up and smell the coffee where his responsibilities are concerned, then I’ll venture that the only wake-up call he’s going to pay attention to is the (a) sudden and (b) long-term disappearance of his devices. His video game disappears when he’s at school tomorrow (in hesitation, all will be lost!), and you confiscate his cell phone as soon as he comes home.

"Then, having obtained his full attention, you inform him that you will restore the devices to his possession when he’s had no problem getting out of bed on school mornings for no less than two straight months. If, during that time, you have to get him up, his two electronics-free months start over again the next day.

"You won’t be the most well-liked parents in the world, but like Fred Astaire said, somethings’ gotta give."

(end)

What do you know - Rosemond wrote again about spanking, recently.

https://www.arcamax.com/homeandleisure/parents/johnrosemond/s-2043693

Excerpts:

"Four sentences into her Wall Street Journal article on recent research into spanking ('Spanking for Misbehavior? It Causes More!' December 17, 2017), the author, Susan Pinker, makes two grievous errors: first, she says that children under 7 cannot master their emotions; second, she says a fair amount of misbehavior on the part of a young child distinguishes him from a robot...

"...I’ve taken a close look at UTA’s study and truth be told have no problem with its basic finding. First, I think most parents who spank make a mess of it and accomplish nothing. Since they accomplish nothing, the behavior problems for which they are spanking continue to worsen. Second, as research finds and common sense confirms, disobedient children are not happy children. So, it makes perfect sense that researchers find that spanking is associated with both increased misbehavior and later mental health problems.

"But that is not an indictment of spanking; not, at least, unless the researcher in question set out intending to malign it. Being a social scientist myself, I can attest that most social 'science' simply finds what the researcher expected, even wanted, to find, meaning that most social scientists are not scientists; rather, they are ideologues.

"In my estimation, the real problem is that today’s parents, by and large, do not know how to properly convey authority. They think authority is expressed by using proper consequences. So, they attempt to discipline by manipulating reward and punishment. That works with dogs, but it does not work very well at all with human beings, the only species with free will. Under the circumstances, behavior problems worsen, parental stress builds, and emotion-driven and therefore completely botched spankings become increasingly likely.

"The conveyance of authority is accomplished via a proper attitude, not proper methods. The characteristics of the attitude in question – calm, confident composure – are universal leadership qualities. That attitude is what causes a child to invest complete trust in his parents, even if they occasionally spank him."

Ah thank you lenona, you're right about that, I did misread that.

Regardless, I tend to think this guy is talking through his ass.

> "I then point out that precisely because I was so 'unjust,' I never again had to remind Eric to do a chore. One time was all it took.

I'd have to believe this guy that he never had to remind Eric again, and well, I don't.

> "As one fifty-something fellow recently told me, 'I'd have probably been in prison before I was 20 if my parents hadn't been willing to cause me extreme discomfort when I misbehaved.' And, he added, they never, ever spanked him! He meant psychological discomfort; i.e., they lowered his self-esteem; i.e., when he got 'too big for his britches,' they cut him down to his proper size."

I also find odd that people claim an extreme psychological discomfort or Rosemond's "unreasonable punishment" is any different, or better than a spanking.

I honestly can't think of much worse than a parent laying into a kid and giving them extreme psychological discomfort, or even giving their kid an unreasonable punishment.

(Isn't this how I'm told why many girls grow up with their daddy issues)

Am I supposed to believe that that one time, with that chore was the only time Rosemond gave his kid a punishment he agrees other people might consider unreasonable? I suspect he gave a lot of them out.

Anyway, I'm glad my parents gave me the very rare, occasional spanking, then ever tried to take me down a peg, much less give me any sort of regular psychological discomfort.

...your suggestion that because I say spanking is beating your child and wrong, that parents who spank their kids must be psychopathic. ~ Patrick at February 3, 2018 11:40 AM

You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills. I never suggested that you argued spanking or beating kids means the parent is a psychopath.

I did make an absurd comment to illustrate the ridiculous-ness of your contention that opposition to your position is rooted in defensiveness (a contention Artemis advanced and with which you readily agreed - "...it's transparent that this is rooted in defensiveness"). People might legitimately disagree with you - no defensiveness involved.

It seems that, once again, a debate with you has devolved into "you said" and "no, I actually said." This is why you're no fun to debate. You don't advance a position and present arguments supporting it, normal give and take. You state your position as unassailable fact and parse opposing posts to find words and imagined meanings to nitpick.

And as far as you being "worked up," I don't really care, but that little throwaway comment did seem to get under your skin. Perhaps you should give that some thought.

I don't want to go round and round on this lenona, if you find/found Rosemond's advice helpful, all the more power to you and your kids.

here though

> "...I’ll wager that you’ve talked yourselves blue in the face, nagged, threatened, and even yelled. You wouldn’t have asked my opinion if any of that had worked. What you haven’t done is confiscate the video game and the cell phone. Well, maybe you have, ...

I would agree with him, but wonder why anyone would consider that punishment (the long term disappearance of the phone until behavior changes for the long term) unreasonable.

However, Rosemond should acknowledge the problem really is that in this day and age, taking the phone away really is different than grounding a kid, taking away tv privileges, taking away the gameboy etc.

Because of the way families work (ie separations and divorces), and how teachers communicate, handout assignments and ask questions (email and text), taking away a phone especially for the long term, really isn't viable. You've just removed the kid from his/her other parent (and punished that parent) and made it that much harder for the kid at school.

Setting phone hours though, and removing the phone at say, 8pm to 7am, or even 8pm to 3pm would seem to be a much better idea for everyone.

(If the kid is really young, why the hell does she/he have a phone to themselves at night anyway?)

There's some idiot feminist law "the responses to any discussion of feminism justifies feminism", it's similar to Patrick's

> let the foaming, gnashing and snarling begin!

Most people recognize this as a combination of a Kafkatrap and poisoning the well.

Patrick recognizes it as a trump card, just like the sjw's taught him.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills. I never suggested that you argued spanking or beating kids means the parent is a psychopath.

No, Conan. You need to work on yours. Or perhaps your short-term memory? Remember this?

Conan: And to flat out state that spanking is beating is to call those who use that as a method of discipline child abusers, or psychopaths.

I have flat-out stated that spanking is beating. I have called it a subset of beating or a mild form of beating. No, I have not suggested that parents who use that "method of discipline" are psychopaths. Nor would I go quite so far as to call them child abusers.

Although whatever nutty head-trip they put themselves through to convince themselves that spanking a child is not beating a child is for a shrink to diagnose. And I am not a shrink.

I also find odd that people claim an extreme psychological discomfort or Rosemond's "unreasonable punishment" is any different, or better than a spanking.
___________________________________

Well, duh, maybe they make that claim because you seldom/never hear too often of ONE spanking solving a particular bad behavior from recurring, and spanking over and over for the Same Crime is a waste of time? Especially since, as I said, a spanking is too quickly over and easily forgotten - except as a reminder not to get CAUGHT the next time? A punishment that lasts a whole day (or longer), as in Eric's case, is more likely to make a kid think "well, maybe I shouldn't risk it at all."

There's even an example of this in "Goodfellas." That is, Paulie was opposed to any of his "family" committing you-know-what crime ONLY because the legal penalties were so much harsher than for other crimes. After all, while they were somewhat skilled in law, they were too dumb not to get caught or killed eventually, so Paulie, at least, stayed away from it. (But, of course, the others were too dumb to stay away, since the money was so tempting - and they all paid for it. Even Henry wasn't exactly grateful about not having to go to jail; he loved the mob life and, as Roger Ebert said: "...the horror of the film is that, at the end, the man's principal regret is that he doesn't have any more soul to sell.")
____________________________________

I honestly can't think of much worse than a parent laying into a kid and giving them extreme psychological discomfort, or even giving their kid an unreasonable punishment.
_____________________________________

And being a little too lenient makes accomplishes something? How? Besides, it's just a gamble if one keeps struggling to be "100% fair" instead of trying to Stop The Behavior.
_____________________________________

Am I supposed to believe that that one time, with that chore was the only time Rosemond gave his kid a punishment he agrees other people might consider unreasonable? I suspect he gave a lot of them out.
_____________________________________

He didn't say anything like that. Read it again. He only said he never had to punish/remind Eric to do CHORES again. There's a big difference. Of course Eric misbehaved in other ways that he thought he might get away with, since they were very different - but again, his parents nipped each one in the bud. Two examples are here, from Rosemond's book "Teen-Proofing":

https://books.google.com/books?id=rOvbDG88Y1UC&pg=PA147&lpg=PA147&dq=%22the+above+story+of+billy,+his%22&source=bl&ots=DMy67rYQqC&sig=vrsyewm8PyMrD-sIlgMNun_hQqU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjwxYufz4rZAhWntVkKHV1XBxQQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=%22the%20above%20story%20of%20billy%2C%20his%22&f=false

The first is about bad grades (when Eric turned 11) and the second is about hanging around with "the wrong crowd."

The most important pages are 147-155 (in large type, so don't worry), but you might want to read from 140-159. Some pages are missing anyway, but not the best ones.
__________________________________

Anyway, I'm glad my parents gave me the very rare, occasional spanking, then ever tried to take me down a peg, much less give me any sort of regular psychological discomfort.

jerry at February 3, 2018 12:01 PM
____________________________________

Again, it wasn't all that "regular" with his kids, because they learned (relatively) quickly not to cross EITHER of their parents. See the above link for what happened with his daughter, as a teen. Hint: You'll be a bit disappointed.

Anyway, I'm glad my parents gave me the very rare, occasional spanking, then ever tried to take me down a peg, much less give me any sort of regular psychological discomfort.
__________________________________

Obviously, you didn't NEED much punishing - and they knew it. Again, as JR said: "To spank or not to spank is not the question. The question is, does a particular punishment stop the behavior from recurring or not?"

Of course there's such a thing as an overly harsh punishment that backfires and doesn't stop the crime from recurring - so clearly, he wouldn't advocate that either, whether it involved spanking or not.
__________________________________

if you find/found Rosemond's advice helpful, all the more power to you and your kids.
___________________________________

I don't have kids. But I advocate his books because:

1) I don't want to be surrounded by 10-year-old hoodlums when I'm 80, for obvious reasons.

2) If I hadn't read his books out of curiosity when I was much younger, I could easily have been brainwashed by the "common wisdom" that says it's practically abuse to make a kid cry over something, even if the "something" is that the kid wants to eat nothing but candy and soda or wanted to drop out after 1st grade and the parent said no. People who believe that, whether they have kids or not, become part of a very bad disciplinary problem in society.

3) It breaks my heart to see well-educated friends of mine caving in to kids' trends of rude/selfish behavior (such as wish lists on birthdays, mailed out to the "guests") or gross anti-intellectual behavior (such as demanding nonstop screen time from infancy onward, just because their chores and homework MIGHT be done for the day). Even smarter parents who might read his books and think "well, duh, this is all just common sense - why do I need it" could well be surrounded by parents who DON'T have common sense, so they WILL need reminders so as to keep their sanity. They might also have neighbors who would have them arrested for allowing a five-year-old to play in the back yard alone.

4) What Rosemond's enemies seem to have in common is, they're jealous of his and his followers' success with their kids; psychologists resent losing business whenever he encourages parents to solve simple problems on their own instead of hiring a therapist (unlike Dear Abby, who pushed therapy half the time); they typically attack his books in very vague terms; AND they never, ever, seem to come up with any adults who even claim that their childhoods were made deeply unhappy - never mind ruined - by Rosemond's books. (He started writing them in the 1970s.)

5) You don't have to be a parent to remember what YOUR parents would have done in such and such a situation, why some of their tactics were wise while others weren't, and understand which were which. Or to have common sense in general. As Bill Maher said: "Yeah, and I don't have any fish, but I know not to fill their tank with Mountain Dew."
__________________________________

> "...I’ll wager that you’ve talked yourselves blue in the face, nagged, threatened, and even yelled. You wouldn’t have asked my opinion if any of that had worked. What you haven’t done is confiscate the video game and the cell phone. Well, maybe you have, ...

I would agree with him, but wonder why anyone would consider that punishment (the long term disappearance of the phone until behavior changes for the long term) unreasonable.
___________________________________

Because, as he hinted in the Lancaster anecdote, an awful lot of people these days think that it's somehow horribly wrong to punish a kid in such a way that hurts their feelings. They are why he stays in business, when they give up and realize that their methods aren't working with their kids. It's also why he has plenty of enemies. See #4.
___________________________________

Because of the way families work (ie separations and divorces), and how teachers communicate, handout assignments and ask questions (email and text), taking away a phone especially for the long term, really isn't viable. You've just removed the kid from his/her other parent (and punished that parent) and made it that much harder for the kid at school.

Setting phone hours though, and removing the phone at say, 8pm to 7am, or even 8pm to 3pm would seem to be a much better idea for everyone.
____________________________________

You could easily be right on that one, unfortunately. But schools should think twice before making it practically impossible for kids to remove themselves from the temptation of constant instant gratification when so many parents are already struggling to minimize it in their kids' lives. What does that do to their chances for making good grades, after all? Or their work ethic in general?
______________________________________

(If the kid is really young, why the hell does she/he have a phone to themselves at night anyway?)
_____________________________________

The parents at the Arcamax link said the boy is 16.

Actually, Patrick, should you care to notice - and you don't - I have enumerated many cases in which it is clear that minor children do not have rights.

So, who cares what you think when you say that they do? It's not an absolute. No, it's not.

Don't cry.

Spare the rod, get a millennial.

Or a Patrick, who seems quite upset about this.

Regarding what I said in point #2:

Had I not read his books, I wouldn't have been nearly as helpful to friends of mine in making their kids behave - one mother said (verbatim) "what would I do without you?" (She's very well-educated, but she can't even make herself say things like "don't interrupt adults when they're talking." So, I have to say it.)

Though I have to admit that, while I'm lucky if I see them once a year (we live on opposite coasts), so far, she and the father seem to be doing pretty well with their three boys - but they DO give them far more screen time than I would. (On the other hand, a while back, I sent them some good Terry Deary books on history - very funny books - and the two older ones, 10 and 8 at the time, fought over one of them.)

“Although whatever nutty head-trip they put themselves through to convince themselves that spanking a child is not beating a child is for a shrink to diagnose. And I am not a shrink. “

I know what you mean Patrick. I had to go through a lot of soul searching and expensive counseling to convince myself that vaccinating my kids wasnt stabbing them, because really fundamentally, there isnt any difference between the two right?

Remember this? ~ Patrick at February 3, 2018 12:29 PM

Um. Yeah.

I remember it.

After all, I cited it earlier. It was a statement I made to show how ridiculous your assertion that any and all opposition to your argument is "rooted in defensiveness" - transparent you said it was. That the only reason anyone could disagree with you was out of guilt at having committed the sin you're preaching against.

You've allowed no honest disagreement, therefore your argument has taken on the elements of a crusade. You cannot admit any heresy. Your god must be worshipped. Not a good position to be in for a debate. But then, you're not debating, you're proselytizing.

Although whatever nutty head-trip they put themselves through to convince themselves that spanking a child is not beating a child is for a shrink to diagnose. ~ Patrick at February 3, 2018 12:29 PM

No, you didn't say they were psychopaths or child abusers, just that they need a shrink to diagnose their disagreement with you on spanking. Because to disagree with you is, ipso facto, evidence of insanity.

Isab, that reminds me of Gandhi, who (supposedly) disapproved of Western medicine because it involved hypodermics and scalpels - tools of violence.

But not when it came to his OWN survival. Just his not-so-beloved wife's.

In a review of Richard Shenkman's book:

http://www.post-gazette.com/ae/book-reviews/2012/04/15/Of-facts-and-factoids-browsers-delights-from-Schott-Fiske-and-Shenkman/stories/201204150263

...Recounting how Gandhi refused to allow his wife to receive what would have been a life-saving shot of penicillin for pneumonia (being opposed to modern medicine), Mr. Shenkman informs us that "his wife died, but he still had his principles." He then goes on to throw shade on these principles by detailing all the lifesaving medical help Gandhi later received...(an appendectomy).

Lenona, that book is going on my list.

Radwaste:

Actually, Patrick, should you care to notice - and you don't - I have enumerated many cases in which it is clear that minor children do not have rights.

No, you haven't. I would have noticed.

Radwaste:

So, who cares what you think when you say that they do? It's not an absolute. No, it's not.

It isn't me who says so; it's the Supreme Court. Perhaps you've heard of them? Tinker v. Des Moines. Maintains that the minor children have the right to free speech. And that they have the right file suit. That's two rights that children have right there.

Try this: have a child, even your child if you have one, arrested for saying offensive things in public. You can't do it. Why? Because they have free speech.

Again, every single time you mention children, you are 100% wrong. You know it. I know it. The whole blog knows it. We're a very knowledgeable group when it comes to how little you know, but pretend to.

But go ahead. I'll be fair. Cite me a court case that says that children have absolutely no rights as enumerated by the Constitution. Go ahead, name one. Show me the court case that says not a single Constitutional right applies to minor children.

Here's an interesting story: a man was arrested for stealing a ten-year-old's Pokemon Nintendo.

Which would imply that a child has the right to property. You cannot steal anything unless it has an owner. Otherwise, it's just something you found; no crime committed.

Gee, but according to you, children have no rights under the Constitution. Not a single solitary one. And I just named three rights that the law obviously doesn't agree with you on.

Guess that makes you wrong, huh, Sean Hannity?

Conan, here's a little thought experiment for you to try, if you care to: define "spanking" in a way that does not include "beating."

I'm dying to hear how you can spank someone without beating on them.

Conan, here's a little thought experiment for you to try, if you care to: define "spanking" in a way that does not include "beating." ~ Patrick at February 3, 2018 3:54 PM

Patrick, you seem unable to grasp (or unwilling to admit while on your high horse) the concept of degrees of difference, as Isab pointed out in her delightfully sarcastic post and as jerry pointed out in his less-sarcastic but equally spot-on post.

The only way to discipline a three year old like Kejuan for stealing a cupcake is to let LaShirley and Glenndria spank his butt - and then spank his skull with a baseball bat.

I wonder where they learned that.

Strikes me, so to speak, that the difference between "you did a bad thing" and "You are a bad person" could seem fuzzy to a kid. So if you're going to keep her from seeing Grandma, you have to make sure it's the act and not the person which generates punishment. And be sure the kid knows which is which.
My brother and I fought so much that my mom said that the cops might think we were being abused.
But spanking did straighten us up when we might not have responded to a scolding.

We did okay, college grads. Commissioned officers, he Air Force, me Infantry. Oops, wait. We got turned into war lovers.
Forget it.

A little background on the case and who was caring for mom's five children while she was in jail.

Mom and Grandma blame the government.

I wonder where they learned that. ~ Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 3, 2018 6:25 PM

If Patrick had set his argument up along the lines laid out by the author of the article Amy linked, that spanking is gateway behavior (once you've passed the threshold of physical punishment of your child, it's easier to justify using it more often than really necessary) or that abusive parents too often use corporal punishment as a justification for their abuse or that it teaches the other children that corporal punishment is acceptable and encourages them to administer it to younger siblings despite not having learned adult-level self control, that would have been one thing. But that's not the point he chose to argue, the mountain he chose to die on.

There is a rational distinction to be made between the broadly understood meanings of spanking and beating.

Spanking is calmly chosen non=injurious corporeal punishment that the child has a basis to expect as the consequence of a choice they have made.

Beating commonly refers to uncontrolled, emotionally driven, injurious actions, and because it's based on the parents' emotional response, it's not predictable to the child.

Spanking is administered for willful defiance knowingly chosen by the child. Beating can happen for lapses, performance failures, etc.

If a child is surprised to be spanked, or is unable to know that they won't be spanked in a given situation, it's beating.

I was spanked, and every time it happened, I knew it was coming. Some of my siblings were not spanked. Every child is unique. There wasn't ANY other punishment that worked with me. Any deprivation punishment that wouldn't be considered abuse or endangerment was like water off a duck's back to me. It wasn't the pain; it was the complete coercive loss of autonomy that I couldn't stand. Eventually, my conscience developed to the point where spanking was no longer necessary, but there are kids who just need it, and I say that as one of them.

My own son is 5, has never been spanked, and I doubt he ever will be. It's not suitable or necessary in his case. If you have a child who responds to timeouts or deprivations, count your blessings. If you have a kid like I was, then you know what I'm talking about.

Our society recognizes situations where violence is justified, and ones where it is not. It's interesting that the blog post made a comparison to guns - even the most ardent opponent of the right to bear arms doesn't want to disarm law enforcement. Although I was spanked, I wasn't violent myself. I learned that our society had criteria for violence being justified and when those criteria didn't apply.

Social scientists love to lecture us on long standing common practices that they claim should be abandoned, but it's noteworthy that all the problems social scientists claim to address have increased in lockstep with the number and influence of social scientists.

By the way Patrick, regarding children's rights "under the Constitution" - the Constitution spells out rights which the government is barred from infringing. It limits the actions of government only, so "rights under the Constitution" is not a relevant argument here.

"Good to know that not understanding something deserves a beating."

It's odd, Patrick, that when Conan makes an assertion about spanking being more effective at preventing self-endangering behavior, an entirely utilitarian argument, you choose to respond to a morally normative argument that he did not make.

In fact, I think you're the only one in this comment stream to bring up the concept of what is deserved.

Patrick's our own private Cathy Newman. His comments about Conan's lobster claws was really below the belt though:

So you're saying everyone ought to be striking their infant children with closed fists?

The Royal Navy used to flog its "naughty" sailors, now it just cuts their privileges
Parents need to remember one golden rule
if you say NO you do not change your mind.
Tantrums are a power play for control by children who do not understand the consequences of their actions
Parents are adults and should act like responsible adults not like childish bullies
An adult hitting a child is like a heavy weight boxer hitting you

Conan:

Patrick, you seem unable to grasp (or unwilling to admit while on your high horse) the concept of degrees of difference, as Isab pointed out in her delightfully sarcastic post and as jerry pointed out in his less-sarcastic but equally spot-on post.

You thought Isab's post was delightfully spot on?

Frankly, I never mentioned it because I was mildly embarrassed for her, and found myself thinking that she's ever argued a case before a judge, I could only feel horribly sorry for her clients.

But since you brought it up, let's take a look.

Isab:

I know what you mean Patrick. I had to go through a lot of soul searching and expensive counseling to convince myself that vaccinating my kids wasnt stabbing them, because really fundamentally, there isnt any difference between the two right?

Okay, first, unless Isab has RN after her name, or LPN, or DO, MD, etc., she is not vaccinating anyone. The doctor or the nurse is.

Second, even a child can be made to understand that this is a necessary procedure. It's intended to prevent certain illnesses. The pain of innoculation is a necessary byproduct. The child knows it is not being punished.

Presumably, if the mother is stabbing her child (and I consider it somewhat sick and twisted that a mother would even think about her child in those terms), then the intent is to kill the child.

So, necessary medical intervention to prevent illness vs an intent to kill a child. Not much comparison between the two: One is a necessary medical procedure and compliance with the law which includes very minor pain as its byproduct, only because science has not yet advanced sufficiently to vaccinate against certain diseases without using needles.

The other is an intent to kill.

And I could go on and on about the differences between immunizing a child and stabbing. Parents generally don't subject their child to tongue-lashings when having them immunized; again, it is clear, even in the mind of a child, that this is not punishment.

And why do you need what is so patently obvious explained to you?

Now, let's compare spanking to beating. And the point of my challenge to you (which, by the way, you ran from) is that it is not possible to spank a child without beating it. Look it up in the dictionary.

And since we're on the subject of Isab's embarrassing commentary, you also won't find in the dictionary a definition that includes leaving marks as a criteria for beating. Her self-righteous harrumphing about leaving marks "by any definition," to the contrary.

Now, let's look at the intent between spanking and beating, even though spanking is, at best, a subset of beating.

Why do you spank a child? The intent is to inflict pain. Yes, you try to convince yourself that this is the way to teach the child (even though you know you're wrong and are intentionally deluding yourself), but inflicting pain is the intent.

And this differs exactly how from beating? It doesn't. Again, the intent is to inflict pain. And child beaters, I'm sure, have also convinced themselves that this is the way to teach the child.

So, an intent to inflict pain on the child vs an intent to inflict pain on the child. Hmmmm... Not much difference there, huh?

It wasn't so long ago when using belts or some other form of leather strap to flog a child was considered perfectly acceptable, even appropriate. That is what parents did and were expected to do to disobedient children, with society's blessing.

But don't flatter yourself into thinking you've evolved so much because we've put the belts away. You still think hurting someone is the way to teach them.

An assertion that is easily disproven by the number of parents who have raised happy, successful and productive children without spanking.

I guess you'll just have to resign yourself to the fact that since they know how to discipline without beating, they're better parents than you.

Isab's post was neither intelligent nor spot-on. It was absolutely embarrassing in its insipidity.

Game, set and match to me.

You guys made this way too easy.

> You guys made this
> way too easy.

"Game, set..."

Over 4,501 words worth of "easy," you affirm that you *desperately* want to command this topic. Has anyone who read them changed their mind?

Crid says:

"Has anyone who read them changed their mind?"

That is a silly standard for a blog discussion.

When entering into a debate of any kind usually it is impossible to shift the positions of those who have dug in their heels.

Therefore purpose of the discussion is for the observers and not those directly involved.

In this case it would me potential lurkers who aren't actually participating in the conversation.

By definition you would have no way of knowing how many or how few of those minds have been changed.

As for folks like Isab, I have never seen her change her mind about anything. She is one of those people whose cup filled up long ago and there is no room for new thoughts or information.

Her mind has been made up about all things, her mind has ossified through age.

I see a great many excuses for corporal punishment of children and not many justifications.

One excuse that keeps cropping up is where children cannot be reasoned with, therefore corporal punishment is appropriate.

The problem here is that there is no evidence whatsoever that more intelligent children are spanked less frequently than less intelligent children.

What we do see evidence for however is that spanking is positively correlated with parental stress.

In other words... children are spanked more often when the parents are less reasonable.

Reality doesn't appear fit with the excuses being offered. That indicates that those excuses are incorrect.

The data suggests that children are spanked when the parents are less able to reason with the child... not when the child is less able to reason.

Spanking is a failure of the parents, it is the quick and easy way out. The important point here is that proper parenting isn't quick and easy, it is well thought out and rational.

Parents tend to hit out of frustration and/or temporal expediency, this has nothing to do whatsoever with the cognitive ability of the child.

Crid:

Has anyone who read them changed their mind?

Has anyone ever changed anyone's mind on an internet discussion? I've never seen it happen.

When I came to this discussion, every post I had read prior to posting my first comment was transparent defensiveness.

It was all about parents outraged over being told they didn't raise their children right. Or children being told their parents didn't raise them right.

And the irrationality began pouring in. Jerry decided (without looking at a single reference in the numerous footnotes in the article) that the study was done with a biased sampling.

Isab abandoned every standard she ever learned in law school, and decided that it was up those who did the study to prove they didn't resort to biased sampling.

Psst. Isab. If you accuse someone of tomfuckery, you have the burden of proof. The burden of proof is always on the accuser. Pre-law 101.

I mean, if the footnotes to reputable scientific
sources are right there. It should be easy to look at the studies and show how they resorted to unbalanced sampling practices.

But Jerry, with the fervor of a southern Gospel preacher, just waves his hands in the air, loudly trumpeting that they obviously relied on unbalanced samplings.

Of course they did. Isab joins the party and decides that they conflated child-spankers with child-beaters. Oh, yes, that must be exactly how it happened.

Of course, no one ever bothered to look at any of the references to actually see that they did this. They just decided that that was how it was done, now it's up to those who wrote this study to defend themselves against completely baseless accusations.

Vehemence is not evidence. Fanatical desperation to believe in something does not shift the burden of proof. Accusations. Still. Require. Evidence.

We clear on this?

I'm still waiting on someone to explain to me how you can possibly spank a child without beating it. I've looked up the word "beat" in the dictionary, and remain convinced spanking cannot happen without beating.

One thing I have noticed is that the arbitrary standards are gradually changing. It wasn't so long ago that school principals kept wooden paddles in their offices. They might have been for intimidation purposes, or for something more.

Mine had one with a baby deer drawn on it, and a bear cub behind it, and the caption read, "For the cute little deer, with the bear behind."

I wonder when we decided that spanking can only be done with an open hand, and only applied through clothing. The dictionary, has not caught up with that, by the way.

I unfortunately wasted my time reading Artemis and Patrick’s comments on this topic. Did not change my mind.

They got spanked in this conversation, like most others.

Abersouth Says:

"I unfortunately wasted my time reading Artemis and Patrick’s comments on this topic. Did not change my mind.

They got spanked in this conversation, like most others."

Unfortunately for you ~40 years of research is against you.

That 40 years of research isn't sufficient to alter your position even 1 millimeter suggests that you didn't reason your way into the position in the first place.

I believe that I am formulating a new opinion here.

Those most likely to spank children are also those who are most resistant to shifting their opinions in response to new information.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-science-says-and-doesn-t-about-spanking/

Unlike you, my opinion is backed by meta-analysis and the full spectrum of scientific data available to us.

Your opinion is back by...???

Just to cut to the chase here... exactly what data or evidence would shift the pro-spanking crowds opinion here?

Apparently 40 years of research isn't enough... what data point is needed specifically?

How are the pro-spanking crowds opinions different than a religious belief?

Artemis: Your opinion is back by...???

Their opinion is backed by nothing. That's the problem. Jerry and Isab seem to think that debunking a study simply involves making an assertion about said study, without even looking at it to see if the assertion is remotely fair or even accurate.

Obviously, they combined child beaters with spankers. Obviously, they used an unbalanced sample group, just like the overrepresentation of Muslims in a study of religious people to prove that religious people are more violent.

No evidence for either assertion. They don't need it. Assertion makes it fact, fact, unimpeachable fact.

You two should get a room.

That assertion is a fact.

You should learn how to handle losing a debate without having a tantrum. I suspect you lose a lot of them.

Already 20% longer than the Declaration of Independence... Today adding a sheet or two of Constitutional Amendments.

I've been persuaded by things on the internet often, and on huge matters a number of times.

Lol. I didn’t enter the debate. I merely declared who I thought won it.

Marketing matters. You suck at it Patrick.

Abersouth: I didn’t enter the debate.

Yeah. You did.

Abersouth: Marketing matters.

Marketing does not change the truth. But it can change peoples' perception of it.

I wasn't trying to market anything. I don't need to. I had the facts on my side.

You’re the most funnest person ever Patrick. Don’t ever change for anybody.

Patrick: Why do you spank a child? The intent is to inflict pain.

Indeed it is. And that's precisely why, when my dad spanked me for doing something I wasn't supposed to do, I didn't do it again. Pain avoidance is a powerful motivator.

All of my four siblings and I got spanked (my two sisters a lot less than my two brothers & I because they didn't misbehave as much as we did.) I don't see any negative effects with any of them. All of them have gone on to raise ten great kids. The only effect that being spanked might have had on me is the strong dislike I have for being told what to do, but that might also just be a rebellious nature.

If I had ever had kids of my own, I'm not sure what I would have done. Because I don't feel that being spanked had any negative effects on me or my siblings, I think I would've leaned toward doing it, but I may have also chosen not to.

Did I like being spanked? Of course not. But I never thought I was being "abused" and I don't consider "basic"** spanking to be child abuse.

** I think there are types of spanking that would be child abuse, such as being brutally thrashed with a hard object, like a paddle.

Artemis: The data suggests that children are spanked when the parents are less able to reason with the child...

I'm sure that was true with my parents, especially my father (who was the only parent who spanked us.) He was a good father, and good man, but was a religious conservative and reasoning wasn't one his strong qualities.

In my post above, I mentioned that spanking was effective with me with because I wanted to avoid pain. It's entirely possible that, had my father used reasoning instead of spanking, it would have been just as effective in getting me to stop doing something I wasn't supposed to do. But I don't know that. It's also possible that it wouldn't have been as effective.

Lenona, that book is going on my list.

Conan the Grammarian at February 3, 2018 3:00 PM
________________________________

Assuming you mean Richard Shenkman's book "Legends, Lies & Cherished Myths of World History," I should warn you that while I own it and enjoy it, it's NOT one of his better ones. I don't understand why it's written in a Reader's Digest style when his other books are far more intelligent than that.

Others of his I own:

Legends, Lies & Cherished Myths of American History

I Love Paul Revere, Whether He Rode or Not (the title is a quotation by someone else)

Ones I haven't seen yet:

One-Night Stands with American History: Odd, Amusing, and Little-Known Incidents

Presidential Ambition: Gaining Power At Any Cost

Political Animals: How Our Stone-Age Brain Gets in the Way of Smart Politics

JD Says:

"In my post above, I mentioned that spanking was effective with me with because I wanted to avoid pain. It's entirely possible that, had my father used reasoning instead of spanking, it would have been just as effective in getting me to stop doing something I wasn't supposed to do. But I don't know that. It's also possible that it wouldn't have been as effective."

I do not believe that anyone is arguing that corporal punishment isn't effective at altering behavior.

What is being argued is that corporal punishment alters behavior at a cost to overall well-being and development of the child.

The research doesn't suggest that corporal punishment ultimately fails at getting children to comply with the demands/expectations of the parent. It does suggest that corporal punishment as a means of child discipline is associated with increased aggression, behavioral and mental health problems, as well as reduced cognitive ability.

In other words... parents who use corporal punishment as a means to get obedient children are taking a short cut at the expense of their child's overall wellbeing.

The quick and easy path isn't always the best one long term.

That is what the research shows.

Had your father been better at reasoning things through with you, you might have benefitted from his thought process in terms of *why* he wanted you to do something. That in turn could have assisted your own ability to think through unrelated problems and situations.

When a parent uses authoritarian methods they short change their children of learning how and why they have come to the conclusions they have come to.

There are typically age appropriate explanations to offer that are worlds better than "do this or I am going to spank you".

Patrick, that was beautiful. No sarcasm. Really perfect.

There are very few decisions I regret more in parenting than not avoiding spanking altogether. We minimized it, didn't do it in anger, explained it, etc. - in other words, made all of the excuses people make to rationalize it. But we blew it.

Spankings? Hell, no! Tasers are the answer! Go big or go home!

Ca-ca del toro.

You're going to have an intelligent, persuasive conversation with a three-year-old about how his behavior is a negative response to his environment? My ass.

Kids are physical. Sometimes you need to communicate with them physically. That's obvious to any nonstupid individual.

Alan,

With young children you do not just have 1 intelligent and persuasive conversation about a particular behavioral issue. You have many of them on a regular basis until they understand.

With children the process of socializing them isn't about "convincing" them the way you might try with an adult. It is a process of education.

The same way you don't just go over the alphabet with a 3 year old just once and expect them to "get it" the same applies to proper socialization.

The physicality you talk about is just a short cut... it is lazy parenting.

Yes the child might avoid a behavior our of fear of physical pain... but you have taught them nothing about why the behavior should be avoided.

You aren't educating your children this way, all you are teaching them is pain aversion, which isn't a particularly useful life lesson.

The reason it isn't useful is because most living things naturally avoid pain, you have taught them nothing that they didn't already know.