And frankly, I think parents who spank their kids probably aren't doing it so much out of a desire to discipline wisely as out of anger -- flying off the handle and smacking the kid one.

You're forgetting the ones who do it because the Good Book told them too. After all, "spare the rod" and your kid might become a godless atheist like me . . . .

Woke up late, haven't had coffee yet -- hit "publish" too soon. Please refresh your browser, added that bit, plus a study.

You're most welcome :-)

Well, I have a couple of issues here. Firstly, I'm in favor of spanking. Then again, I was fortunate enough to have a parent that "did it right", in my opinion.

The first time I did something wrong, I got the lecture and the why-you-shouldn'ts. I also got, and this is the important part, I think, a "If you do this again, you will get _____________ (insert punishment here)". Daddy was also always very specific with his punishments. It wasn't "grounded" or "a spanking" it was "no TV privileges for a week" or "5 licks with the belt". And, the man has a memory like an elephant. It could be 2 years later, and I'd get "Alice Anne, do you remember the last time you did this what I said would happen if you did it again?" And he ALWAYS followed through.

That said - I think that's the most important part of discipline with kids - have a mental list of what is fair punishment for an infraction, and be consistent.

Back on topic - I really don't like the idea of the government telling me how I should raise my kids when I have them. Another commenter on the ABC site said something like "if they want to tell me how to raise my kids, then they can fork over some money to help on that front, too". Paraphrasing, but you get the point.

To sum up - I think the government needs to stay the hell out of our homes and private lives, and I think every little inch we give them is just compounding the problem. Sure, this is an issue you can get behind, but where will it stop. This goes back to the pig not caring that the farmer is going to kill the chicken. It doesn't affect him - but then when it's his turn for the chopping block, nobody is there to help him. In my opinion, we have got to take a stand against the government insinuating itself into our homes and our private lives.

I never spanked my kids and cringe when I see any kid getting whacked. Not using corporal punishment requires an investment in time and patience.

My kids, who are all adults now, say they would rather have taken the 30 lashes rather than having to listen to the lectures. The length of the lecture was always proportional to the severity of the crime.

This goes back to the pig not caring that the farmer is going to kill the chicken. It doesn't affect him - but then when it's his turn for the chopping block, nobody is there to help him.

Ah, but that's exactly what I'm doing -- coming forward against people who beat their kids.

Libertarianism: "Your right to punch a person in the nose ends where their nose begins."

Even if they're five.

Refreshed. Instant obedience? I'll have to tell my daddy that. Well, maybe not. He's turning 86 this year and it might make him stroke out if he laughs too hard ;-)

As for studies - meh. You can make a study suit any stance that you take on an issue, and I also noted in doing some research for a debate long ago that there are very few (try 1 or maybe 2, if that) pro-spanking papers. Also, another reason I don't like to look at studies like the one you quoted is - what exactly are they calling spanking? The drunk father who backhands a kid because he was playing too loud? Umm, yeah, that kid's probably aggressive and it's got squat to do with spanking.

"because you'll either get jail time or the guy'll deck you...maybe you shouldn't be allowed to do it to some three-foot kid." Yes exactly I don't get to pound the crap out of someone who desperately deserves it but I get to fork out cash for the mentally damaged kid who got hit too many times and is on disability because of it, or in the hands of DSS. Discipline comes from the Latin disciplina or to teach. The use of physical force when teaching tends to teach that physical force is ok, is that really a lesson you want. Basically "Hitting people is ok if you do it for the right reasons."

Don't get me wrong I agree with Anne's dads approach with the exception of the "5 licks with the belt". The problem is that most parents hit when they fly off the handle in frustration with out a good explanation of why.

My version of libertarianism says that your right to govern my behavior ends at my front door provided I'm not doing something harmful to society. It's arguable that spanking is harmful to society, and I don't think that it's been proven that it is. Again, there is a HUGE difference between spanking and abusing.

"My kids, who are all adults now, say they would rather have taken the 30 lashes rather than having to listen to the lectures. " Lectures are much scarier then getting hit. A bruise lasts a week a two hour lecture lasts a life time. I'm going with lectures and behaviorism (like I got) when my turn to be dad comes.

My version of libertarianism says that your right to govern my behavior ends at my front door provided I'm not doing something harmful to society.

Isn't your kid "society"? You don't get to pour Drano down your kid's throat. That's because a child is a person, not a possession.

The government can't help the millions of truly abused kids in America, and now they want to take on the task of quadrupling their involvement in our family lives?

I have spanked my boy a few times, and my Dad spanked me a few times. It is ridiculous to expect to reason with a child throwing a tantrum, to explain why he should behave in a civil manner. A spanking, or the threat of it, is something that is easily understood. (The funniest part is my boy and I rough-house all day long, to the point that sometimes Dad gets a little black and blue. The rougher it gets, the more he likes it. But a quick swat on the butt, which has no real pain, draws an instant response.)

I see my neighbors with kids who try to talk it all out, and for Christ's sake, they draw the damn situation out all day. A good open handed swat, on the butt, shows who is in charge and draws the situation to a quick conclusion. Five minutes later he is running around and happy again.

I assume you are being deliberately provocative. There is a world of difference between punishing a child in a way that causes physical pain and "people who beat their kids".

What is so special about physical pain, that it should be forbidden as a punishment?

We used it - I think sensibly - when our children were small. I'll give you an example: at the age of two, my son punched me in the face. No idea where he got the idea - he wasn't angry or anything - he apparently just thought he would try it on for size.

Now, I could have lectured him about why that was wrong, etc, etc - but just how much would a two-year-old understand? So I didn't - I punched him back. Just hard enough to get the message across: punching people in the face is a really bad idea. Immediate negative feedback.

I felt then and believe now that my reaction was exactly correct. We never used "spanking" in the sense of premeditated pain after the fact. We used physical pain as immediate feedback for unacceptable behavior.

As the kids got older, this became less and less necessary (you can have those lectures). It has now been years since the last such punishment - I fully agree that physical punishment is inappropriate for older children.

"Again, there is a HUGE difference between spanking and abusing." Yes a line drawn by different people at different places. Hence the whole debate. I'm not sure it should be banned by the government because I can see this leading to a whole host of problems with social services. If this goes through the child could get even with a parent/guardian they don't like (overall or just for the moment) by accusing them of spanking and just wait for the repercussions from custody disputes.

sn't your kid "society"? You don't get to pour Drano down your kid's throat. That's because a child is a person, not a possession.

Yes, but Drano is pretty harmful to kids (and adults, too). I don't think you can say that spanking is harmful to kids. You said you were spanked as a child. Any harmful affects? Are you a more violent person because of it? Did you somehow come away with the idea that using violence to solve your problems is okay? No? Wow. Imagine that.

I agree with eric. I have five kids who all (except for my oldest whom I adopted when he was 15) were spanked. People who spank kids effectively don't really do it after the ages of five or six because parents are able to utilize other means that are as instantly effective as spanking was when they were younger. You can hit and then hug a child, and they do know you still love them.

As great as your advice is and as much as I respct your views about not procreating and responsible parenting, it can be annoying to have people who have never parented a human being comment on an issue they haven't ever had to grapple with. Also important is the fact that each child is markedly different. What works for some may not work for others. A good parent will learn their kids' behaviors and choose appropriately.

Life is about growth. Children who are loved, know they are loved. Parents who make it their business to raise children well are rewarded by children who love them back just as much. Even if a parent makes a mistake by losing his patience and saying something unfair or spanking too quickly, a good parent apologizes and both have learned valuable life lessons.

As great as your advice is and as much as I respct your views about not procreating and responsible parenting, it can be annoying to have people who have never parented a human being comment on an issue they haven't ever had to grapple with.

I don't see that having parented is necessarily a mark of knowing how to parent, either.

I think a swat or 2 on the behind, not hard, but enough to get the child's attention, is very effective, and not likely to cause lasting damage. Yes, I swatted my 2 girls on the behind, when they were younger, until they were maybe 4 or 5 years old. Now that they're older, it's the taking away of privileges that gets them! "Number 1, no phone for you for a week!" gets her attention pretty damn quick. "Number 2, shut off the TV!" also gets a quick response. Punishments are few and far between, lately, but they do produce the desired results when employed properly. I remember once, when #1 was 4, and I made a comment, wondering why she was so good when we were out, but misbehaved when we were back home, and she said, "But Mommy, I save my badness for home!" The pediatrician said it was good that she felt so comfortable with me! o_O

Here, an excerpt from a thinker whose work I respect, Penelope Leach:

http://www.nospank.net/leach.htm

TRY SOME RESEARCH OF YOUR OWN

If you still feel all that is somewhat different from what goes on in your family and that spanking, as you do it, really does help your children learn how to behave, try a small piece of research for yourself. Next time you spank a child who is old enough to talk fluently, wait until the row is over and then ask what the spanking was for. You will almost certainly find that s/he hasn't the least idea. The child will remember every detail of what happened, for weeks and maybe for life, but the nearest s/he will get to why it happened will be "you were cross" or perhaps "I was bad".

However carefully you tell a child why you are spanking, reason always gets lost in the feelings the punishment produces. A baby or toddler is as amazed and horrified when a beloved parent spanks as you would be if the family dog suddenly turned around and took a chunk out of your leg. At that age a child will often turn to you to make the hurt better.

A child of four or five is overwhelmed with rage which s/he dare not show to you and must bury until it can be taken out on someone or something else.

An older child is angry too but also deeply humiliated. The blow may hurt self-esteem much more than it hurts a backside. Those feelings leave no room for remorse or determination to do better in future. Spanked or beaten children cannot think about what they have done because they are full of what parents have done to them.

Do you, in fact, always know what you spanked your child for? In a lot of families most slaps are not really given to punish one behaviour or encourage another. They are given to relieve the feeling of parents who have been driven "too far"...

I'm very much the talk it through sort of dad. We use time outs, sticker charts, loss of privileges, lectures and when applicable, ignoring. These are all very handy tools for discipline. We are very consistent, the five year old knows exactly what consequences to expect for misbehavior.

We also keep spanking in the arsenal. We don't have to use it often and if the punishing parent is really pissed off, we opt not to use it. The only time we spank is when the misbehavior is a major safety concern or for outright, repeated defiance. Because of the fact that we opt not to use it in anger, it is not as consistent as everything else, but the boy understands that if he should have gotten spanked but didn't, he really fucked up.

We had an interesting discussion about this at our parenting class. The general original consensus was, that spanking is a bad idea. But after a fairly long discussion, that swung entirely to "depends how it's done and used." I absolutely believe this is the crux. If it's the only tool used, there's a problem. If it is used several times a day or even every day, there's something wrong (excepting that kids often go through their pushing buttons phase, where it might be used more frequently). I am guessing we've used it less than a dozen times in the last twelve months.

The positive result we have had from it, is that he very, very rarely does things that will lead to a spanking. When I consider that the last thing he was spanked for was pulling out of my hand, to run across a busy parking lot, I tend to think it's a positive.

I spanked my daughter once. I wanted to impress on her that the whole category of harming her little brother was one she wanted to avoid, not just pushing him down the stairs. Somebody watching might have mistaken my swiftness in negatively reinforcing this behavior with anger, but it was in fact a research-based intention to be highly effective and never need to do that again. Seemingly, it worked. I never had to do that again.

There's lots of research (waves hands) that shows the effectiveness of negative stimuli in extinguishing undesired behaviors. The effect is much greater when the negative stimulus occurs very soon after the undesired behavior.

The study cited is an associational study. "Links", feh. Correlation is not causation, a point the study itself makes. Let me go on about this, and introduce a side topic... There's an excellent current example of the dangers of assuming anything about causality based on associational data and (FSM help us all) making policy based on such assumptions.

We largely have USG involvement to thank for the fossilization of nutrition research and arguably the current obesity and diabetes II epidemics. Once "fat = bad" became policy rather than hypothesis the stage was set for it to become dogma, alternatives unthinkable if one valued one's career. Gary Taubes' book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" (maximum recommendation) tells the grisly story.

There's a reason why for kids, divorcing their parents is called "emancipation", literally taking away the shackles. It's because throughout recorded history children have been subject to the authority of their parents. I wonder if changing that has any chance of destabilizing something?

It's depressing to me how powerful a trump "It's for the children" has become. Fnord. Stop thinking now. Thank you citizen. Fnord. I have no idea what the long term consequences of illegalizing parental corporal punishment might be, and neither does anybody else. Doing so on the basis of one or a thousand associational studies is rash. Assuming the good will of individual parents is not perfect. But they are the best informed actors. And at least they're all going in different directions. To really destabilize a system you need coordinated action, usually by government coercion.

One time when I spanked #1, she was 3, we were living near a busy street at the time, and she started to go after a ball that rolled off the front lawn, without looking both ways to see if a car was coming, something I had been drilling into her little head for months. I saw the car coming, and screech to a stop, as I grabbed her arm and gave her a smack on the butt. (The lady driving shouted something about keeping an eye on my kid, but she kept going.) As I walked #1 back onto the sidewalk, I asked her if she knew why I swatted her behind and she said "I'm sorry mommy, I didn't look to see if there was a car coming." So she knew why I did it that time. o_O

I'm very much the talk it through sort of dad. We use time outs, sticker charts, loss of privileges, lectures and when applicable, ignoring. These are all very handy tools for discipline. We are very consistent, the five year old knows exactly what consequences to expect for misbehavior.

We also keep spanking in the arsenal. We don't have to use it often and if the punishing parent is really pissed off, we opt not to use it. The only time we spank is when the misbehavior is a major safety concern or for outright, repeated defiance. Because of the fact that we opt not to use it in anger, it is not as consistent as everything else, but the boy understands that if he should have gotten spanked but didn't, he really fucked up.

We had an interesting discussion about this at our parenting class. The general original consensus was, that spanking is a bad idea. But after a fairly long discussion, that swung entirely to "depends how it's done and used." I absolutely believe this is the crux. If it's the only tool used, there's a problem. If it is used several times a day or even every day, there's something wrong (excepting that kids often go through their pushing buttons phase, where it might be used more frequently). I am guessing we've used it less than a dozen times in the last twelve months.

The positive result we have had from it, is that he very, very rarely does things that will lead to a spanking. When I consider that the last thing he was spanked for was pulling out of my hand, to run across a busy parking lot, I tend to think it's a positive.

I don't even spank my dog. I will intimidate him, but I don't spank him.

That said... if you're not allowed to spank your kids, can you still spank your significant other? Y'know? For fun? IMHO this law crosses the privacy line.

I'm all for willing spanking.

Gregg weighs in:

"We were never spanked as kids, but there was the occasional waterboarding."

From the nospank website Amy cited:


"If any spanking is wrong, all spanking must be wrong."


There's nothing there to engage intellectually. There's no arguing with proof by confident assertion.


--


phunctor

Vlad - if you leave a bruise, it's not a spanking, but a beating.

I can tell you when the spanking stopped, and the taking of stuff started - the instant mom spanked me and I laughed at her.

A two year old is not capable of understanding a lecture on how it's not nice to pull his little sister's hair. You spank the kid, and establish the pecking order instantly. The closer to the bad behavior the better. Same thing with disciplining a dog. If the dog craps on the carpet, you don't yell at the dog, or swat it, or anything else when you get home. If the dog starts to crouch while you're standing there, you grab it by the collar and throw it out the door.

Temporal proximity is all that matters in disciplining those who have not yet developed higher reasoning ability.

kg - Your argument to Amy in a nutshell: Chickenparent!

I find the appeal to authority to be a particularly egregious manner for stopping debate. It's the same as telling me I can't have an opinion about female genital mutilation because I don't have a vagina.

There's nothing there to engage intellectually.

Nothing? I'd say you're guilty of a little absolutism there yourself.

I don't agree with everything on the website, but I think Leach's remarks are wise.

Shall we also make it illegal to yell, scream, use sarcasm, name-call, shun? These are extremely detrimental parenting behaviors.

I find the appeal to authority to be a particularly egregious manner for stopping debate. It's the same as telling me I can't have an opinion about female genital mutilation because I don't have a vagina.

Thanks, Brian - great point. Humans are capable of abstract thought. A person can have an informed and even a wise opinion about something without experiencing it directly.

I rarely disagree so completely.

As others have said and what's been drilled into my head in class is that correlation is markedly different than causation. Girls who wear sweatpants in public are often fat: sweatpants make you fat? No.

Also, how is this to be inforced? Does the kid tell? Do we check bottoms? Does the nosy neighbor report you? It's hard enough to pin down actual abuse... Are we really contemplating sending parents to jail or taking their kids away for a swat on the behind? How many swats, and how hard? And are we taking into account state of mind, angry or not? It seems to be a tangle of issues.

You seem to be using 'hit', 'spank' and 'abuse' interchangably. I was spanked, and though my dad was a huge jerk a lot of the time, I can't fairly call it abuse. It was mostly (and is mostly, I believe) used to bring a child's attention to you at once. Often it is used in situations where a child's continued disobedience or inattention could seriously harm them.

Also, the intrusion of the government into our lives is already far enough. We already have laws in place to prevent abuse, and they can be used for spanking that becomes abuse too. Alter them a bit if the language is restrictive, but I think it's clear that a simple spank is not abuse. Bruising, longterm hostility and violence - these things are.

Finally, when was the last time you were spanked? It doesn't even hurt, and never leaves a bruise unless it is repeated in the same spot over and over. It's mostly a mental thing, and if you want to argue the legality of shocking/scaring/surpising children, that's probably more in line with what actually happens when they are spanked.

Shall we also make it illegal to yell, scream, use sarcasm, name-call, shun? These are extremely detrimental parenting behaviors

I'm going to take this question seriously and say that we just can't legislate these things, but I don't think crossing the line from discipline into emotional abuse can be considered good parenting.

It's pretty clear, however, what physical violence is and isn't. I don't get to haul off and go violent on another adult just because that person is driving me nuts -- I'd go to jail for it. You shouldn't get to do it to your kid.

If you have a 2-year-old and the kid is pulling his sister's hair, it's up to you to separate them and deal with it in non-caveman-like ways.

Amy -

Have you ever tried to have a rational discussion about hair-pulling (or anything else, for that matter) with a two-year-old? Their grasp of language is tenuous, at best. You'd get the same reaction from them as you do discussing the finer points of string theory with Lucy.

But if he pulls sister's hair, and you swat him on the ass, the message is clear - I'm bigger than you, I am the leader, I am the only one allowed to use force for any reason. The purpose of a spank isn't (or at least ought not be) to vent parental anger at inappropriate behavior. It should be to impress upon the young mind that there is an order to things, and it will be enforced.

If you have a 2-year-old and the kid is pulling his sister's hair, it's up to you to separate them and deal with it in non-caveman-like ways.

A 2-year-old doesn't understand a parent telling him, "No you mustn't pull the baby's hair, because it hurts her and then she cries." That's too much for the 2-year-old to comprehend and pay attention to at once. Telling the 2-year-old "NO!" and separating him from his sister causes him frustration that he can't articulate, so he does it again. One good swift swat on his diapered butt, to get his attention, and then telling him "NO!" would be much more effective. Notice I said "diapered" butt, as in, a very thick, effectively cushioning barrier. The child is more surprised than anything else. Physically hurt? Not at all. Emotionally hurt? Probably not. Embarrassed? Beyond a doubt. And that is most effective, trust me on this one.

Just to re-inforce Brian's point - a lot of people say "You can't do this to an adult..." That right there is the point. A child is NOT an adult. Period. They cannot be reasoned with as an adult with, nor can you communicate with them as you would an adult.

Furthermore, I'm not real big on this current thing where kids are equal to adults. Children are lesser members of society. And sure, I'm about to be flamed, I'm sure. Kids should be protected, and by no means should they be abused - I'm not saying this. But this idea that kids have equal say in household affairs - no. Parents have say. They may listen to the child's opinion and take it into consideration, but at the end of the day, what the parent says is what goes.

And that's as it should be. Adults have the experience and ought to have the wisdom to decide what's best for the family. Children do not, and they shouldn't have equal vote in family decisions. To give them equal vote is asinine. A somewhat off-topic rant, but it's related to this idea that children are the same as adults.

To follow up on Anne's point - I object to society's trend to treat adults and children as equals. It leads to politicians deciding that my enjoyment of life ought to be curtailed on the basis that a five-year-old needs to be protected from bad influences.

Just to clarify my "lesser members of society" before somebody misunderstands me. I don't mean "not as valuable" or anything else - just what I said. Exactly as if I said that I am a lesser member of my company than the owner. If I open my mouth to my boss, he, being a good boss, will take my opinion into consideration, and sometimes he even follows my advice. But at the end of the day, he's the owner and what he says goes. So yeah, I'm a lesser member of the company. Nothing wrong with that. Same with kids, and for many of the same reasons.

Yep, I'm in the same camp as Anne and brian. Children are NOT "little adults" and should NOT be treated as such.

Amy, I have a few issues with the argument being made. First is equivalence between abuse and physical discipline:

I don't get to haul off and go violent on another adult just because that person is driving me nuts -- I'd go to jail for it. You shouldn't get to do it to your kid.

Spanking is not the equivalent of "haul[ing] off and go[ing] violent". We already have laws for such egregious abuse against children.

Second, you equate violent physical interactions between two or more adults to non-violent physical instruction between adult parents and minor children. That kind of equivalence is baffling.

Definition of Violent at Dictionary.com

Third, you equate parents who spank their children with cavemen, using a smear tactic to prove your point. Equating spanking to "...caveman-like ways" is like me calling you "a know-nothing imbecile" for saying spanking should be legislated. It's rude, argumentative, and cheap, contributing nothing to the discussion but disdain for your opposition.

Let's put it this way: You wouldn't give any child between the ages of, oh, let's say, 2 and 12 or 13 years old, your checkbook, right? Because you know and I know and they know they wouldn't have any idea what to do with it. Same thing here: you don't give children adult privileges because they can't handle them. Don't understand them. They don't know how to act as adults in society because they are NOT adults. And to expect them to make decisions like adults is unreasonable. To expect them to discipline themselves like adults is unreasonable, too, especially when a lot of adults lack self-discipline. Which is why parents get to discipline their children, in whatever way they see fit, as long as it isn't abusive. I don't believe spanking, used sparingly and appropriately, is abusive. Amy, your parents weren't abusive when they spanked you, correct? I sincerely believe that most parents aren't abusive. I hope I'm right.

"I don't see that having parented is necessarily a mark of knowing how to parent, either."

That's because you haven't parented.

"It's the same as telling me I can't have an opinion about female genital mutilation because I don't have a vagina."

A little dramatic, brian. Bad analogy as well.

Let's try this question then: If you are a parent and parenting has turned out EXACTLY as you planned pre-child with no surprises, let's hear it!

"kg - Your argument to Amy in a nutshell: Chickenparent!"

Because I find people who have parented effectively children of their own a more credible source than people who have never parented? A little dramatic, brian. Take a breath.

kg - not dramatic at all.

Simply tired of having my opinion and analysis rejected by people who feel I lack sufficient qualification to be allowed an opinion.

My analogy was not bad, it was precisely on point. To wave the ChickenX argument in dismissing a view you disagree with is to argue in bad faith, and to discount another sentient being's ability to observe, analyze, and conclude. It's a debating technique that has about as much place in discourse as the ad hominem.

One reason I don't have kids: Because I understand that it's inappropriate to haul off and smack a kid and my personal patience level would probably tempt me to do just that.

Fewer people should be parents. More parents should parent.

See, Amy - that's what I'm on about. You insert that little ad hom in there "Because I understand", as if to imply that you are more enlightened than those baby-smacking rubes.

It's unhealthy. I point it out because I care.

Point taken. Here, in more opinion-oriented language:

I think it's inappropriate to haul off and smack a kid because you've just had it -- which is, I suspect, the real reason many parents spank their kids...not because they actually weigh whether it's the best form of teaching life skills, etc., for a kid.

And that's as may be, but is the appropriate reaction from government to foreclose the appropriate use of physical punishment due to its potential for abuse?

The argument comes down to who is protecting whose rights from whom. And it's as inappropriate in regulating discipline as it is in regulating the consumption of consciousness altering substances. That someone might be influenced to engage in bad acts is not really a valid point of argument, I would think.

A swift tap on a diaper covered rear isn't the issue here for a practical reason. Unless you do it in public it's your word against the kids. So unless there is evidence that you smacked your child, it will go away. Unless the use of force leaves a mark or your lawyer is totally inept nothing will happen.

Every time I have seen a parent publicly discipline a child it has always been out of frustration and without an explanation.

"I'm bigger than you, I am the leader, I am the only one allowed to use force for any reason." You can't be serious. Your logic is "might makes right".

"Simply tired of having my opinion and analysis rejected by people who feel I lack sufficient qualification to be allowed an opinion."

Yeah, it is dramatic. I never "rejected" your opinion or Amy's. All I said was I find people who have (similar) parenting experiences more credible. I understand your reasoning, but because of my experiences, I recognize that one-size-fits-all thinking does not bode well with every individual child. Furthermore, the article that Amy used to back up her points was laughable. "Overwhelmed by rage, deeply humiliated." Give me a fucking break.

Again, I will point out: I find yours and Amy's views about responsible parenting, for the most part, right on. I agree less people need to parent. I find the selfishness of many of the other parents I know appalling. I don't claim to be the best parent in the world, but I am damn good. When my youngest daughter graduates, I am planning on adopting another older child, as there are so many out there needing homes. I have a patience and love for kids that I learned from my mother. I feel obliged to give some of that back. And i have spanked four out of five of my children.

it always bothers me when people compare beatings and spankings. i've had both, they're quite easily distinguishable. that's my random comment on the matter, realizing that it's not really the issue.
i got spanked as a kid, never twice for the same thing. i was never afraid of my father for spanking me as i knew if i got one it was for something i did, not for fun, and there was always a limit on how many whacks. i am definitely in favor of parents being allowed to spank their kids. it didn't do me a bit of harm. i think it depends on the kid whether or not it's effective - some kids just aren't going to learn any other way, and i totally disagree that the kid doesn't learn right from wrong that way. i did. my brother did. i got more spankings than him. i definitely think that if reasoning and time outs work, do that. but ultimately, i think parents should be allowed to do what works for their kid to have decent behavior. i don't know about anyone else, but i'm sick to death of spoiled rotten little brat kids whose parents keep trying to reason with them.

You know the whole mommy evil-eye that fixes behaviors is not because of the serious talking to we will have later.

By the way, where are all the parents out there whose beliefs about parenting never changed after having a child?

I would say you suspect wrong Amy. All those kids you complain about are raised in the manor that you suggest. Spank them. Most of the times, having them go get the paddle and not spanking them are just as effective. They are kids, not adults. I am so sick of the ohhh honey stop it types.
At my house there was only one offense that would cause me to spank with out an explanation. The way they treat or talk to their mother.
Furthermore, the many problems that have arisen in our education system are due to the abolishment of spanking. Now, we just call the cops on them.
As far as the government goes from what I see, they want total control over what a parent can do with the kid except when it comes to paying. If you are going to let the government decide how to raise the kids, then the government might as well pay the bills also.
So in conclusion I see that Amy you are advocating mental torture in place of corporal torture, at least I am sure that is what the next psychological study put out by some physiologist will say.
Personally, I don’t even consider physiology to be a science, unless of course we are talking about folks that are identify the chemical reactions in the brain that lead to certain ways of thinking. These are the same folks that published papers on how man on boy sex can actually be beneficial to the boy.

Please, what a hoot, a grown adult having a reasoned discussion with a tot throwing a fit.

I am afraid I take the same tact my mom did when I was growing up. "If you don't stop crying, I'll give you something to cry about." And that was a backhand on the butt. Instantly. No discussion, no hope, just a swat. I can count the number of times on two hands, but I knew it would come instantly if I got out of line.

I probably swatted both my kids less than 10 times between the two of them, yet they quit their bad behavior because they knew I would not hesitate.

Tell me, if the state is going to take on the responsibility of telling me how to discipline my kids, are they going to take on all the other responsibilities as well - food, shelter, education, health care, clothing??

I think they should just stay the hell outta my life.

"I don't see that having parented is necessarily a mark of knowing how to parent, either"

You are right, it's not. But as kg says "where are all the parents whose beliefs about parenting didn't change after having a child". No one is rallying up in that line, because before you have children you have NO IDEA how they change your life and the way that you think.

"it's inappropriate to haul off and smack a kid and my personal patience level would probably tempt me to do just that" Those are thoughts that you have before you have children (and sometimes worries you have up until the day they are born).

But we all know that Amy is far more enlightened than us mere mortals. She has even educated herself past evolutionary biology theory that it is a humans goal to procreate. She has carefully selected the ideal mate to ensure that her offspring are well protected and provided for, but has surpassed the desire to reproduce. But according to Amy a big dumb man can't educate himself enough to look past a pair of bouncing breasts (not that he should). A little condescending ....?

Just like those of us who actually have kids couldn't possibly know what we are talking about when we say that spanking can be a useful parenting tool.

"I think it's inappropriate to haul off and smack a kid because you've just had it -- which is, I suspect, the real reason many parents spank their kids..."

I agree 110% If you smack a child b/c you've had it - that's abuse. If you smack a childs fingers before she touches the hot stove, that's parenting ... or I guess according to you, I could spend that 3 hour wait in the hospital for her third degree burns, explaining why she should just listen to what I say ...

Before I had my daughter I didn't believe in spanking as a form of discipline, and I still don't. I think the only way that spanking "works" as a discipline tactic is if the parent is consistant. That is, it's the consistancy that is effective, not the hand on the bottom. We have a lot of discipline tools in our arsenal, none of which involve any physicality beyond the occasional scooping up and depositing in time out. There are many things that may or may not be detrimental to a child, but given that it appears quite likely that they are, why go that route when there are equally (if not more so) effective choices?

Allison, I don't think it's a good idea to assume that everyone's child is exactly like your daughter. Some kids are more hard-headed than others, some are more sensitive. With some, the idea that they've disappointed you is THE most effective thing that you have in your arsenal. With others, nothing short of a spanking and the thought that they will be grounded for a month will be enough to induce them to toe the line. All kids are not created equal.

And for those who are saying spanking is detrimental, abusive, cave-man tactics, I have the following questions:

1) Were you spanked?

If so...
2) Do you feel that your parents were abusive?
3) Do you feel that they were lazy parents?
4) Do you feel that you would have "turned out" better had your parents not spanked?

If the answers to questions 2,3 and 4 are no, then maybe you should re-think your stance that spanking is a sign of poor parenting/lazy parenting or that it's abusive or detrimental to a child's well-being.

Certain amendments to the proposed statute are necessary to make it function as intended, just as a proposed part of the U.S. Constitution draft needed an addition proposed by its presiding officer. A member of the Constitutional Convention had proposed a provision limiting the size of the regular army to 5000 men. Presiding officer George Washington, in one of his rare interventions, proposed an amendment prohibiting enemies "from attacking with a greater force."

With that in mind, the proposed Massachusetts statute needs the following amendments:

1) All children shall mind their parents.

2) No child shall put himself or herself in a position of imminent peril.

3) All parents shall attend workshops of not less than 40 hours duration before birth of their first child concerning non-violent means of discipline.

4) All parents shall be perfect.

5) All children shall behave properly.

6) All chilren shall be above average.

7) The penalties for violation of this statute shall only be applied to enemies of the state.

Dena,
The new advice Goddess!
Great points Dena, Anne and W. Keller

I consider myself very fortunate to have married someone who wasn't spanked at all as a child and didn't see any point in ever trying it with ours.

I was spanked as a kid, hated it, later devoured Penelope Leach and other like-minded experts who advised against it and was even more persuaded by their reasoning not to spank.

Yet I suspect I might well have used it a last resort myself - albeit reluctantly - if it hadn't been for my husband's different, calmer experience.

Personally, I'm glad I broke the pattern.

(I've loved kg's comments in this thread. They've been sensible - and sane.)

"And frankly, I think parents who spank their kids probably aren't doing it so much out of a desire to discipline wisely as out of anger..."

Wow...

"Again, if you can't do it to somebody your own size..."

You do realize we're not allowed to put somebody our own size on timeout, either? Don't you?

"If you don't stop crying, I'll give you something to cry about." Is perhaps the worst thing my mother ever said to me. For two reasons:

1. I was usually crying because she was yelling at me and I was in trouble. And her response to my tears at her anger was to threaten to hit me. This made little sense. Perhaps if I had been crying to get a toy, or a pony or something it would have made logical sense to threaten me. But it probably still wouldn't have gotten me to stop crying.

2. It lead me to believe that she was an idiot for thinking this would get me to stop crying. I mean, seriously, what is more upsetting than the person you love most in the world threatening to hit you? And as I grew up I decided the only way she could think this was a good idea was because she was either insane or stupid.

I don't feel these things severely affected me as a person in any way. But I do feel that they affected our relationship. As a 5 year old I could see gaping holes in her logic that she was blind to. And I'm supposed to listen to her? I think not.

"I'm bigger than you, I am the leader, I am the only one allowed to use force for any reason."

Yikes. There's the lesson my ex-husband learned from his dad. He used it quite effectively on me for a number of years before my brain kicked in. Admittedly, it was from abuse or but his dad would have called it called "discipline” (in anger). While I don't believe the occasional, specifically warned and exactly doled out spank (per Anne's dad) will ruin a kid, the above motive and application might.

I do not spank my son. I have always told him hitting is wrong so chose to practice what I preach. It’s precisely because they are kids (and not little adults) that I think hitting is inappropriate and a poor teaching tool. They don’t understand the nuances of when violence might be acceptable until they start to mature and begin to understand what behaviours are acceptable within their society. Until then, they model their parent’s behaviour (which given the challenges in our school yards, doesn’t speak well of the behaviours they are seeing at home). While he wasn’t the most difficult kid I’ve seen, he wasn't easy and I always found other ways to get his attention and reprimand his behaviour without a whack to his butt.

There is a unique dynamic in a parent-child relationship that doesn’t apply to any other relationship that I can think of, so perhaps some leeway around the laws of physical contact is appropriate. However, I am concerned when the pro-spank comments vary from a “tap on a diapered butt” (which might be akin to a tap on the shoulder in an adult relationship) to “causing physical pain” (which is akin to….well….physical pain). It really is a matter of degrees and I’d like to think that our existing abuse laws would cover that level appropriately. If not, then maybe they do need a clean up.

Abuse is wrong, painful, and illegal. Spanking is not inherently abusive, but can be abusive. So can "lectures" that are actually emotional abuse.

If you *really* want to stop the abuse, do away with the right to privacy and let's actually see what's going on behind closed doors. Once that happens, I'm happy to give credence to any study because there will actually be some way to quantify the "spanking".

Until then, as is clear from the comments in this thread, far too many people who were abused think that "spanking" is what happened to them for me to take seriously any study on the effects of spanking.

Obama: I’ll fine parents who pass on government health care

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/11/obama-scoffs-at.html

Great, just great. Yea, lets have more laws that extract money from parents; I mean what do we know?

Because of my own scary experiences as a child (my father only spanked when he was extremely angry), I was determined not to spank my son. I did so one time, when he quite unusually fell into a hysterical tantrum at age 4 when he did not want to leave the rides at the state fair. One swat on the bottom got him out of it (I think the total surprise is what did it) and I was in no way angry, just perplexed. What did work for him between say the ages of 2 and 4 was to intervene in the inappropriate behavior. Jumping up and down on the couch? Remove him and say "We don't jump on the couch". More jumping? Repeat. Third time I would sit down and keep him with me, explaining he could go as long as he didn't jump on the couch, because "We don't jump on the couch". Always a calm, reasonable voice, no shouting, no threats. He learned that I was consistent and had more patience than he did. I felt using "we" helped establish there were standards we all had to meet, rather than just focusing on his "bad" behavior. In fact, we never used the good/bad adjectives. But there are times with small children that only the fact you are bigger than they are helps.

Amy, unless you are quite unusual, I guarantee your perspective will change if and when you become a parent. Not that you will change your mind about spanking (I didn't), but it will change nonetheless. The best way I know how to describe it is this:

Parents should be like the guardrails along the highway - when a child starts to veer off the road, they will encounter a solid support which helps get back on track.

I gave up spanking my kids in 1991, when the oldest was 6 and the youngest of the 3 was 1. I found spanking to be an outgrowth of temper that I could not control and I vowed that I was going to be the adult here and the kids could be the kids. I am so glad personally that I ended spanking. I wish I had never done it.

Amy, unless you are quite unusual, I guarantee your perspective will change if and when you become a parent. Not that you will change your mind about spanking (I didn't), but it will change nonetheless.

I will not become a parent, but my neighbors, for example, have not changed their feelings that hitting is uncivilized and a poor way to teach kids.

I think Moe99 gives an honest appraisal of what it is for many -- not a teaching tool but a reactive outburst.

If you can't parent without acting out violently on your child, wear a condom.

Time-out is appropriate discipline, and we actually do put people in our lives on time-out, although we don't call it that. Maybe we don't call them back so frequently or so readily, or there are other signals they've behaved badly. Or we just tell them so. That said, it is a parent's job to parent their child, not to parent another adult, so the "no time out for adults, huh?!" example is a silly one.

But we all know that Amy is far more enlightened than us mere mortals. She has even educated herself past evolutionary biology theory that it is a humans goal to procreate. She has carefully selected the ideal mate to ensure that her offspring are well protected and provided for, but has surpassed the desire to reproduce. But according to Amy a big dumb man can't educate himself enough to look past a pair of bouncing breasts (not that he should). A little condescending ....?

Once more in English?

Moreta is a parent, and somehow manages without brutalizing the kid:

I do not spank my son. I have always told him hitting is wrong so chose to practice what I preach. It’s precisely because they are kids (and not little adults) that I think hitting is inappropriate and a poor teaching tool. They don’t understand the nuances of when violence might be acceptable until they start to mature and begin to understand what behaviours are acceptable within their society. Until then, they model their parent’s behaviour (which given the challenges in our school yards, doesn’t speak well of the behaviours they are seeing at home). While he wasn’t the most difficult kid I’ve seen, he wasn't easy and I always found other ways to get his attention and reprimand his behaviour without a whack to his butt.

Hmmm, appears parenting without smacking the kid one is possible...but not quite as quick and easy as the alternative.

My appreciation of the challenges a particular parent is having and my sympathy for them when their child acts out has changed (although I still expect them to deal with it like adults), but my perspective about what is totally within and outside of limits in terms of parenting did not change. I'd suggest that those who "change their mind" weren't quite so firm about their ideals to begin with....it was more of an "I'd rather not", or "I don't think its a good idea" than "I will not". On this topic, I went into parenting thinking that I'd try not to spank, but would judge things as I got into it. It was while going through the experience that my resolve was set.

"I don’t even consider physiology to be a science" So many possible ad hominem so little time.

I got smacked a few times. Most of the time I don't think about those few times. When I do my response is usually "wow your rotting alone in a nursing home for that". However I don't have the attention span to hold the grudge.

"You do realize we're not allowed to put somebody our own size on timeout, either? Don't you?" Um, prison is what???

Questions:

1) Why is this a problem after 200+ - OK, pick a number - years?

2) If you do not show your child that you are positively and undoubtedly in charge, what do you get?

3) Is opposing spanking consistent with telling parents not to treat their kids as commanders, fulfilling their every whim, and protesting a Little League system that rewards indolence with playing time?

4) How do you explain the existence of fistfights and prepare your precious, insulated, never-felt-pain youngster for his or her first one?

5) How do you explain out-of-control youth?

6) Since when is Massachusetts a standard-bearer?

1) Cause we have progressed as a society to better options.

2) Screwed.

3) Vague question but I'll answer what I think your asking: Just cause I'm not gone hit the kid doesn't mean they won't sorrily regret crossing lines or that he/she will be wimp.

4) Kung Fu which teaches discipline without physical violence.

5) Shit parenting. Not setting any boundaries or enforcing them inconsitantly

6) You got me on this one

I think lack of experience can lead to ignorance of the difficulty of a task, and consequently to ridiculous and unrealistic standards. I remember doing case studies in college where things were set up a certain way (the ball flies at 12 m/s, the supplier delivers 1,000 bolts of cloth every Monday, etc). Imagine my surprise when I began work and realized that just because a company has agreed to deliver 1,000 bolts of cloth every Monday, does not in fact mean that 1,000 bolts of cloth will be delivered every Monday. When I was still new and naive, I would think just like Amy: "Those guys suck at what they do, they shouldn't take the contract if they can't guarantee delivery." And my older coworkers would just laugh at me and shake their heads. After just a few months of experience, I began to understand exactly how naive I was.

Manufacturing, especially of complicated products, is often unpredictable and frustrating (much like parenting). There are a million mistakes to make, many of which are time consuming and expensive to catch and fix, and some of which can even physically harm employees or customers. The best and most experienced people and companies screw up sometimes. To me, there is little that is more obnoxious than someone who has no clue what it is like to do my job, or what it entails, looking on from the outside and telling me how I could/should have done it better. I imagine that is how some of the parent commenters on here feel (I am imagining because I have no kids).

Let's be precise here;
-there is a difference between beating and spanking

-I was spanked when I was four or five on the behind on rare occasions. Can't remember it hurting, but it did make an impression, knowing that my mother meant business and I better knock off whatever I was doing. The verbal warnings propably were not effective at that point.

-I have used the same on rare occasions with my daughters.

-Neither myself, nor my daughters are traumatized, angry, maladapted or whatever from these occasional corporal punishments.

-To give states permission to make spankings criminal is a nightmarish idea. States are already often incapable of handling truely abusive parenting. Think about the consequences of criminalizing spankings. I am talking here a few swats that leave no bruises, marks etc.

- Name calling, put downs, derogatory remarks, screaming are much more damaging than a swat on the behind

-Permissive parenting where parent talk, talk, talk, but don't have the back bone to follow thru on meaningful consequences are likely to create children who are insuffarable. You could call that abusive as well, but we don't ask the state to criminalize poor parenting now, do we

-Protect kids who truely get abused and please have the maturity to know the difference

Here a sensible article about spanking by my favorite parenting expert John Rosemond;

http://rosemond.com/index.php?action=website-view&WebSiteID=389&WebPageID=11710

And the following article should be sobering and food for thought for the ban spanking advocates.
Research in Sweden showed AND INCREASE IN CHILD ABUSE after spanking was made illegal.

http://faculty.biola.edu/paulp/sweden2.html

While being a parent will certainly change a person's perspective on discipline, that doesn't mean non-parents (like me) don't have a valid point of view. Parents have more hands-on (pardon the pun) experience, but I believe nonparents can have a more detached, analytical view because they are not caught up in the emotional consequences.

It's impossible to know what effect spanking (not abuse) will have on a child because we know so little about psychology, and each kid is so different. For most kids I know, an occasional swat is effective. One kid I know laughs at just about every form of discipline except for taking his TV away, and spankings only make him more nuts. It's a parent's job to learn what is effective and appropriate for his or her child.

I remember my summer as a camp counselor of 19 2, 3 and 4 year olds. We were not allowed to spank them, which I understood, because we weren't their parents, but I wanted to on more than a few occasions. We weren't even allowed to speak harshly to them. They walked all over us. The only thing we could do in response to tantrums was wait them out, or try to reason with the kids, but reason has no impact on a child who has taken to banging his head against the couch. One tantrum went on for an hour, until the kid was so spent from screaming and thrashing about that he threw up. I have to believe it would have been kinder had we been allowed to swat the kid on the ass just once to snap him out of it.

My ovaries shriveled up and died at the ripe old age of 19.

"Research in Sweden showed AND INCREASE IN CHILD ABUSE after spanking was made illegal." When I asked my wife whose a child psych I was surprised. She said that actually banning spanking will probably lead to this, she hadn't read the study. Complete surprise to me. I still think it's fundamentally barbaric but some times barbarism as a last resort may be necessary. That said a parent who lets the situation escalate to the point where spanking/hitting is needed screwed the pooch. However the threat of it is a really good deterrent.

I was an impromptu camp counselor for the more rowdy kids. I found that convincing them that you will do horrible shit to them in their sleep and/or when no one is looking works the best. Getting hit is one thing, letting your own imagination determine the possible punishment seamed much more effective. That said they were all 6 and over.

Amy,
Hypothetical;

My three year old has been warned, timed outed, several times for treating her baby sister roughly. On one occasion, after doing this again, I give her a swat on the bottom. My neigbor who happened to stop by to drop off an Avon order, witnesses the swat and decides to call the police. I get cited, arrested, whatever, and now Child Protective Services is involved.

Do you really think that the state should be involved in a scenario like this?

Have you considered that the same state is often already incapable of protecting children who get grossly neglected or abused because they are underfunded and understaffed? And now we are going to tie up the system even more because mom gave Sally a swat for the bottom?

Don't you think that this cure may be worse than the 'disease of spanking'?(And I would like to stress here again that I am talking about spanking, not beating, leaving bruises etc.)

You sound suspiciously like a lefty doo-gooder in this posting and you seem to lack nuanced thinking about the issue. Including the unintended consequences of making spanking illegal.

I think an occasional swat on the butt, or slap of the hand or other forms of mild physical admonishment are OK with children too young to really reason with. But, as children get older, more creativity is required. I think my mom and dad should win some awards for clever punishments (my brothers and I were moderate hellions). E.g., when I was 11 and caught making small bombs from model rocket engines, I was grounded until I researched and wrote a 5 page paper on the effects and treatments of various types of burns. This definitely helped - it was unpleasant, and I learned something. I think that is an important component that corporal punishment lacks - it doesn't teach the kids why things are wrong or off limits. Kids need to know that stuff.

I will not give any credence to a study on spanking that doesn't define the term in some detail.

Here are some (but not necessarily a complete list of) things OUTSIDE of MY definition of spanking.

* "Haul off and whack the kid".

* Leaving bruises.

* Hitting the child with anything other than an open palm-of-the-hand or 1-2 fingers. (Parents who are amputees might need a little leeway on this one. If I ever have to deal with such a situation, I'll think about it then. Odds are I won't.)

* Hitting the child anywhere other than the buttocks (clothed, possibly even diapered) or the hand.

* Hitting the child with sufficient force that the parent's hand stings.

Spanking needs to be reasoned, and it must be done with sufficient firmness that the child knows it was intentional - yet with sufficient LIGHTness that the offense to the child's dignity is worse than the physical pain. (If the child, by 18 months of age, has no sense of dignity, there are other problems.) And sufficient promptness that the child knows what it's for.

When our kids were little, we reserved spanking for acts that could cause actual physical harm to them or others. Running into/too close to the street, sticking things in electric outlets, hitting people, things like that. The natural consequence of such acts is physical pain, possibly accompanied by actual damage or even death. So they experienced physical pain - at a level of OUR choosing, guaranteed not to cause actual damage.

And I don't think either of our kids (both of whom are now adults) got spanked twice for the same sort of dangerous act.

If I had any confidence that any government agency or program would do as intended not become a bloated self feeding bureaucracy, I might be willing to listen to "outlaw spanking". However, there is no doubt that a law forbidding spanking will do two things. It will lead to anti-yelling, anti-deprivation and other laws either by legislation or court action. It will also create a whole new class of clients for "child protective services". Families will be ruined, children taken away because the social worker is having a bad day and endless prosecution of parents whose methods the government disapproves.

Most parents are pretty poor at it. They are only superior to all the people who think they know better from the outside.

Where exactly is the line drawn? So I am not supposed to use the very occasional swat on the rear. Am I allowed to grab him forcefully, if he is becoming a danger to himself or others? What if he is just throwing a huge tantrum and I need to drag him out of the store?

On the very rare occasions we use spankings, it is consistent and absolutely never done out of anger. If we are that pissed, whichever might be involved, we step away for a minute. If we're in public, we step outside and he sits his ass down while we have a breather. He always knows when he has crossed the line and generally gives us a minute and then apologizes, because he knows that he should have gotten a spanking. We have talked about this several times and he understand exactly why we don't spank him on these occasions.

And on occasions when he does get spanked, believe me, he knows exactly why it happened. Both because we talk about it after the fact and because we are consistent about it. He knows what to expect, when he misbehaves. He knows what will lose him privileges, he knows what will get him put in time-out, he knows what will get him the silent treatment and he is starting to learn a lot about natural consequences. He is also starting to learn to put himself in time-out, before he gets out of control. Most important, he knows what will get a positive response from us.

Spanking is the least used tool in our child-rearing arsenal, but it is there nonetheless. It is not abusive, it is not lazy. We spend just as much time talking about why he got the spanking, as we do talking about why he went to time-out or lost his treats for the day. Indeed, due to the extreme nature of offenses that lead to spankings, we generally spend considerably more time talking after the spanking.

Kids are all different. I don't even expect that the one on the way, will react the same way the five year old does to things. I am expecting to have to come up with new and very different strategies for discipline. What works for your kids (or Amy's neighbors) is great for them and you. I have found a very comfortable system that works for us and our child. He is happy and content for the most part. We have our clashes, he and I both, have rather severe ADHD, which makes for some interesting situations. On the rare occasions when I am out of line, I apologize and we talk about it.

Spanking should never be done in anger. Verbal assaults should be treated the same. While it is important to deal with discipline asap, especially with the younger ones, stepping aside a moment to calm down is even more important. Discipline out of anger is abuse, no matter how it is applied. Spanking OTH, is not always abuse, any more than time-out or loss of privileges is.

Recently I caught one of those kids who wasn't spanked pounding the snot out of a boy half his size.
His dad ran up, said "I'll handle this" and "Now Jimmy, we've talked about this sort of behavior before."
Someone had a cell phone and the cops were there in two minutes.
It turns out that a half dozen witnesses weren't into letting the bully off the hook, and away he went to the juvenile lockup.
Dad was actually upset that his son was going to be held accountable for his assault and battery.
I say spank 'em before they deteriorate to this point.

Spanking/hand smacking ended in our family as soon as the children could be spoken to.

Note that I did not say "reasoned with".

It was done only in cases of immediate physical danger - such as running into the street or reaching for a hot iron.

And once when one son bit my mother, she simply bit his finger back. End of biting.

After that, discipline involved:

Telling - what behavior was wrong, how it made others (including the parent) feel, what the expectation was (apology and/or preferred behavior.

(Imposed) Consequences - in a way RELATED to the behavior change desired. Why the parentheses around "imposed"?

I would say 90 percent of behavior-modification/discipline attempts by parents are GRATUITOUS - far better to let kids experience the consequences of their behavior, and then they'll learn to choose otherwise next time.

Unrelated, imposed restriction of privileges do not TEACH the kid - they are cattle-prod style herd management.

LET THE KID miss the bus, lose a friend's trust, be unable to find things in their mess, come up short because they wasted their allowance.

This is more instructive - and empowering - and results in a far shorter learning curve than micro-management.

My wife sometimes says "I am so angry with what you did that I can't talk about it now - I am going into my room to calm down." This has more impact than a spanking.

If such a statement DOESN'T affect the kid - it means that the relationship between parent and child is much too weak and/or superficial to sustain any real education/discipline.

Yes, parents have a right and obligation to step in when the choices/consequences are really dangerous, and not yet understood by the child. They then have the authority to restrict their child's movement and other things that we would not do to another adult.

But a kid old enough to get into those kind of troubles is old enough not to be hit.

Regarding "Biblical" excuses for corporal punishment:

One of the commandments in the Torah is "do not place a stumbling block before the blind". The Talmud applies this in different ways - and one interpretation is that it is forbidden to hit a child who can be disciplined other ways.

The reasoning: corporal punishment is degrading and angers the child, leading them to rebellious, poorly-considered behavior. So such a parent is "misleading" their child instead of directing them in the right way, placing a stumbling block before the child instead of helping them cultivate a healthy sense of competence.

Vlad, "cause we have progressed as a society to better options" is complete and utter bullshit. Now, don't swell up, here's why: not only can you not show we are a "better" society (single motherhood is good how?), the option, of not spanking a child, has always been available. To establish a difference, you have to show a general difference in decorum from one society to another which can show a cause/effect link to any of the supposed ills.

"Society" derives a distant, future benefit from the discipline you apply to your family today. Spanking produces immediate results which are obvious to participants and passers-by. If it doesn't work, abuse is not the next logical step; if it does, everyone gets over it because a remedy has been applied which worked. Clearly, a true infant will not understand an increase in pain and will only cry harder; as there is no voluntary activity to be curtailed by such discipline, a swat won't work at all and all but the densest and most brutal parents know this.

What a crock it is that a government agent will pass judgment on you as to whether you corrected poor behavior "the right way". This is merely another area of legal meddling with unintended consequences, as Draco is consulted for the best way to stop child abuse.

-----

While we're at it, what does our vaunted society consider a "child"? As we clamor for more government protection and infantilize ourselves in the process, we insist that responsibilities are not for us until later and later in life. Got a number?

http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=7424520

Perhaps we should do what this lady did, tape the kids' legs together and stick 'em in play pen with a board bungee-corded to the top, and let DCF take it from there?

"Unless the use of force leaves a mark or your lawyer is totally inept nothing will happen."

Good God - Are you joking? You're living in a fairy tale world, man. The State is FULLY CAPABLE of taking your kids away from you for extended periods of time on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations, making your life hell as you fight the charge, and maybe making the life of your kid hell in foster care while you try and rescue him or her at great trouble and expense. If you think I'm exagerating than you've been sleeping walking through life. The media and web are full of cases just like this - some doctor or social worker makes an incorrect assessment that a kid is abused, the state swoops in, takes the kids, and puts them in shitty foster care where they are poorly cared for by people only in it for the stipend the state pays per child. There was a horrible case involving a Soldier assigned to the Pentagon here in northern Virginia recently. Parents wrongly accused, kid neglected and abused in foster care, parents threatened and intimidated by the social service agency when they tried to complain about the treatment their kid was receiving in foster care. It was in the media. The mother ended up having to take a hardship discharge from the Army and the father's citizenship application delayed. All over a charge that was proved, months after it was leveled, to be unfounded. Same think happens in sex abuse cases. The burden of proof is on YOU.

More comment - "unless your lawyer is inept." You've never had to deal with defense attornies, have you? I have (not my own, but representing Soldiers under my command and one relative). Let me tell you, there are a LOT of inept attornies out there. If you have to put your life in the hands of one of these very plentiful fools, God help you.

And then, what if you do have a good lawyer? Fighting of any charge in court is an extremely expensive and drawn out process. And even if you win, you still lose. You can never recover the money or time, the charge remains on your record, and no amount of vindication will remove the sting of humiliation and anger. Finally, the charge will still be on your record.

And that assumes that your good lawyer will get you off at all. People do get wrongly convicted from time to time.

So - ban spanking? I'll leave it to Amy and the rest of you to decide for yourselves whether it is right or wrong in the abstract. But I'll take one position right now: We live in a world of massive unintended consequences emanating from state action. Their will be unintended consequences here to - consequences that will far outweigh any benefits from the state attempting to ban spanking. You are extremely naive if you think the state will exercise this newfound authority judiciously or effectively. There are problems that the state can fix, and problems that the state only makes worse when they try to fix them: And spanking - if it is a problem - is on them.

I feel as a mother and grandmother and someone who was physically abused as a child, I must wade in. Particularly because I did end the cycle of abuse. I determined to do just that when I was 8. Trust me, I know (the hard way) the difference between spanking and abuse.

With all due respect, Penelope Leach is an ass. I say that having read nothing by her except what Amy quotes above. If people can "know" what it's like to parent without having done so, I guess I too can jump to conclusions about all a person's written based on a few idiotic words. What idiotic words? Frankly, that a kid won't know why they were spanked. Umm, yes, they do if you immediately explain it to them. Raise hands all you parents that have spanked (I define spank for the duration of this post the same way warrl does) if you hugged them after and asked if they knew why they were spanked? Have done this with both my daughter and grandson and they were both able to tell me same as they did when other forms of punishment were used.

I have spanked my daughter all of 3 times and my grandson once and all four times was for out of control behavior. My grandson's one swat on the behind (and this was in public and not out of losing temper) as was one of my daughter's was for not sitting back on the bus. You'd be surprised how very easily and severely little kids are hurt when not sitting all the way back in the seat. That big bus slamming on it's breaks really sends them flying down the aisle. My grandson was leaning on the edge and bouncing excitedly and said rather defiantly no (he's like me personality wise and likes to question authority) and refused for anything other than the swat. Since then, he does knowing he will get the swat if he doesn't and he doesn't like the swat. My daughter, at age 3, decided the poles for holding on when standing were a good jungle gym and started swinging around on them with no warning (much to my chagrin and embarrassment and alarm for her and our fellow passenger's safety). I swatted her behind and said sit and sit back. She so rarely got one she stopped short and sat down and sat all the way back and learned real quickly to sit back. All it took (as it is with my grandson) was a threat to swat if she didn't. We wound up to be grateful she was taught the lesson so quickly a few weeks later. Some idiot pulled out in front of the bus and the driver had to slam on the breaks to avoid hitting him. As it was (we were on the sideways facing seats behind the driver) she went sliding into the panel behind the driver and I went sliding into her. We were shook up and each got a jolt but were fine. Had she not been sitting back, she would have gone flying down the aisle and probably into the heavy metal coin box. The driver was shook and checking on us and thanked me profusely for her good behavior. He told us stories of kids that went flying and were badly injured.

The two other times I spanked my daughter was one time when she was running into the street and once when she hit another kid with a stick. That time was over my knee but far from thinking might was right, it sunk in how serious her violent behavior towards the other child was. When I resorted to the swat on the behind, she was so shocked she never repeated the behavior again. Oh, and for both her and the grandson, I have swatted curious hands away from hot burners. But, go, figure, they both love to cook. I hate to. Must be genetics because the one thing I'll give her father is that he was a damned good cook who learned when he was small from a mother who was a professional chef.

This is physical abuse? No, I don't think so. Physical abuse was the way my mother would chase us around with a shoe and beat us black and blue with it then keep on beating us for crying. Honest to god, I thought I would die from not being able to stop crying some times. Fortunately, her arm always gave out before I actually did. Physical abuse was my father knocking out a tooth that wasn't lose when I was seven because I had the nerve to watch him shave. I didn't know about men and shaving and he left the bathroom door open and I stopped and stared and without warning, not so much as a scram, he turned around and socked me. Physical abuse is what is still my "favorite" (the quotes are to indicate sarcasm) birthday when my father pulled his little penknife on my brother when they got into a fight and were standing on a back porch some work was being done then getting scared because my brother pulled a real knife, a switchblade one hell of a lot bigger than his, and chucking a sawhorse at my brother breaking his collar bone. I could go on and on but won't. That's enough examples. Swats on a clothed behind are neither violent or physical abuse. Please. They're more comparable to a playful punch on the arm you'd give an adult buddy than they are to violently attacking another adult.

My daughter and grandson are opposites personality wise and what worked for her is not working for him. You have to know the kid and be creative. Early bed and time outs worked for my daughter. Time outs are useless for my grandson. You simply cannot keep him in there without putting him back every time he gets up for hours on end and then he thinks it's a game and funny. Because he hates sitting still, I have taken to just holding him in my lap (not as easy as it sounds and, yes, it does take physical force to keep him there when it's for punishment and not because he wants to cuddle, something he's never really liked unless he's tired because he is very hyperactive, his father can't sit still for more than five minutes either). It's very effective. Now I can often change his behavior just by saying are you going to control yourself or does grammy have to control you?

I think what troubles me most about this proposed law is that it isn't clearly defined. Anything legitimate would be covered under existing laws. Bruises are abuse anywhere. Seems like they want to take children evidence free and I have to wonder why and what's really behind this muscle flexing on Massachusetts' part. While telling parents don't you dare bully, they're bullying parents. Then they want to turn around and lock up the parents too if a 16 year old commits a felony as if anyone has 100% control over another human being. You'd better control your kids but if you do we're going to consider that abuse. Huh?

Finally, I'd like to point out that undisciplined kids don't learn self-discipline.

Oh, and kg, yep, my views on parenting have changed since becoming one. I used to annoy my sister being like Amy with my neice and nephew and she used to say the same thing don't tell me how to parent until you have one. I had to eat some extreme humble pie (including apologizing profusely) when I did.

I don't see anyone making any impact on Amy's stance so I'll try one last tack that's quite related to the points I've already tried to make.

Most children who are abused physically are spanked. Most children who are spanked are not physically abused.

Taking away spanking is like trying to take away guns to solve violent crime. All you'll do is put the good parents in a tough situation where they can't use a safe, effective tool. Abusive parents will continue to abuse their children.

It's easy to outlaw spanking. It's difficult to actually stop abuse.

If you're serious about stopping abuse, you *must* get behind the closed doors and actually see what's happening to these kids in their homes.

First, let me say that the assumption that parents are "really" hitting just because they've had is nothing more than prejudice. On what observations is this based?

Second, let me say that in attempting to deny anger, we cease to develop it into something useful. Yes, you read that right. Anger is nothing more than the aggression which results from the perception of injustice. It becomes harmful only when it is unchecked by thought.

Obviously you can't have parents losing their temper and beating their children to within an inch of their lives. That helps no one. But the insistence on removing pain as a teaching tool makes no sense whatsoever.

Getting rid of spanking to avoid abuse is like getting rid of soldiers to avoid war. All you end up with a more uncontrolled, chaotic, brutal mess.

I spent some time learning about animal training from my wife, who was an animal behaviourist.

In animal training, punishment is counter-productive, for the sorts of reasons given above wrt children. The animal dislikes the punishment but does not know what brought it on, and so simply gets stressed out because punishment can arrive at any time with no warning. The animal might wish to avoid being punished, but it doesn't know how to.

Rewards are much more effective. Especially with a clicker. You click immediately the animal does what you want, and it knows it will get a reward, it has a good idea why, and it is in a very good mood about it. It is motivated to get rewards (tautology!), so it seeks out rewarded behaviour. Picture a frisky goat that knows if it can only figure out what you want it to do it will get a treat. The goat will bounce around like a frantic wind-up toy trying all sorts of different behaviours. You just have to watch for the one you want, and click!

There are natural punishments. No child burns itself in a candle flame twice by accident. But the opportunities for punishment-based learning are few. The natural reward is pleasure - and think what you will do to obtain simple pleasures like the taste of food, or orgasm, or even emptying your bladder.

Some people object to this, calling it bribery. As if you are bribed for going in to work every day. There's a difference between bribery and reward. Behaviour is plastic, and we now know how to shape it. Bribery doesn't work; reward does.

I smacked my first child. But it was almost always because I lost control (eg when he was hitting his little sister). Eventually, after a great deal of effort, I changed my behaviour. In drunken soul-bearing sessions, he denies any lasting harm. The harm is mine, in the small hours of the night, when I regret what I did. What should one do? As a larger, stronger, adult, I could simply have restrained him, or taken him out of the situation.

First, let me say that the assumption that parents are "really" hitting just because they've had is nothing more than prejudice. On what observations is this based?

I said I "suspect" that that's often the reason -- and my suspicion is borne out by a number of confessions to that regard here. (It's also based on an understanding of human nature.)

If I had hit, I know it would have been in anger or fear. It takes restraint on my part NOT to smack my son when he refuses to listen or when he does something dangerously stupid.

My work with parrots, introduced me to the operant conditioning stuff that Norman talks about and I can confirm that it works. On animals, co-workers, kids, spouses and strangers. But it takes a lot of practice, patience, consistency and persistence. And while B.F. Skinner's behavioural approach has been around since the 70's it isn't commonly taught. Punishment is our default reaction.

There is a middle ground between spanking and reasoning. Physical restraint and removal are appropriate because I would restrain anyone who was hitting another or remove anyone who was placing themselves in physical danger. It's not something I would ONLY do to my kid. Attempting to teach kids not to hit by hitting them (even if it doesn't hurt) seems illogical to me.

The kid old enough to step onto the road can be yanked off the road and your genuine fear will convey the seriousness of the offence. The tantruming child picked up, removed and then ignored will learn that tantrums don't work. The child old enough to reach the stove will get the picture even if you have to escalate from "No, owie" to "NO, BIG OWIE!" to guiding a finger slowly towards a hot element to feel the heat.

I agree that a quick swat to a padded bottom can get the message across, but I'm not sure it teaches the why or helps them understand the natural consequences that could occur. Personal responsibility has to be developed...it doesn't just happen.

Giving the government the power to mandate and/or punish behavior that has not clearly been proven to be harmful to society is a really, REALLY bad idea.

When there is open debate about the subject, when studies are inconclusive, when there are vast ‘gray’ areas in a subject as all-encompassing as to effect an entire culture and population – to incorporate laws of this magnitude without more knowledge is simply an irresponsible, sloppy, knee-jerk response that will undoubtedly have devastating repercussions.

It would behoove people who condone giving away our personal rights and power on how to raise our children to the government to ask themselves a couple of questions, such as: What next? Who determines these things? Does the need to follow popular opinion and provide quick answers (with extremely long-term consequences, such as voting in new laws) outweigh true knowledge and dialogue in finding serious answers to serious questions?

If you want to vote in laws to protect against child abuse, what about parents who doom their children to a lifetime of any or all of these problems:

Type 2 (non-insulin dependent) diabetes; Cardiovascular disease; Stroke; Hypertension, hypothyroidism; Dyslipidemia; Hyperinsulinemia, insulin resistance, glucose intolerance; Congestive heart failure; Angina pectoris; Cholecystitis; Cholelithiasis; Osteoarthritis; Gout; Fatty liver disease; Sleep apnea and other respiratory problems; Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS); Fertility complications; Pregnancy complications; Psychological disorders; Uric acid nephrolithiasis (kidney stones); Stress urinary incontinence; Cancer of the kidney, endometrium, breast, colon and rectum, esophagus, prostate and gall bladder; Death.

Yep. We’re talking about the classic tale of abuse – obesity. (The above list was taken from www.obesityinamerica.org and appears to be consistent with other such lists available on various health sites).

Sorry, but I find reading the above list much more heart-breaking and detrimental to a child than an appropriate, infrequent swat on the behind that may have, say - actually saved a child’s life because the child never, ever ran out into the road again chasing after a ball.

But clearly having obese children is abuse. So now what? Enact a law that puts parents in prison for obesity abuse? I think not. Surely informing ourselves about the cause and effects of obesity and creating a culture that thinks, then acts on this information is much, much better then gladly sacrificing our individual rights and creating a moral police state.

That right there is my biggest concern with this:
I think not. Surely informing ourselves about the cause and effects of obesity and creating a culture that thinks, then acts on this information is much, much better then gladly sacrificing our individual rights and creating a moral police state.

It falls in the same boat as policing the sale of entertainment (books, video games, etc.), having laws against gay marriage, making certain sex acts illegal, etc.

I'm not overly concerned with whether or not people spank (SPANK in the non-abusive sense) or not, I really, really don't like the government in our homes. And this is why I made my chicken/pig analogy.

We MUST stand against any and all government intrusion into our private lives. It's fine to shrug and say "Who cares?" if we don't like the thing being legislated against. You don't like spanking, so you're fine with this law. What happens when the government decides that not having sex frequently enough leads to violence and stress related illness so we must all prove that we're getting it on at least weekly or face criminal charges? Or it's unhealthy for there to be single parents, so all children in a single-parent household will be taken from their parents and put in foster care? Or any situation. All it takes is for the majority to take a stance and it to be legislated - only what happens when it affects you?

We have GOT to get the government out of personal lives and start making people take personal responsibility - and this ranges from parenting to dietary/health concerns and all the way across the board.

@ Matt Knowles,

You write;
...... I don't see anyone making any impact on Amy's stance so I'll try one last tack that's quite related to the points I've already tried to make......

Indeed, Amy is pointedly ignoring all reasonable arguments and concerns regarding the downsides of making spankings illegal.
I didn't get any answers re; the questions I posed either.

Ah well, sometimes silence is golden.

Uh, I'm not silent, just behind.

I did the first of a series of talks at a school yesterday (to demystify what it takes to accomplish stuff in life) and I'm a day behind in my writing.

That said, I don't see evidence that spanking is the best or only option for raising kids -- just the most expedient for many parents. My neighbors' kids, to name one example, are never spanked, and they are safe and fantastically behaved kids. Their parents are unquestionably the authority figures in the household -- unlike parents who haul off and slap their kids in between being their best friend/servant.

That's very cool that you're talking to kids, Amy. Probably exhausting, though :-)

Now then -
Firstly - we need to get away from the "hauling off and beating the shit out of kids". I don't think anyone here has said that's okay, and it's definitely abusive and falls under current child abuse laws. So by trotting that out, you're side-stepping the argument.

I don't see evidence that spanking is the best or only option for raising kids
You've also not got evidence that proper spanking is harmful. So, based on that, you are supporting giving the government access to our homes and personal freedoms?

Again, where does it stop. And we should all be against allowing the government any sort of control over our family and personal life unless we are okay with ceding over all control.

Amy! Does that mean you started the school project with the underpriviledged kids? I have been thinking about that and wondering whether it had taken off! If so, how was it?

I did start it -- although I want to be careful how I refer to them. I'd be creeped out if somebody called me "underprivileged." A lot of the kids at this school happen to come from poorer neighborhoods in LA, and get bused to this school. The kids I spoke to were really cool, and I was impressed by a few of them. The teacher who invited me thought it went great, and the other teacher there asked if I'd speak to some national teachers' conference, so I think she thought it went well, too. Next month, I'd like to bring somebody else (self-made) with an interesting background and interview them.

PS Unfortunately, couldn't get yesterday's videotaped, but that's the goal, and as long as I prepared this talk, I think I might try to give it at other schools around LA -- basically, to kids who don't live in neighborhoods where Daddy has a brand new Mercedes and/or a jet.

I was very motivated when Jesse Owens came to talk to my elementary school, and I'm trying to do the same -- to send a message to perservere, and also, to demystify what it takes to make it in the world.

persevere. Sorry.

And this is an example of how anybody can do something to make a difference in the world, and without sucking a dime out of other people's paychecks. Just come up with an idea of what you have to offer and then follow through on making it happen.

There really are two debates here. One is whether "proper" spanking (however that may be defined) is an appropriate discipline tool. The second is whether the government should be allowed to regulate it. While I think it is unnecessary to use spankings as discipline and personally believe it is ineffective long term and possibly detrimental, I don't think we need a new law. Existing child abuse laws should prevent Johnny from being hit in the way one adult might assault another.

Yeah, you are right about the underpriviledged thing. Didn't think it through. What a great opportunity for you and them. What was the most surprizing thing about the experience?

If everyone read carefully you'll see that the main topic has changed. It went from Should spanking be banned by law to spanking sucks, to spanking isn't effective or there are better tools. No one in the past 50+ post actually advocated for making it illegal. There are question of effectivness, possible harm, and alternative approaches but no one has actually said it should be illegal. Also most of those in favor of corporal punishment point out that it should be used very rarely.

While I think it should be strongly discouraged, an outright ban the way Ma proposed it would be a really bad idea. Here's why. If the child's ONLY deterrent is spanking (which mean the parents screwed the pooch) then once the ban goes into effect the shit storm will be monumental. Now you have a kid that won't listen (again major blame to the parents) with nothing stopping him/her from becoming really dangerous. Also I can see the ban turning custody cases into [expletive fail me].

However there are some cases where this law will help. Abuse doesn't always have to leave bruises, any good interrogator knows this. There are times when the social worker/shrink knows with absolute certainty that the child is being harmed but can't prove it. There are of course time when they are wrong and times when they are right. This law will mandate further investigation into cases that are on the border.

I think a careful evaluation has to be done to see how many more parents will be wrongfully accused vs how many children will be protected by this law. I'm not seeing the government do this.

I personally believe that there are better tools that are available to our society. Using properly applied behaviorism takes more effort than spanking. Also it requires a much better understanding of situations.

Dennis: Yes I have had to deal with defense attorneys no problems. The case in Virginia I'm not unfamiliar with so if you have a link I'm curious. If you win the case, and by win I mean all charges are dismissed then there should not be any record. If you plead out to a lesser charge that's different.

I'm completely convinced now that any reasonable arguments against the gov't outlawing spanking will never be engaged by our host.

Couldn't help but see her article at Pajamas too...

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/11/rich_litter.php

(sorry, not sure how to make that a link, if it's not)

It's one thing to believe that parents who spank their children are just acting out their own anger, and that parents who choose to have large families are only in it for the "show brats" appeal is one thing. Resolutely refusing to engage any of the reasoned, civil arguments to the contrary is another.

I remain convinced that proper spanking is a safe, effective parenting tool (even though the kids in your neighborhood were never spanked and they're great!). And I know from personal experience that the desire for a large family is often associated with a deep sense of responsibility to our future. How many articles have *you* read about the doom of Europe because they're birth rate is so low?

Oh, why do I bother... Thanks josie for at least letting me know *somebody* could see my comments..

"There are times when the social worker/shrink knows with absolute certainty that the child is being harmed but can't prove it."

And so we can see the spectre, now: the abject surrender of the presumption of innocence to save the children...!.

With the exception of cases involving the children, we are to assume innocence until proven guilty. But with the children, we don't need that silly "proof": every man is a child molester, every parent is incompetent, and the only solution is the State government.

-----

NONSENSE.

-----

Hey - where's my number? What's a "child"?

"Dennis: Yes I have had to deal with defense attorneys no problems. The case in Virginia I'm not unfamiliar with so if you have a link I'm curious. If you win the case, and by win I mean all charges are dismissed then there should not be any record. If you plead out to a lesser charge that's different."

Vlad, you are really missing the point. You never really win even if you are acquitted. As I've already said, defending against a criminal charge is a traumatic experience of the first order. Legal fees can consume every penny you have and it will take every bit of your time and attention for the duration of the trial and probably during a lot of the investigation as well. And how about the anguish, fear, and humiliation of having your children taken from you and placed in the care of strangers, while you are forced to battle the assembled power of the state not just for your own freedom but also for the integrity of your family? None of this comes back to you if you even if you are acquitted. And no, you are very wrong about your records being cleared if you win. The record of your arrest and trial will still exist be available for public scrutiny. I'm sure you have heard of the difficulty people face in getting their names off sex-offender registries even after they beat the rap. And, you completely ignored my comments the harrowing experience of some children in social welfare system, and how the state will use its power to beat you into submission if you dare make a peep of complaint about how they are treating your kids.

Remember Abraham Lincoln's advice from his "Notes for a Law Lecture," ca 1850, about what you can expect from the courts:

"...the nominal winner is often a real loser -- in fees, expenses, and waste of time."

This certainly describes almost any criminal defendant who beats the charge.

Oh, and for those obviously guilty child-beaters who plea bargain and plead to lesser charges? Not so fast. I'm sure you have seen and heard of plenty of cases where people cracked and confessed to things they didn't do, or just copped a plea because the risk of conviction - of destruction of their lives in fighting the charges - was too great. The power of the state can be overwhelming. The last thing we need to be doing is inviting even more state oversight of the most intimate relationships of our lives.

Sorry, I tried to find the article I mentioned above on the web but could not. Although the article was about a family here in Northern Virginia where I live, I actually saw it in a paper in Atlanta when I was down there on business a few days ago. It was probably the Atlanta Journal-Constitution but I don't know for sure. All I can say is that it was a horrible situation where the only people who abused the child were the social workers and foster parents who were supposed to be protecting the child.

It doesn't matter though. Cases of falsely accused parents abound. All you have to do is keep your eyes open.

Big studies? Neither policy makers nor the media are disciplined enough to correctly interpret and act upon the findings of these studies - assuming the studies themselves are objective and unbiased.

Banning spanking is, on its face, a dreadful idea. Whatever tiny amount of good it might do will be vastly outweighed by the damage done by the incompetence and abuse of the officers of the state who attempt to enforce the law. We already have stringent laws on the books against any kind of behavior that could potentially harm, or actually does harm, children - yet people still harm and murder their kids. We need to continue to vigorously enforce those laws, not dissipate our resources hassling parents for actions that might hypothetically harm children.

If the state tries to fix every problem, it will fix none of them well and make many worse. The state needs to focus on REAL abuse of children.

"Spare the rod spoil the child" isn't a "metaphor;" it's biblical guidance to Christians as to how to raise their children. To brush it off as nothing but a nice old story establishes nothing other than you are completely unfamiliar with its context and meaning.

"And frankly, I think parents who spank their kids probably aren't doing it so much out of a desire to discipline wisely as out of anger -- flying off the handle and smacking the kid one."
That is total projection. Do you have kids? Because I do.

I've seen how the government handles the mess that is the public school system, welfare, and foster care - the state has no business ousting parental authority.

There's a difference between abuse and discipline and those who cannot differentiate should be prohibited from procreating.

By the way - I would like to read the text of the the proposed Massachusetts Law, so I wrote to the bill's sponsor asking how I might get access to it. No answer yet.

______________________________________________
"Representative Kaufman –

I would like to read the actual text of your anti-spanking bill. I cannot find it online. How can I obtain a copy – electronic or paper?

Sincerely,

Dennis"

I don't find your arguments reasonable. I believe in discipline for kids, and I know five of them who were never spanked who are obedient and polite.

Here's a bit about rod as a metaphor (excerpt below):

http://thesmocklady.com/blog/whew-here-goes-spanking-and-why-i-believe-it-is-wrong_289/

Note from the SmockDaddy: Most of the Rabbinical authorities agree that the Hebrew word shebet (rod) is to be taken as a metaphor for authority.

More:

http://www.chattermoms.com/spankingdebate

Effectiveness Of Spanking
While spanking may relieve a parent's frustration and stop misbehavior briefly, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics (1995), researchers suggest that spanking may be the least effective discipline method. To test this hypothesis, researchers surveyed parents, with the assumption that if spanking worked, children who were spanked would learn to behave better over time so that they would need punishing less frequently (Leach, 1996). However, the results showed that families who start spanking before their children are a year old are just as likely to spank their 4-year-old children as often as families who do not start spanking until later. Thus, children appear not to be learning the lessons parents are trying to teach by spanking. Spanking may be ineffective because it does not teach an alternative behavior (American Academy of Pediatrics, 1995). In fact, children usually feel resentful, humiliated, and helpless after being spanked (Samalin & Whitney, 1995). The primary lesson they learn appears to be that they should try harder not to get caught. Spanking also sends the wrong message to children (Samalin & Whitney, 1995). Spanking communicates that hitting is an acceptable way to solve problems, and that it is all right for a big person to strike a smaller one. In addition, when children are spanked, they may know that they have done something wrong, but in many cases, they are too young to understand the lesson. It is a very difficult message for any adult or child to understand: "I hurt you because I don't want you hurt." Finally, when spanking is the primary discipline method used, it may have some potentially harmful long-term effects such as increasing the chances of misbehavior, aggression, violent or criminal behavior; impaired learning; and depression (Straus, 1995).

"And frankly, I think parents who spank their kids probably aren't doing it so much out of a desire to discipline wisely as out of anger -- flying off the handle and smacking the kid one."
That is total projection. Do you have kids? Because I do.

Total projection? Oh, come on. Parents often spank because they're fed up. I've seen it. Hell, I've experienced it.

It's uncivilized behavior to hit your child, and I know many of you will not want to admit that. You'll rail that I'm not a parent and that brutality of the bigger on the smaller is the only way to teach. I've seen differently.

Oh yeah, and something I thought of last night that I saw echoed in one of the pieces I just linked -- if you have a child, how come you haven't babyproofed your house? Make dangerous objects and outlets inaccessible. Put a baby gate in front of the kitchen, etc. You might have to work a little to not physically brutalize your child. My heart bleeds for you.

Amy, I'd love to see you address some of Dennis' comments. You're side-stepping all of his excellent points.

Finally, since you're using a couple of examples (your neighbor's kids) to prove that non-spanking households can discipline their kids just fine, let's look at another example to disprove some of the assumptions you quote from Ms. Leach's article.

The first argument we can throw out. "Spanking may be ineffective because it does not teach an alternative behavior" I think we've all agreed that *if* spanking is effective, it's used in conjunction with discussion.

Now then, you were spanked. Do any of these apply to you?
Did you "feel resentful, humiliated, and helpless after being spanked"?

Do you believe that "hitting is an acceptable way to solve problems, and that it is all right for a big person to strike a smaller one."?

Do you suffer from "misbehavior, aggression, violent or criminal behavior; impaired learning; and depression"

And lastly, do you feel that your parents were lazy parents because they spanked you?

Regardless, I really don't care to argue the validity of spanking. It's another issue where nobody is going to change their mind. BUT - my main arguments are EXACTLY what Dennis has said, and I've yet to see anyone address his concerns.

Pretty much.

Nope.

Well, I have ADHD, but I don't think I got it slammed into me.

Yeah, I do, in that regard. It's a violent, knee-jerk, fed-up response.

Do I think the state manages much of anything well? No. But, it's assault to hit another adult. Children are people, not possessions. I'm for at least educating people with alternatives to spanking.

The people above who pretend they aren't hauling off and slapping their kid one because they're fed up and it's easier...well, I think at least a few of them -- if not more -- are disingenuous.

I'm for at least educating people with alternatives to spanking.

That I have no problem with, even as an advocate of proper spanking. I'm also quick to point out that not every kid needs to be spanked. Methods of discipline/punishment work differently with every kid - even kids in the same family.

But I do not think the government needs to step into this (aside from offering said classes), and I wouldn't have a problem with those classes being required if you are receiving state assistance. In fact, I think that's a good idea. There's also been some research into the issue of whether lower-income families (ie. ones using assistance programs) are more likely to engage in improper punishment techniques, and it's often shown that that's the case. Also, I think that if you are getting government assistance for something, you are giving the government the right in some respects to butt into your business on that front.

Anyway, sorry for rambling. It's past my bed time :-)

Amy -

The people above who pretend they aren't hauling off and slapping their kid one because they're fed up and it's easier...well, I think at least a few of them -- if not more -- are disingenuous.

I will preface that the majority of parents I know, I have met through activities that imply they spend a lot of time and effort to raise their kids. The parents I know, are parents that I have met at church, the library, the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry or similar places. The only one's I spend any time with, have kids that I want to have my son around, especially those who have really great kids.

Among these parents, there are some who do not spank and they have great kids. Of those who do, it is used very minimally, one of many other disciplinary tools. All of us deal with our kids in the ways that we have found work the best. Some have very different ideas, different methods. Indeed, some of us (mostly those of us dealing with ADHD, autism or other behavioral/developmental issues) spend a fair amount of time comparing ideas.

Among every one that I have discussed discipline and spanking with, spanking is used only in very specific, very serious circumstances. The other important theme, is to never spank or attempt any real discipline (aside from removing them from a situation) when you are really angry.

On occasion I get really pissed at my son. I get fed up and just feel like screaming. His recent spillage on my router was such an occasion (totally an accident and not because he was misbehaving). Quite often it is not even specifically because of his behavior. I have my own stress and anxiety problems and carrying the responsibility of supporting my entire family just makes those that much worse at times, especially when things are tight. When I get angry, I don't even try to touch him. I try not to talk to him, opting to step out and have a smoke, or take a walk if momma's home.

I would love to say that it always works out, but on occasion I raise my voice, even flat out yell at him. I do not, OTH, attempt to discipline him. Yelling really doesn't count. All that does is make him really upset and we end up arguing - not effective in the least. Later, we talk about what I did wrong, framed in the "what would have been a better decision for papa to make?" scenario, so he can correlate it to making better decisions.

I have observed parents swatting or spanking out of expediency. When he was two and doing things that were unsafe, I did it out of expediency. Now that he is older and can be reasoned with, every disciplinary tool used is deliberate and consistent. We recognize my tantrums and his mother's (rarer) tantrums for what they are and try to use them as teaching tools. Neither of us being naturally violent, we don't use violence when we lose it. None of the parents of kids we like to have our son around, admit to doing so either. Based on the fact that they are pretty good kids, easy to deal with, I tend to believe it.

I am sorry that people abuse their children. Striking them out of anger certainly qualifies. Hurling epitaphs is abuse. Isolating a three year old in their room for several hours is abuse. While taking away a child's privileges for more than a couple days isn't abuse, it is certainly not terribly effective discipline, as it can have a fairly detrimental effect on their self-esteem long after they forgot why the privileges were taken away. In short, discipline out of anger, no matter the form it takes, can be abusive at worse, counterproductive at best.

I have never hit my child in an abusive manner. The swats I have given him, would be quite unlikely to end up with me getting charged, were I to inflict them on an adult. Indeed, I have hit my friends on occasion, just as hard, when in the midst of friendly banter. The idea of spanking is not to inflict more than a little sting. Nothing they will feel for more than a moment.

For our family, spanking is the most extreme discipline tool we have, excepting occasions when we have to walk away because we're too pissed. As I mentioned, the last time I did it, was when he pulled away from me in a crowded parking lot. He isn't actually all that far from not needing to hold someone's hand in a parking lot and actually did a very good job of paying attention. The safety problem, is that he is short enough yet, that someone backing up might not see him. The other issue is consistency. The thing is, that the spanking was not the whole of the discipline. We also discussed exactly why he got spanked, what was unsafe about what he did and why we have the rule he broke, one that he knows well enough now, that he had to explain it to me - including after some prodding, the fact that he is too short for everyone to see him. Because no discipline is effective, if the child doesn't know why they are being punished.

I would love to see people use spanking too much stop. I would love to see people who try to discipline out of anger stop doing so, as it is extremely counterintuitive. I am adamantly apposed to harming children, much less child abuse. I doubt a single parent has ever managed to raise a child without causing them some harm, but it can and should be minimized as much as possible. However, while there is a point where it is appropriate for the state to step in, it can be and often is, a very fine line. Could our laws in this regard be better, certainly, but I don't see the solution as it's not an easy line to define. I do know that the methods that I, and many parents use, do not even come close, in spite of the fact that we use spanking as one of our many tools. Making it illegal is just an abysmally piss-poor idea, on a whole lot of levels.

Sorry this is so long. I am the first to admit that I am far from being a perfect parent. The thing is that I take my responsibility as a parent very seriously. I make a lot of sacrifices for my son, many of them for the sake of disciplining him. His mother and I have made a lot of compromises together, spend a lot of time discussing him, the problems that he has and how we should deal with them. We also spend a lot of time addressing his discipline, what's working, what's not, changes we might find necessary, we are extremely thoughtful about most everything we do in regards to our child. I take serious umbrage to people, especially those without children (though I would have the same attitude I do now if you were a mom and your kids were angels), telling me that they think my parenting techniques are wrong, abusive or lazy. They are anything but abusive or lazy and while we have our problems, we also have a great, very bright kid, so they can't be all wrong. They are certainly not something that the state needs to step in to change. This is also quite long because I really like and respect you and decided that "go fuck yourself" wasn't reasonable under the circumstances, though it is my usual response to people (excepting my son's counselor and people I ask for discipline advice from) who criticize my parenting methods.

Amy said: "I don't find your arguments reasonable."

Whose arguments? Why? This is what we mean by "refusing to engage".

What I think several of us are protesting is that you're not participating in an argument, you're just making assertions and providing anecdotes.

Your willingness to assign motives en masse to people you've never met (and I doubt you've ever really socialized with people like us, either) is repugnant.

Your argument that spanking should be banned is weak: "There are people who were spanked that were abused. There kids in my neighborhood who were never spanked and their great. Therefore spanking should be banned."

This is not far from: "There are Christians who are corrupt, depraved hypocrites. There are atheists in my neighborhood who are very moral people. Therefore Christianity should be banned."

Just curious, but those kids in your neighborhood that are so well-behaved... what's their socio-economic status? Any chance that might have an impact? Any chance their behavior might be different if they rubbed shoulders with the hoi polloi?

Any chance your in an Ivory Tower?

Well said DuWayne. I'm very proud of myself for breaking the cycle of abuse and it really gets my back up to have those few swats my daughter received put on a level with my parents' abuse or someone saying I didn't merely because I slapped her hands away from a hot stove (Amy, for the record, you don't want that baby gate up barring a small child from the kitchen when you're cooking if there's no one else in the house; you may have to get to them damned quick, kids are totally unpredictable animals, you never know what they're going to take it into their heads to try).

But I guess we shouldn't procreate unless we are absolutely perfect and can likewise guarantee that the offspring will be. I'll add to kg's question. Any of us parents think we're perfect parents? I didn't think so. Worry about the parent that thinks they are. I doubt, Amy, your neighbors do.

Your willingness to assign motives en masse to people you've never met (and I doubt you've ever really socialized with people like us, either) is repugnant.

So you think that parents don't haul off and hit kids because they've had it? I think it's reasonable, as a person who lives in the world and observes behavior, to be able to make some judgments about the motivation behind that behavior. See the ashtray example above.

There are, at this moment, 120 comments here. I can't engage in every argument -- I have a deadline; two, in fact; I've responded best as I can under the circumstances: not yet getting around to having myself cloned.

Your unreasonable in pretending that it's impossible to fairly suggest that parents are lazy and reactive in hitting their kids.

Here's a suggestion I made above: Babyproof your house and you won't have to beat your child. Burden's on you then, huh?

As for the socioeconomic status of the well-behaved kids; father's a professor; mother's an architect who is now a stay-at-home mom. She does one or two small design projects a year from home to bring home extra cash and keep working, but they're basically struggling financially to make ends me. They never have any wine but two-buck Chuck.

Ivory tower? Oh, please. Because I suggest civilized behavior toward children?

It's amazing to me how many people here defend hitting children and see it as civilized.

Any chance you'll emerge from the cave?

(Amy, for the record, you don't want that baby gate up barring a small child from the kitchen when you're cooking if there's no one else in the house; you may have to get to them damned quick, kids are totally unpredictable animals, you never know what they're going to take it into their heads to try).

I have a baby gate and it's perfectly possible to get over it fast. You can't have it all ways, but you can take steps to protect your child -- and should -- so you don't have to hit them.

Same goes for outlets and all the rest.

Close, but no cigar.

You "think parents who spank their kids probably aren't doing it so much out of a desire to discipline wisely as out of anger." No qualifiers. I suggest this is an ugly generalization. Your response is to suggest I think it doesn't happen at all.

Even when you do engage an argument, you do so flippantly without intellectual honesty. Oh, and with personal attacks too... guess I'll just slink back to my cave.

I am not a perfect parent. I have made and continue to make mistakes. My temper has snapped and I have yelled at my son when I was frustrated, which was not effective. I cooled down and we talked about how I screwed up and how everyone screws up from time to time.

DuWayne, I don't doubt that you are parenting to the best of your abilities...just like the rest of us. It also sounds to me like you use spanking in a reasoned approach and are not among those who just whack a kid out of frustration. However, I have also observed the frustrated whack a lot so I have to agree that a good number of parents, even if its not a hard whack, do it out of frustration. I would likely be among them if I hadn't set a strict "NO HIT" rule for myself.

I just don't believe its a good tool for long term learning, but I've mentioned my reasoning and given some alternative suggestions from the realm of anecdotes in above posts, so no point repeating myself.

I was spanked on four occassions I remember quite clearly...and I am now 39. I don't remember my transgression, but I remember those spankings.

I was always resentful, humiliated and helpless after being spanked. At least until the last time when I was seven and I laughed in defiance. The lesson I learned: I could defy even the "worst" punishment...try controlling me now!

I do not believe hitting is acceptable now, but I did when I was in grade school. I used it on occassion to get my way, particularly with my younger brother and accepted it from kids bigger than me as being normal.

And yes, up until my mid-20's, I suffered from misbehavior and criminal behavior. Up until my 30's, I suffered depression and I still struggle with aggression. Of course, spending the ages of 16 to 31 with a man who also thought hitting was a good form of discipline didn't help.

And lastly, yes, I feel that my parents were being lazy in the discipline area when they spanked me. They agree.

Out of curiosity, Moreta, were you spanked with much discussion of why you were spanked, or were you one of those whose parents did "haul off and whack"? I can see where abusing a child could lead to what you describe, but I have to say that growing up in my house I didn't feel that my father was a lazy parent at all, and he was and is a firm believer in corporal punishment.

Given that I was only spanked four times, it wasn't a "haul off and whack" thing. Yes there were lectures that went along with the spankings, but I don't remember them. I remember the spankings.

I was raised in a typical middle-class home. My mom stayed home until we were in jr & high school, my dad was a teacher, they are still married, didn't drink or smoke or do much of anything outside of day to day family life. I actually had a damn good childhood and there are many, many more good memories than bad.

I don't profess to suggest that my spankings were the sole cause of my stupidity later in life. I just answered the questions as asked. My stupidity was a result of poor choices I made and any whining that what I did when I was 20 was my parents fault is just useless victimization. However, it clearly took me a long time to learn to make good choices which suggests I wasn't taught to think logically when I was young and impressionable...and I was no dummy on the book learning side of things. What I did learn was how to lie and avoid getting caught so that I wouldn't get into trouble. And I did it so well, my later poor behavior was never caught...including my ability to act like my marriage was perfect when I was actually scared to death.

And to be clear, I didn't think they were lazy at the time. What did I know? I was a kid. It's looking back and talking with them now as adults, discussing their grandson and his discipline that the idea of it being lazy came about.

That's an interesting perspective. Thank you for that :-)

"However, the results showed that families who start spanking before their children are a year old are just as likely to spank their 4-year-old children as often as families who do not start spanking until later."

This is a fine example of the citation of unrelated statements to try to prove a point. This sentence does not actually support the one before it.

You will note that I have already observed that true infants do not understand any reason for increased pain, so all they will do is yell more if spanked. The citation merely shows that two groups of parents act similarly in the application of corporal punishment after age four.

I can't understand why some people don't realize that a lot of a child's caterwauling is just a way to get what they want: out of the store, theater, or anything else they don't like.

-----

I am still waiting. What's a "child"? I need to know, because for some reason, the streets are full of people who act as though there are no consequences to anything they do, and I need to know which to treat like adults.

Check this out: Nobody could say what a "child" is!