Discipline for children

[Shadowy Man]

Yes, parents have legal guardianship over their children. That comes with the right (and, under specific circumstances, duty) to carry them away against their will, as it does when you have legal guardianship over an adult. It does not come with the right, let alone duty, to physically hurt them as a form of punishment.

How about pinning them down and brushing their teeth against their will?

 

[Emily Lake]

But by your own logic here... "your child" is certainly not synonymous with "an adult" or "a coworker", which I believe is the example that you tried to use earlier. You wanted to equate an adult relationship to a child earlier when it fit your argument to do so... yet now you're backpedaling and taking the opposite stance.

okay, i hear what you're saying, but i think it's a completely different context - because i was saying that you can't hit an adult or a coworker for being an idiot or displeasing you, so why should you be able to hit a child for doing so.

I don't believe anyone has suggested that it's in any fashion acceptable to spank any child; thus you cannot spank any adult. You can only spank those children over whom you have authority and legal guardianship.

Similarly, I don't believe anyone has suggested that it's in any fashion acceptable to spank your child solely because you think they're an idiot or because they displeased you. I'm fairly certain that everyone in this thread would view that as child abuse - a distinction that you willfully refuse to allow.

Now, given that we've level set that distinction and are now back on level ground...

There are many situations where what is allowable for a parent to do with respect to their own child would be illegal for them to do to another adult over whom they do not have guardianship responsibilities. For example:

• You can pick up a child physically and move them to where you want them to be. If you did so to an adult, that would be at minimum assault and at worst kidnapping. Do you see this as inconsistent?
• You can physically constrain a misbehaving child in time-out. To physically restrain an adult would be at best assault, and at worst false imprisonment. Do you see this as inconsistent?
• You can punish a misbehaving child by depriving them of their toys, video games, books, and other pleasurable activities. To do this to an adult would be theft. Do you see this as inconsistent?

 

[Emily Lake]

Actually, I find "lashing out with violence" more acceptable. In the heat of the moment, when everything is happening at once and your child does something very, very stupid when you least need it and you let your hand slip before you think about it? We're humans, shit happens. I can potentially even see myself doing it. I wouldn't be proud about it, and I would do my best to make up as soon as I've cooled down a bit, but I could still look myself in the mirror. But not after a cold-blooded, premediated assault.

Interesting. Not a single one of the few spankings I received as a child could be classified as "lashing out with violence" nor "in the heat of the moment". None of them were in any fashion reactionary on the part of my parents. They were all quite clearly premeditated. I was clearly informed that I was going to be spanked, and I was sent to my room to think about what I'd done to merit the spanking. I was left to myself for at least 15 minutes, to think it over. Then my parent would come in, and we would have a calm (albeit tearful on my part) discussion of what I did, and exactly why it was wrong, and why I was being spanked (as previously mentioned, almost always because I lied about it). We also discussed what I could have done differently, and how I could handle that sort of situation in the future. Once all of that was concluded... then I was spanked.

 

[Emily Lake]

Can anyone provide evidence of any positive effects of spanking?

It stops unacceptable behavior, and reduces the likelihood of a repeat performance.

ETA: For the record, I've already said it's not something I suggest as a "first line" approach, but only as a "last line" approach. But if all else has failed, then by all means, stop the unacceptable behavior.

 

[Emily Lake]

they don't know how to deal with situations outside of using violence and aggression.

It strikes me that classifying all spankings as violence and aggression is very much like classifying all prison sentences as vengeance.

 

[prideandfall]

Similarly, I don't believe anyone has suggested that it's in any fashion acceptable to spank your child solely because you think they're an idiot or because they displeased you. I'm fairly certain that everyone in this thread would view that as child abuse - a distinction that you willfully refuse to allow.

fair enough.
but, while nobody has come right out and said it, it's been inferred that those in this thread supportive of physical discipline for children would not approve of similar physical discipline of a retarded person or an elderly person with dementia.
which to me says it's not about legal guardianship alone, and it's not about someone for whom you have legal guardianship being obstinate or uncooperative or defiant - so it comes once more (and i hate to be beating a dead horse here) back to the question of why children are the only group it's okay to physically discipline, specifically what is it about children that makes it OK to do that to them.

[*]You can pick up a child physically and move them to where you want them to be. If you did so to an adult, that would be at minimum assault and at worst kidnapping. Do you see this as inconsistent?

not in this context, because if if you were the legal guardian of an adult you could do that, and you could do that to an adult that you don't have guardianship over in certain circumstances (for instance, a friend who is belligerently drunk.)
the specific point here being: yes, in most cases it's not OK, but there are in fact cases where it's OK.
as opposed to physical discipline, which there is zero equivalent circumstance in any other facet of existence or relationship between persons where it's considered to be OK.

[*]You can physically constrain a misbehaving child in time-out. To physically restrain an adult would be at best assault, and at worst false imprisonment. Do you see this as inconsistent?

no, it's not inconsistent because there are equivalent circumstances where it's OK to physically restrain an adult - for instance adults in prison.
again, the consistency here is about whether or not there is ANY equivalent circumstance in existence whatsoever, and as far as i know there isn't one.

[*]You can punish a misbehaving child by depriving them of their toys, video games, books, and other pleasurable activities. To do this to an adult would be theft. Do you see this as inconsistent?
[/LIST]

no, because there are equivalent contexts where adults are deprived of pleasurable activities for misbehaving in all walks of life.
you can have your job taken away if you misbehave at the workplace, you can have your car or your house taken away if you won't pay for it, you can have your freedom taken away if you break the law, you can be removed from a movie theater or amusement park for breaking the rules of the park.

in each of your examples there is a direct equivalent circumstance where you can do the same thing to an adult and it's OK.
but there is no equivalent circumstance where you can inflict physical discipline on anything or anyone but a child and have it be OK.

 

[Emily Lake]

but the rank hypocrisy and smugness of those who think it's totally unacceptable to spank an adult while thinking it's a moral imperative to spank a kid just sickens me.

That's great. For the record... if some guy tries to rob me, I think it's perfectly acceptable for me to "spank" him with lots of violence.

 

[prideandfall]

they don't know how to deal with situations outside of using violence and aggression.

It strikes me that classifying all spankings as violence and aggression is very much like classifying all prison sentences as vengeance.

come up with a single circumstance anywhere in our society where the same action wouldn't be classified as assault if done to anyone that isn't a child, and you may have a point.

- - - Updated - - -

Can anyone provide evidence of any positive effects of spanking?

It stops unacceptable behavior, and reduces the likelihood of a repeat performance.

ETA: For the record, I've already said it's not something I suggest as a "first line" approach, but only as a "last line" approach. But if all else has failed, then by all means, stop the unacceptable behavior.

so can killing - so, would killing a kid be appropriate?
same with drugging them, or tying them up, or depriving them of food, or solitary confinement.
are any of these appropriate?

- - - Updated - - -

but the rank hypocrisy and smugness of those who think it's totally unacceptable to spank an adult while thinking it's a moral imperative to spank a kid just sickens me.

That's great. For the record... if some guy tries to rob me, I think it's perfectly acceptable for me to "spank" him with lots of violence.

not equivalent, so irrelevant.

 

[Emily Lake]

I know you believe this to be true, but I have never seen a single honest study on the issue.

There's references to at least four studies in this one article: http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/23/health/effects-spanking-brain/

What is the line between abuse and "loving spanking" as far as force or pain?

I would say the line is probably less than one spanking a month, and NOT using a belt or a paddle, just for a start. I'm curious, did you read the link that you supplied?

"Exposing children to HCP (harsh corporal punishment) may have detrimental effects on trajectories of brain development," one 2009 study concluded.

Harsh corporal punishment in the study was defined as at least one spanking a month for more than three years, frequently done with objects such as a belt or paddle. Researchers found children who were regularly spanked had less gray matter in certain areas of the prefrontal cortex that have been linked to depression, addiction and other mental health disorders, the study authors say.

How little force do you need to use on a child to be sure you're having no last effect at all?

Well, less than that supplied by a belt or paddle, and less frequently than once a month is a good starting point I'd say. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that once or twice a year, with a bare hand, no more than five good smacks on the bum is probably well within the "no gray-matter degradation" zone.

 

[rousseau]

they don't know how to deal with situations outside of using violence and aggression.

It strikes me that classifying all spankings as violence and aggression is very much like classifying all prison sentences as vengeance.

That's fine, but outside of definitions, which obviously nobody agrees on, the core of the thread is about the efficacy of using physical force to discipline children. I've raised a whole bunch of pertinent issues regarding the efficacy of using physical force to discipline a long with many others, and there hasn't been a single counter-point to any of those points.

You guys can argue rights and definitions until the cows come home and make no progress, but until you can prove that physical force actually has any positive benefits over alternative methods, you're not really arguing over anything. If physical force is counter-productive, then why argue for our right to do it?

 

[prideandfall]

Well, less than that supplied by a belt or paddle, and less frequently than once a month is a good starting point I'd say. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that once or twice a year, with a bare hand, no more than five good smacks on the bum is probably well within the "no gray-matter degradation" zone.

so hits off a crack pipe, done less frequently than once a month - say once or twice a year, no more than 5 good hits, would also be totally fine and couldn't possibly cause any detrimental health effects, right?
no more than 5 cigarettes once or twice a year wouldn't have any detrimental impact on your lungs, right?

not saying that these situations are directly comparable, but it speaks to the broader point that if something is demonstrably damaging, 'doing it less' isn't automatically a negation of the detrimental effects.

 

[Emily Lake]

fair enough.
but, while nobody has come right out and said it, it's been inferred that those in this thread supportive of physical discipline for children would not approve of similar physical discipline of a retarded person or an elderly person with dementia.

True, and that falls under the heading of "social mores". It is not socially acceptable to treat adults in the same fashion because adults in general are capable of being reasoned with. Even when you have adults who are clearly not capable of reason, it's still part of our social conditioning that we don't spank other adults.

We do, however, have a bit more leeway in our social mores with hitting or slapping adults who are beyond reason. Consider how many TV shows or movies you've seen in which one character is panicked or in some other fashion irrational, and their friend slaps them to "bring them to their senses". That serves very much the same purpose, and is a close (but not perfect) parallel to spanking a child. The distinction in this case is that the slapper doesn't have a position of parental authority over their panicky friend, so anything more than bringing them to a point where they can be reasoned with is taboo.

Social mores and taboos aren't always perfectly logical. Humans aren't perfectly logical.

[*]You can pick up a child physically and move them to where you want them to be. If you did so to an adult, that would be at minimum assault and at worst kidnapping. Do you see this as inconsistent?

not in this context, because if if you were the legal guardian of an adult you could do that, and you could do that to an adult that you don't have guardianship over in certain circumstances (for instance, a friend who is belligerently drunk.)
the specific point here being: yes, in most cases it's not OK, but there are in fact cases where it's OK.
as opposed to physical discipline, which there is zero equivalent circumstance in any other facet of existence or relationship between persons where it's considered to be OK.

Conceded, but note that it is ONLY in those cases where you have reasonable guardianship over another adult. You could not do this with any random adult without it being considered either assault or kidnapping. In much the same way, with a child over whom you are a guardian, it is considered a spanking, and with any other adult it would be considered assault and battery.

[*]You can physically constrain a misbehaving child in time-out. To physically restrain an adult would be at best assault, and at worst false imprisonment. Do you see this as inconsistent?

no, it's not inconsistent because there are equivalent circumstances where it's OK to physically restrain an adult - for instance adults in prison.
again, the consistency here is about whether or not there is ANY equivalent circumstance in existence whatsoever, and as far as i know there isn't one.

Your example is not acceptable. You as an individual aren't restraining the adult in prison, the state is acting to do so. The state is not restraining your child. In order to provide an acceptable counter-example, it needs to be a case of an individual and autonomous adult physically restraining and constraining the movement of another individual and autonomous adult.

[*]You can punish a misbehaving child by depriving them of their toys, video games, books, and other pleasurable activities. To do this to an adult would be theft. Do you see this as inconsistent?
[/LIST]

no, because there are equivalent contexts where adults are deprived of pleasurable activities for misbehaving in all walks of life.
you can have your job taken away if you misbehave at the workplace, you can have your car or your house taken away if you won't pay for it, you can have your freedom taken away if you break the law, you can be removed from a movie theater or amusement park for breaking the rules of the park.

These are not direct equivalents. They are not individual adults punishing another individual adult for their behavior by taking their things away. In the case of losing your job, it is the severing of a contract, you don't own the job, it doesn't belong to you. In the case of your car or house being repossessed, it is breach of contract not punishment of misbehavior. Same thing for the amusement park. In no case are you allowed to decide that your next door neighbor is acting out in an inappropriate way, and take away all of his sports equipment and power tools.

 

[Emily Lake]

It strikes me that classifying all spankings as violence and aggression is very much like classifying all prison sentences as vengeance.

That's fine, but outside of definitions, which obviously nobody agrees on, the core of the thread is about the efficacy of using physical force to discipline children. I've raised a whole bunch of pertinent issues regarding the efficacy of using physical force to discipline a long with many others, and there hasn't been a single counter-point to any of those points.

You guys can argue rights and definitions until the cows come home and make no progress, but until you can prove that physical force actually has any positive benefits over alternative methods, you're not really arguing over anything. If physical force is counter-productive, then why argue for our right to do it?

I understand that you feel you've raised pertinent issues about efficacy. I also note that pertinent questions about alternative approaches have been swept under the rug. The response appears to be "I don't know what you should do, as long as you don't spank them!"

How about you provide some enlightenment on the appropriate alternative methods for each age range?

- - - Updated - - -

Well, less than that supplied by a belt or paddle, and less frequently than once a month is a good starting point I'd say. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that once or twice a year, with a bare hand, no more than five good smacks on the bum is probably well within the "no gray-matter degradation" zone.

so hits off a crack pipe, done less frequently than once a month - say once or twice a year, no more than 5 good hits, would also be totally fine and couldn't possibly cause any detrimental health effects, right?
no more than 5 cigarettes once or twice a year wouldn't have any detrimental impact on your lungs, right?

not saying that these situations are directly comparable, but it speaks to the broader point that if something is demonstrably damaging, 'doing it less' isn't automatically a negation of the detrimental effects.

That is one of the most extreme examples of false equivocation I've seen in a good long while. I suggest you just go ahead and Godwin this thread and be done with it.

 

[Frikki]

Yes, parents have legal guardianship over their children. That comes with the right (and, under specific circumstances, duty) to carry them away against their will, as it does when you have legal guardianship over an adult. It does not come with the right, let alone duty, to physically hurt them as a form of punishment.

How about pinning them down and brushing their teeth against their will?

Why on Earth would you pin a child down to brush it's teeth?!?

 

[Angry Floof]

How about pinning them down and brushing their teeth against their will?

Why on Earth would you pin a child down to brush it's teeth?!?

I agree, bizarre. I have a very unruly 6 year old grandson who hates brushing his teeth and fights it with all he's got, but only with words. I get him to brush his teeth every single morning without ever touching him. A kid who needs pinning down for teeth brushing has got more serious behavior problems than defiance.

 

[Jokodo]

Yes, parents have legal guardianship over their children. That comes with the right (and, under specific circumstances, duty) to carry them away against their will, as it does when you have legal guardianship over an adult. It does not come with the right, let alone duty, to physically hurt them as a form of punishment.

How about pinning them down and brushing their teeth against their will?

Can you pin down an adult over whom you are executing guardianship and who is incapable of making informed decisions themselves to perform a medical or hygienic procedure on them against their will? Yes, you can. Then it's not comparable to spanking. Please consider to run all your future arguments through this simple sanity check. I would appreciate.

Actually, I find "lashing out with violence" more acceptable. In the heat of the moment, when everything is happening at once and your child does something very, very stupid when you least need it and you let your hand slip before you think about it? We're humans, shit happens. I can potentially even see myself doing it. I wouldn't be proud about it, and I would do my best to make up as soon as I've cooled down a bit, but I could still look myself in the mirror. But not after a cold-blooded, premediated assault.

Interesting. Not a single one of the few spankings I received as a child could be classified as "lashing out with violence" nor "in the heat of the moment". None of them were in any fashion reactionary on the part of my parents. They were all quite clearly premeditated. I was clearly informed that I was going to be spanked, and I was sent to my room to think about what I'd done to merit the spanking. I was left to myself for at least 15 minutes, to think it over. Then my parent would come in, and we would have a calm (albeit tearful on my part) discussion of what I did, and exactly why it was wrong, and why I was being spanked (as previously mentioned, almost always because I lied about it). We also discussed what I could have done differently, and how I could handle that sort of situation in the future. Once all of that was concluded... then I was spanked.

I do not believe that the learning experience on your part would have been any different or less effective on your part if they'd left the spanking out, and you have not given an argument to indicate that it would. In the big scheme of things, it probably didn't hurt you all that much - but arguably they had an otherwise sound procedure in place that made the experience a good learning situation despite the unnecessary violence at the end.

Can anyone provide evidence of any positive effects of spanking?

It stops unacceptable behavior, and reduces the likelihood of a repeat performance.

Any evidence that it does? Relative to other ways of making the child realise that he/she has messed up, not relative to ignoring everything because that's not what anyone is advocating.

 

[Frikki]

Why on Earth would you pin a child down to brush it's teeth?!?

I agree, bizarre. I have a very unruly 6 year old grandson who hates brushing his teeth and fights it with all he's got, but only with words. I get him to brush his teeth every single morning without ever touching him. A kid who needs pinning down for teeth brushing has got more serious behavior problems than defiance.

Or shitty parents that pin him down to brush his teeth.

 

[Angry Floof]

I agree, bizarre. I have a very unruly 6 year old grandson who hates brushing his teeth and fights it with all he's got, but only with words. I get him to brush his teeth every single morning without ever touching him. A kid who needs pinning down for teeth brushing has got more serious behavior problems than defiance.

Or shitty parents that pin him down to brush his teeth.

Yeah, or that. :/

 

[gmbteach]

I would be delighted to discuss this topic with an intellectual adversary who is willing to use neutral language and refrain from loaded question-begging. Unfortunately, I almost never encounter such individuals when the topic has a strong emotional component.

cite one single example in all of Western culture where what you're advocating doing to children wouldn't be called assault if you did it to an adult, and we can change the entire conversation.

until you can do that, it's not 'the others' being emotional in their language or hampering an intellectual discussion, it's you actively denying humanity to children.

Okay, what about restraining patients in a hospital who are becoming unruly. Or restraining people who are intent on hurting one another. They know the rules. They have broken the rules and adults are using restraint against adults to show them that what they are doing is incorrect. Is it wrong when police use tasers? (Or am I opening up a hole other can of worms there?)

Not one person on this thread advocates the use of violence in the extreme. What some of us are advocating is the use of a smack on the tuchas to reinforce the thought in the child that okay - if I do this - I get a consequence I do not like. Much the same way an electric fence stops animals and prisoners in jail from going beyond the boundaries. A small jolt to remind them to stay where they have been told to.

I am also pretty certain that most people on this thread who do advocate the use of a smack on the tuchas do so as a last resort - after all the other methods of time out, warnings etc have been exhausted. I know that if I was fortunate enough to have children, that is how I would do it. Use it as a step in a discipline program - not as the be all and end all.

 

[rousseau]

That's fine, but outside of definitions, which obviously nobody agrees on, the core of the thread is about the efficacy of using physical force to discipline children. I've raised a whole bunch of pertinent issues regarding the efficacy of using physical force to discipline a long with many others, and there hasn't been a single counter-point to any of those points.

You guys can argue rights and definitions until the cows come home and make no progress, but until you can prove that physical force actually has any positive benefits over alternative methods, you're not really arguing over anything. If physical force is counter-productive, then why argue for our right to do it?

I understand that you feel you've raised pertinent issues about efficacy. I also note that pertinent questions about alternative approaches have been swept under the rug. The response appears to be "I don't know what you should do, as long as you don't spank them!"

How about you provide some enlightenment on the appropriate alternative methods for each age range?

Disciplining your children can take a huge variety of forms in many contexts, but I'll do my best:

Age 0 - 5

Don't hit your kids under any circumstances. They are not internalizing your punishment and it is not a deterrent for behavior. On the other hand, start the habit of *explaining* why the things they are doing is wrong when they do them in a reasonable manner that respects them as an autonomous person. If they are making noise in public despite all of your efforts: deal with it and realize that kids of that age are going to make noise. If they cry because they want something, set the standard that they are not going to get a reward for their behavior. By doing all of this you start a relationship of respect between yourself and your child and they... will actually listen to the shit you say rather than hate you.

Age 5 - 10

Continue the same type of thing as you did before. Now they are getting to the age where they might actually start understanding things, so it's crucial that you explain to them the logic of why things are wrong. If they keep doing things that are wrong take away privileges. If they correct their behavior give them more privileges.

Age 10+

Don't spank your kids.

- - - Updated - - -

So if spanking actually worked all behavior would be corrected the first time you did it right? You would only really need to do it once and that would be that?

Has anyone considered the fact that most of the time kids don't even know they are committing bad behavior?