Tête-à-Tête-Tête

I never spanked my girls. I left corporal punishment up to my wife. She never had a real problem with it and she never really did it in anger but more out of frustration and she also didn’t have to do it very often. The girls learned pretty quickly where her breaking point was and usually stopped just short of the point of no return.

Many folks use “spare the rod and spoil the child” as justification but I always think of “thy rod and thy staff they comfort me”. There is not much comfort in a lashing.

Raising children is the hardest thing I ever took part in. You always second guess yourself. Did I do too much? Did I not do enough?

But my mother, a woman who in my opinion stands head and shoulders above anybody I have ever known a far as character is concerned, told me that if she had her life to do over again she would never spank any of her children.

She now sees spanking as more a failure on her part as a failure on the part of the child that was spanked.

I agree. It is a tough call. But when I am in the grocery store and see a child get their ass busted for acting up I just move along. It never crosses my mind to call DFACs.

We incorporate corporal punishment, but only as the dead-set very last resort. The result is that if there’s a swat, it occurs every few months and only as the result of something eregious (such as the kid brazenly rebelling against our authority). I am a proponent of the positive/negative reinforcement practice and I can attest that it does work; the key being that the choice of what is to be used for each reinforcement is the difficult decision.

But when I am in the grocery store and see a child get their ass busted for acting up I just move along.

I do too, but I often wonder why parents use their physical stature as a club (pun intended) in public, so as to not only punish their kids but publicly humiliate them, as well. If they tell their kids “trust me, you’re getting it but GOOD when we get home, and all because of the way you’re acting” and they follow through by bringing down a rain of hellfire when they do get home, chances are that the kids will remember & cease the behavior (that is, after all, the reason for negative reinforcement). The problem, as I see it, is when parents use spanking as a factor when the parent is “fed up” or “has had enough”, which means they’re acting on emotion instead of logic, and thus they’re simply hitting their kids because that’s the easiest thing to do at the moment, instead of taking the time to apply the most feasible negative reinforcement. But, we’re all human and we all make mistakes…..but those little critters can’t defend themselves, either.

The best-kept secret in child psychology is that children who were never spanked are among the best behaved.

I call BS on the highest level. Well behaved kids don’t DESERVE SPANKINGS, thus they’re rarely/ever spanked. The little hellion who is suspended from school on a monthly basis probably gets spanked because he deserves it.

Besides, child behavior is a function of sociology, not psychology (and the APA has tended to sway with the political winds, anyway). Occam’s razor dictates that if spanking didn’t work, it wouldn’t be used and vice versa. In my own little world (YES, that is the flag from the country “Anecdotal” being raised) almost every kid that isn’t spanked is from an upper-class home and as such is spoiled beyond belief….and the worst behaved kids you’d ever come across.

Everyone knows the factors that are necessary for raising well behaved kids:
1. Not having both parents working full-time.
2. Not having both parents being extremely young.
3. Not being latchkey kids.
4. Not having parents with a combined IQ of twelve.
5. Reread number one.

Not always, but in general, of course.
Somehow, society survived w/kids being spanked and I’ll be willing to bet that back in the rotten old days of the 20s & 30s that kids weren’t walking around dropping the f-bomb, grabbing their crotches and calling women “ho” or “bitch” as is often the case today. Is there ANYONE in our current culture where corporal punishment is no longer in the schools and is, let’s face it, frowned upon by the elite, who suggests that that same culture is LESS COARSE than even a generation ago? Do people really suggest that an overbearing bully can be changed with a few “timeout” sessions?

Simply put: Is there anyone suggesting that schoolkids are better behaved they were before corporal punishment was banned? I remember when chewing gum in class was a “no-no” whereas now there are metal detectors in many schools, for good reason.

1. Not having both parents working full-time.
2. Not having both parents being extremely young.
3. Not being latchkey kids.
4. Not having parents with a combined IQ of twelve.
5. Reread number one.

amen to those things.

I call BS on the highest level. Well behaved kids don’t DESERVE SPANKINGS, thus they’re rarely/ever spanked. The little hellion who is suspended from school on a monthly basis probably gets spanked because he deserves it.

I think there is a degree of feedback in play. Taking time to administer guidance and teaching instead of taking the “easy out” of spanking builds trust and rapport, and helps a child internalize lessons - making it more likely that they will behave better going forward, and making it less likely that they will “need” to be spanked. A self-reinforcing system.

Simply put: Is there anyone suggesting that schoolkids are better behaved they were before corporal punishment was banned? I remember when chewing gum in class was a “no-no” whereas now there are metal detectors in many schools, for good reason.

Here’s where we part ways. Your list of 5 points above, together with bundles of other sociological trends, better explain the problems we have with school violence now. Frankly, if someone who is not a parent or a close family member trusted with such matters by a parent, strikes a child, they had better not do it while I’m watching. Whatever its merits or disadvantages as a child-rearing measure, striking is violence and I won’t tolerate the state and its bureaucrats practing violence on my kids. Period. End of discussion, as they say.

I was spanked as a kid, as were my two brothers. I don’t think spanking had any positive effect on me whatsoever. My middle brother didn’t get spanked as much because he was always so traumatized by it that my parents felt badly for hitting him. My youngest brother was spanked the most (being the most willful and “hard-headed” one), and it didn’t stop him from getting in trouble with the law.

My husband and his three siblings were never spanked. My grandmother’s response to that was, “Oh, you must have been good kids.” I just see spanking as a non issue. At best, it has zero positive consequences - so why do it? The only exception I’d say is when a child is very small and about to do something dangerous, so a swat on the hand or butt is needed to get their attention and protect them from an immediate danger.

Things like talking with your children, engaging in activities with them, respecting them, modeling respect with others, giving your kids positive feedback, demonstrating that you love them and have their best interests in mind, being consistent in your actions and words (i.e. not being a hypocrite), admitting when you are wrong, etc. These are the types of things that are all part of “discipline.”

I don’t think kids are calling women bitches and ho’s because they weren’t spanked (I would bet that many of these kids WERE spanked - and by the way, this is NOT a new phenomenon; it just wasn’t depicted on tv like it is now). Conflating spanking with discipline and respect is a BIG mistake, and happens time and time again. I wish people would stop doing that.

I don’t think kids are calling women bitches and ho’s because they weren’t spanked

Really?
You think kids went around saying that back in the 50s, as much as today?
Really?

These are the types of things that are all part of “discipline.”

Admitting that you’re wrong and respecting someone isn’t discipline. Words have actual meanings.

RW - Eh? What does what kids SAID in the 50s have to do with being spanked? Plenty of kids are still spanked today. Do you have some non-anecdotal evidence that the kids who speak disrespectfully of women are the ones who don’t get spanked?

Discipline is as much about setting rules of conduct as it is punishment. Punishment is not always discipline, but establishing and consistently applying behavioral standards is.

I agree with h sofia here. Admitting that you’re wrong and respecting people are both disciplines that should be learned. Discipline mainly means adherence to a defined standard, despite impulses to do the contrary. Words do have meaning, and “discipline” is not the same as “negative reinforcement”. Reinforcement, negative and positive are tools for helping to instill discipline. Both play a role. The question before us is whether corporal punishment is a good choice for negative reinforcement. I believe it isn’t. A secondary question, raised by h sofia, is whether teaching by instruction and modeling on specific disciplinary issues will bring more resuts than the specific negative reinforcement of corporal punishment. I believe that she is correct in thinking that it will.

Do you have some non-anecdotal evidence that the kids who speak disrespectfully of women are the ones who don’t get spanked?

Not just speaking disrespectfully, but the entire coarseness of the culture in places like high schools. Are you really saying that the conduct of high school students is similar to that of the conduct of students during the time when corporal punishment was the norm at public schools? Now, if you say that there’s no direct correlation between dropping paddling & kids acting like punks nowadays, I may or may not disagree; if it has no effect, though, what HAS changed in society to the point that violence in schools is no longer the exception (assuming you don’t think that they’re similar, although if you do think it’s the same as the 50s I’ll be both shocked and floored)?

Admitting that you’re wrong and respecting people are both disciplines that should be learned. Discipline mainly means adherence to a defined standard, despite impulses to do the contrary.

We’re arguing semantics or context: If your kid does something wrong & you tell them that you love them or that you were wrong in how you handled things, you didn’t discipline them. I’m talking VERB, not noun.

Trust me, I’m not saying that teachers should be out there with belts laying the smack down on some kid who is chomping on some gum. I’m just saying that a parent who uses corporal punishment as a tool shouldn’t be looked upon with any sort of condescention, IMO (of course, exempting cases of abuse….that goes w/o saying/typing) as it’s a fallacy to say that spanking “doesn’t work” when most people realize that it does. The caveat is that, with pretty much everything, it doesn’t work in all instances. That doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be an option. Sure, there are some 14 yr olds who won’t change a thing after they’ve been spanked, but there are plenty who WILL *if* they think the spanking will be enough negative reinforcement and is doled out in a consistent manner so that they know if they do X again, they’ll receive some pain to their rear end. If the threat of physical pain is real, then the overwhelming majority of the time the person will adhere.

If someone KNEW that Shaquille O’Neal was serious when he told them that they’d better not take a picture of him as he dined or else he’d smack them around, I guarantee you that they’d set aside their right to the freedom to take a picture in public at their leisure and adhere to his demand.

A trouble-making kid who doesn’t care about their grades and doesn’t care about attending school is less apt to be bothered by a school suspension. You tend to get what you tolerate.

Currently, one of the options for punishment for our kids is taking away their time on the computer. Well, when they’re not in the mood to play on the computer, they don’t care if it’s taken away, so they’re less likely to adhere…..if I threaten a spanking, I’m currently getting 100% compliance. Granted, I’m careful to not overuse that threat, but it’s hard to argue 100% compliance from a 10 yr old girl and an 8 yr old boy who is a high-functioning autistic child (thus he REALLY understands that B can come from A, so he knows that A had better not occur in those cases).

Anecdotal, sure. You don’t argue against 100%, though, do you? And in your opinion, should I be admonished or shamed into removing that option?

I’m talking VERB, not noun.

Well, so am I - these are things that are learned by modeling, and teaching them by modeling those behaviors is discipline.

Anecdotal, sure. You don’t argue against 100%, though, do you? And in your opinion, should I be admonished or shamed into removing that option?

Near 100% for in a lot of cases for getting immediate compliance. Immediate compliance, gotten by force, may or may not contribute to “discipline” - which is an internalized set of attitudes and behaviors that remain in effect when immediate threats of force are not active.

it’s a fallacy to say that spanking “doesn’t work” when most people realize that it does.

That’s the fallacy of conventional wisdom. There are cases when most people “realize” that a common and ineffective remedy is effective. Most people “realize” that therimosal in vaccines causes autism, but they are most likely incorrect in that realization.

And in your opinion, should I be admonished or shamed into removing that option?

I don’t know if this was for me or for h sofia. I tried to make clear when I posted this entry that I would never admonish or shame other parents for doing the best thing they knew how to do to effectively teach their children how to live in this crazy world. As long as the intention is loving correction and the result isn’t significant harm to the child, there is nothing there for me to shame. We harm our kids in small (and sometimes big) ways every day, whether we mean to or not, and we don’t expect to be shamed and admonished for our failings if they are not intentional and if they don’t directly cause significant harm. That same standard applies in the area of coercive discipline.

RW - Smijer said things very well, better than I would have said, but I’d like to respond to your statement, “Not just speaking disrespectfully, but the entire coarseness of the culture in places like high schools. Are you really saying that the conduct of high school students is similar to that of the conduct of students during the time when corporal punishment was the norm at public schools? ”

No, I’m not saying they are the same. Granted, I wasn’t in high school in the 1950s, but from what my grandmother (who graduated h.s. in 1949) says, No. But - a LOT of things were different in the 1950s, not just whether most parents or schools instituted corporal punishment. Without any substantive evidence, one could just as easily say the Civil Rights movement is the reason kids misbehave in school today, or hormones in McDonald’s patties, or television.

(As an aside, I disagree with you that violence is “no longer the exception” in schools. It is a problem, but it is not the norm. See this link for more info; one note is that in 96-97 school year, 10 percent of all public schools reported one or more violent crime.)

I’m more inclined to think kids are mirroring the adults in their lives when they act up at school (or anywhere) - they may be reflecting cynicism, frustration, alcohol and drug abuse, dehumanization, consumerism, and an inability to communicate non-violently. Also, taking into account that such things as domestic violence and child abuse appear to have an exponential effect, it doesn’t surprise me that we are seeing more aggressive or disturbing behavior in children than in decades past.

We also have better mechanisms for measuring these things, and more publicity around them. If some kid in Michigan beats another student to death, I’ll hear about it here in Oregon, and my brain receives that information pretty much the same as if it happened fifty miles away. Thirty years ago I probably would never have heard of it; and ignorance is bliss.

Nevertheless, the bottom line is that I don’t think there is ANY evidence whatsoever to suggest that less corporal punishment is the cause of any of our youth’s social ills. Now, the cause may be due in part to lack of discipline in the home (and by the parents themselves), and lack of *actual parenting* - but spanking is hardly synonymous with discipline and parenting. It is just one approach that many parents use. Heaven help those who think it is the end all and be all of raising a law abiding child.

Well, so am I - these are things that are learned by modeling, and teaching them by modeling those behaviors is discipline.

Maybe I’m missing something - and lord knows I can be dense - but if little Johnny flips his teacher the bird, I don’t see how telling him that you love him is disciplining him. Otherwise, one could say that ANY action that could be construed as ‘teaching’ is disciplining them. “Honey, Johnny flipped off the teacher today. So, I disciplined him.” “How?” “We started a coin collection.” Hey, you’re teaching them something (in a weird sort of way). Can’t see how saying “I love you” after a kid commits an act that you deem unacceptable to be “discipline” but I could be wrong. It just seems sorta “depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is” to me, kind of a way to wrap one’s self into a pretzel and say that you disciplined. Oh, well.

The idea, from my standpoint, is for immediate compliance “because I said so” for the time being & voluntary compliance when they’re able to discern right & wrong on their own and to blend in with what society deems acceptable via their own free will. After all, aren’t we as parents primarily guiding them toward adulthood along the way?

If a 3 yr old boy hits a 1 year old that takes his toy, there are many different ways to get across to him that it’s not acceptable for him to hit the 1 year old. I’m not sure how saying “I love you” or admitting to the 3 yr old that you’re wrong about something are items that I’d put near the top of my “most likely to succeed” list. But, that’s just me.

I knew there were some things that I shouldn’t do because if my dad found out I wouldn’t get spanked, I’d get “whooped”. For me, the threat of corporal punishment was numero uno in maintaining my behavior.

Sitting me down & talking to me, instead? Throw me into that briar patch, bre’er rabbit.

It is a problem, but it is not the norm.

How many schools had metal detectors in the 50s? 60s? Back when guns were even EASIER to get? No, it’s not the norm, but it’s no longer as extraordinary to hear about gang violence at schools, pregnant 14 year olds (granted, folks got married a lot younger back then) or an overall rate of erratic behavior among kids.

Without any substantive evidence, one could just as easily say the Civil Rights movement is the reason kids misbehave in school today, or hormones in McDonald’s patties, or television.

Sure, you could say it, but do you think you’d get as many people to agree with you? Would one really posit the notion that the civil rights act is a cause of needing metal detectors in schools as opposed to removing corporal punishment as a more likely item? Not saying it’s the true cause, but it’s definitely something that belongs near the top of the list. And, can we agree that “bad parenting” is a throwaway line that can be used as an excuse for almost anything? I mean, there were bad parents in the 50s & 60s, as well, back when men slapping around their wives was sometimes accepted.

Heaven help those who think it is the end all and be all of raising a law abiding child.

We are in 100% agreement on that.

Maybe I’m missing something - and lord knows I can be dense - but if little Johnny flips his teacher the bird,…

What I think you are missing is that these are elements of positive discipline - they are not suggested as tools for negative reinforcement. IOW - no - these aren’t tools for reacting to bad behavior - they are tools for teaching good behavior. I believe that discipline should have a larger component of proactivity and positive reinforcement, and a smaller component of reactivity and negative reinforcement.

I knew there were some things that I shouldn’t do because if my dad found out I wouldn’t get spanked, I’d get “whooped”. For me, the threat of corporal punishment was numero uno in maintaining my behavior.

I knew there were some things that I shouldn’t do, and that those were things taht I’d get “whooped” for if my dad found out. But I did them anyway and did my best not to get caught. “Whoopings” taught me how to cower in fear and comply in certain situations, and they taught me to be very underhanded, sneaky, and dishonest. I honestly can’t think of anything positive I learned from corporal punishment.

RW - I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I haven’t seen any evidence that the reason young people are acting up today (more than in the past) is because they aren’t getting spanked/whipped/beaten enough by their parents and teachers. I haven’t even seen any evidence to suggest that children who aren’t spanked misbehave more or are more violent than children who are spanked.

If/when I come across that evidence, I might change my mind about the necessity and long term effectiveness of corporal punishment in leading children to engage healthily and peaceably with one another, and society as a whole.

What I think you are missing is that these are elements of positive discipline - they are not suggested as tools for negative reinforcement.

Not to be nitpicky, but that’s positive reinforcement. Discipline is punishment, other definitions are ancilliary. And, you can have the last word on that as I’ll drop it as I finish this sentence.

I knew there were some things that I shouldn’t do, and that those were things taht I’d get “whooped” for if my dad found out. But I did them anyway and did my best not to get caught.

Obviously you weren’t whooped as hard as I was. LOL!

“Whoopings” taught me how to cower in fear and comply in certain situations, and they taught me to be very underhanded, sneaky, and dishonest.

Aren’t you rationalizing a wee bit? If you KNEW you were doing something wrong (and when you disobey a parent, you know you’re doing something wrong) and you did it anyway, isn’t it a bit of a cop-out to blame the whooping you thought you’d get? How did a whooping make you be underhanded? It was your choice to be underhanded. It was your choice to be sneaky. It was your choice to be dishonest. It had nothing to do with the whooping as that would be the result of unacceptable behavior. You did all those things in order to avoid that prescribed punishment, did you not? Much like a criminal will flee from the cops because he knows if he gets caught that he’ll likely be sent to prison. Hey, it’s not the jail’s fault he broke the law.

Come on, ‘fess up.

I’ll end with this: obviously corporal punishment isn’t for you. I know of several families that overuse it, but that’s my personal opinion. I know of a few, and one in particular, that underuse it and that will most certainly harm the kid because he’s going to have a rude awakening when his spoiled @#$ gets to school and finds out that other children won’t cuddle him like mama did and that there will be actual consequences that occur when you act like a spoiled brat, as opposed to home, where pitching a fit means mama will give you whatever you want in order to make you stop crying. A few raps on his rear end - beginning about two years ago - would’ve put that kid in the proper direction a lot sooner and he’d be less apt to have his world turned upside down as is about to happen in the very near future: bullies suck, but they really hate spoiled mama’s boys who think they can get their way. Life’s about to smack a little boy in such a way that’d make a few spankings seem like rock, paper, scissors.

I bet in the last 3 years I’ve doled out as many spankings as I could count on my hands; they’re that rare. However, when I did give them spankings, they were for especially egregious behavior and even worse attitudes when they were confronted with their actions as they were defiant. Thus, I “brought the hammer down”. Since then, I need only hint of a spanking and they’ll acquiesce, as they know what’s in store. Personal admission: I’ve doled out a few (maybe 3) one-time swats in the last few months because the kids deserved a spanking, but instead I popped them hard enough on their behinds that a gnat would easily survive. The last spankings - real ones - in mid ‘07, I suppose, were pretty brutal on my psyche, as well. It truly did hurt me more than it hurt them, as I had to go into my room and weep with each instance. I recall that each time I’ve had to swat them, since (again, maybe all of 3 times….the spankings did work) and so I’m left a pushover to the point that my wife asked me if I even made contact with my daughter’s rear on the last attempt. Looking back, if I had to do it all over again, I most certainly would. I believe I did the right thing in teaching them that defiant behavior to THAT DEGREE is unacceptable (let’s face it, all kids continuously attempt to see how far they can go) and if the situation arises, the hammer will once again drop. But, buddy, and I surely won’t let them know it, but I’d sooner put my testicles in a vice than to be confronted with that situation again.

h sofia, it was a pleasure debating with you. I respect both of your opinions as you & smijer presented your arguments very well. We may not agree, but that’s not really all that important in the grand scheme of things. I mean, heck, we already had our positions staked out when we first started commenting here….I hope I’ve explained my stance as well as you guys explained yours.

And, I’m spent.

Well, RW, if you want it to be the last word, I’m good with that. I can let everything go except that I would like to encourage you to recognize the broader definition of the word discipline. I think the wikipedia entry on the word says it well:

To discipline thus means to instruct a person or animal to follow a particular code of conduct, or to adhere to a certain “order.” Consequently, “in the field of child development, discipline refers to methods of modeling character and of teaching self-control and acceptable behavior.”[2] So for example, to discipline a child to wash its hands before meals. Here, ‘washing hands before meals’ is a particular pattern of behaviour, and the child is being disciplined to adopt that pattern. [...] Usually however, the phrase ‘to discipline’ carries a negative connotation. This is because enforcement of order - that is, ensuring instructions are carried out - is often regulated through punishment.cf. [4]

To be disciplined is then, subject to context, either a virtue (the ability to follow instructions well) or a euphemism for punishment (which may also be referred to as disciplinary procedure).

Disciplined defined narrowly - that is synonymously with “punishment” - is not enough on its own. Such a definition cheapens the word.