Is hitting your kids child abuse?

[iNow]

Guys - It has zero relevance to whether or not humans are part of nature, anyway... Which was the original context in which this natural/unnatural power plant issue begain.

[stevo247]

Guys - It has zero relevance to whether or not humans are part of nature, anyway... Which was the original context in which this natural/unnatural power plant issue begain.

Though I thought that Skeptic Lance made a good observation of other mammals in regards to mild physical admonishment:

I tend to look at these things from a biologist's viewpoint. If we look at other mammals, we find that mild physical admonishment is very common - indeed quite normal. A cuff with a paw, or even a bite, is used to provide negative reinforcement for undesirable behaviour, and especially behaviour that leads to the offspring entering a dangerous situation.

....................................................................................

 

A suggestion for a definition of acceptable.

We all know that a smack can raise a red mark which quickly fades. Beating tends to leave welts or bruises that do not.

 

I suggest that 'acceptable' smacking is anything that cannot be detected by a doctor 24 hours later. Anything that leaves any kind of a mark detectable by said doctor after 24 hours is a beating and unacceptable. This definition may not be perfect' date=' but at least gives a handle for enforcing this rule.[/quote']

 

As I've stated previously, I can understand how a parent could instinctively swat at a child if the child was observed to be engaged in a dangerous behavior. I may even have a similar instinctive response if I suddenly observed my wife or a coworker about to do something exceptionally dangerous. I would characterize my physical response as the physical expression of the word NO! My physical response could also be accurately interpreted as “alarm”. The extent of any physical “redness” would most likely be non-existent. I question the appropriateness of an additional measured “punishment”.

 

I would consider myself a strong advocate of the development of trust and mutual respect. It has been my experience, that trust and respect can go a long, long way in the education of children. I think that inflicting pain in the form of punishment can really muddy the water in regards to trust. If a child can't feel safe from pain intentionally inflicted by you, doesn't that impact their ability to trust you?

 

I guess you could say that when the child gets older, they'll understand that you did it for their own good. But I think that trust is crucial, and needs to be maintained during a childs formative years. By becoming an intentional inflicter of pain to your child, I think that trust levels can become severely compromised with potentially disastrous results.

[Pete]

Guys - It has zero relevance to whether or not humans are part of nature, anyway... Which was the original context in which this natural/unnatural power plant issue begain.

You are 100% correct. In retrospect I now see that the Oklo reactor wasn't a very good counter example. Quite interesting, but not relavent to the purpose it was brought up for. Its clear that layman77 was trying to give an example of something that cannot have been assembled without intelligent agent. However I certainly disagree with him in that we are most certainly part of nature. Just because we are intelligent, and in that sense different tha other lifeforms, it doesn't mean that we're not part of nature. As far as animals hitting their young - one might consider how that came to be from an evolutionary standpoint. I got a kick out of one of his responses, i.e.

Well, no, put some covers on the sockets!

This reminds me of when I was a toddler. I was a very curious child. For some reason I was fascinated by those electrical outlets. I ket taking things and sticking them into the sockets. My parents were so worried that I'd get electrocuted that they had all the sockets replaced by ones where you had to stick the plug and and then turn them in order to get them to work right. But I was too clever for that. I learned how to use them. My grandmother on the other hand , who took care of me when my parents were at work, couldn't figure them out for the life of her! She had to have me put to do it.

 

Let me mention one word here folks - moderation. Let us also not forget that parents spank their kids because they have a responsibility of making sure that they don't grow up spoiled. Remember the old saying - Spare the rod and spoil the child

..folks caring more about their Rights rather than their Responsibilities.

That arguement sort of implies that parents are spanking their kids for no good reason. Parents have a specific purpose when they spank their kids. They do it in hopes that the punishment will contribute to the child growing up to be a better adult. Its the responsibility of the parent to make sure their kids grow up well adjusted. That means that they have the responsibility to use spanking with inteligence. That means not to over do it. Never hit a kid to cause them injury. Never hit them too hard either. Use it with responsibility. It also seems that people are automatically jumping to the conclusion that if a parent uses a light slat on the rump when the child does something dangerous that they will carry out this same action, and worse, when the child gets older. Its okay to spank a child for certain things and not for others. Who says what and when? The responsible adult. But we know that all adults aren't responsible! But we also have laws which prohibit parents from beating their child too. Why are people here so ready to forget about that law?

 

Instead of searching for web sites which show the risks of not spanking a child why don't people search for web sites which show what happens when kids gets spoiled and how they get spolied?

 

I guess you could say that when the child gets older' date=' they'll understand that you did it for their own good.

[/quote']

I know that's the case for me.

 

Pete

[stevo247]

Instead of searching for web sites which show the risks of not spanking a child why don't people search for web sites which show what happens when kids gets spoiled and how they get spolied?

 

spoil: 1) to damage or injure in such a way as to make useless, valueless, etc.; destroy. 2). to impair the enjoyment, quality, or functioning of 3). to overindulge so as to cause to demand or expect too much

 

If a parent thinks they may be over-indulging, over-protecting or over-involved, they could just cut back. However, especially for the very young, I think that more harm can done by under-indulging, under-protecting, and being under-involved.

 

 

I work with the severely mentally ill (schizophrenia, bi-polar, psychosis, major depression etc.). By far, the most difficult and challenging clients are those which have an axis 2 (personality disorder) diagnosis in addition to an axis 1(clinical disorder) diagnosis. Borderline, narcissistic, histrionic, and anti-social, are considered Cluster B personality disorders.

 

The behaviors that one would consider to be indicative of a “spoiled child”, namely, selfishness, immaturity, manipulative, lying, being self-centered, failure to recognize boundaries, feelings of entitlement, etc, are all behaviors clearly associated with the personality disordered.

 

Since they have such issues with respecting boundaries and limits, not to mention how they can so easily stimulate the urge to want to ..... send them to the moon, it's easy to think that they simply lacked discipline. But I think the problem is a lot deeper and more difficult than that.

 

From what I understand, it's rooted in a failure to bond (or attach) emotionally with the primary caregivers during critical early developmental stages. At a fundamental level, they are out of emotional contact with others. They can exhibit behaviors that would seem to indicate that they are operating without a conscience or any sense of empathy; having no regard for the feelings of others and lacking a clear sense of right and wrong. However, I don't think it is due to a lack of being hit, most have been hit plenty. Nor do I think their problems are necessarily caused by hitting, though being hit may exacerbate the underlying issue of feeling worthless, empty, abandoned and disconnected from the world around them.

 

In my opinion, their extreme selfishness, self-centeredness, and feelings of entitlement are all related to the early thwarting of a fundamental need, namely, the need to feel secure and loved.

 

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Attachment_Theory

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, for one thing taking care of children and taking care of people who have severe mental problems are two completely different things. Most spoiled children are quite rational: having learned that they can get anything they want if they yell, scream, and behave like little devils, they proceed to do just that. If instead they got punished when they did this, they would quickly learn to stop doing it.

[stevo247]

having learned that they can get anything they want if they yell, scream, and behave like little devils

 

How did they learn that, if they weren't taught it?

 

Wouldn't it be better to not reward the behavior in the first place?

 

You sound like a grandfather.

[Mr Skeptic]

How did they learn that, if they weren't taught it?

 

That's what spoiling a child means: teaching a child that they can have anything or get away with anything.

 

Wouldn't it be better to not reward the behavior in the first place?

 

Definitely. But the parents generally don't realize that they're rewarding bad behavior; they think they are being nice to their kid.

[stevo247]

So the rod comes into play to clean up the (spoiled) mess created by the parents themselves?

[iNow]

So the rod comes into play to clean up the (spoiled) mess created by the parents themselves?

 

No, not as a general rule, and nobody is arguing that position here anyway.

[D H]

So the rod comes into play to clean up the (spoiled) mess created by the parents themselves?

 

That of course is a logical fallacy, and an idiotic one at that.

 

===================================

 

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanking#Legal_status, spanking has been outlawed in Sweden, Finland, Norway, Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Latvia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Israel, Germany, Iceland, Romania, Ukraine, Hungary, Greece, Chile, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Costa Rica.

 

These countries, with the exception of the Venezuela, Israel, and Costa Rica, have exceptionally low birth rates. Raising a single child is a much easier task than raising multiple children. Keeping constant vigilance over a single child is possible; with multiple children it is nigh impossible.

 

Another possibility is that punishments for corporal punishment in those countries is administered selectively. Are parents who still administer corporal punishment but do so without excess punished? (I don't know, but I suspect the answer is that they aren't.)

 

Yet another possibility is that these countries have exceptionally low birth rates because they have made it exceptionally onerous to have and raise children.

 

===================================

 

Corporal punishment is not appropriate for older children and teenagers. Besides, there are much better forms of punishment for this age group. For example, I used this technique after my son wrecked a car for the third time. He thought he could make life painful for us by making us haul him around. One day he insisted that I pick him up from high school. I told him to take the bus home. "I'm a senior, Dad! I can't take the bus! You have to pick me up!" I told him I had meetings in the afternoon. He persisted and asked me (told me!) to cancel my meetings.

 

So I did. I wanted to look good when I picked up my son. No child wants to be picked up by a Dad wearing a dorky shirt and tie. Kids were into wearing clothes that didn't fit and had mismatching colors. I canceled my early afternoon meetings to give myself plenty of time to go home and change out of my fancy work clothes. I did my best to make sure my clothes didn't match: I changed into some raggedy lawn mowing pants and a flannel undershirt. I then mowed the lawn a bit so I could smell my best, too. Now a problem arose -- I didn't want to get my nice car sweaty and stinky. I took our beater pickup instead. When I got to school, I parked cattywonkers so my son would be sure to see me. I waited a while -- 10 seconds, if I recall -- before tapping on the horn. That didn't get my son's attention, so I stepped out of the truck and yelled for my son. That worked! "Dad, are you trying to ruin my LIFE?" "Yes. Do you want me to pick you up again tomorrow?"

Edited September 2, 2008 by D H

[stevo247]

Another possibility is that punishments for corporal punishment in those countries is administered selectively. Are parents who still administer corporal punishment but do so without excess punished? (I don't know, but I suspect the answer is that they aren't.)

 

For those who are concerned that an official ban on spanking would put 90% of parents behind bars, from what I understand, in the countries where spanking is banned, it is under civil law not criminal law. No one has ever gone to jail for the two-swat spank as far as I can tell. It amounts to an official condemnation of the practice of spanking in all of it's various forms. It is a social recognition of it's potential harmful effects. Education is the cornerstone of the policy.

 

"Most of these countries do not carry criminal penalties for spanking. For example, the law in Sweden carries no penalty. However, in many cases, those who are caught spanking must attend parenting classes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-spanking

 

From the Netherlands:

“(1) Parental authority includes the duty and the right of the parent to care for and raise his or her minor child. (2) Caring for and raising one’s child includes the care and the responsibility for the emotional and physical wellbeing of the child and for his or her safety as well as for the promotion of the development of his or her personality. In the care and upbringing of the child the parents will not use emotional or physical violence or any other humiliating treatment.”

http://nospank.net/nl.htm

 

 

 

If the use of pain (spanking, hitting) is considered to be a justified and acceptable method of child rearing, doesn't that open the door for those parents who feel justified ,and find it acceptable, to use emotional pain and extreme spanking/hitting practices?

 

"Psychological maltreatment is a repeated pattern of damaging interactions between parent(s) and child that becomes typical of the relationship.1–3 In some situations, the pattern is chronic and pervasive; in others, the pattern occurs only when triggered by alcohol or other potentiating factors. Occasionally, a very painful singular incident, such as an unusually contentious divorce, can initiate psychological maltreatment.4

Psychological maltreatment of children occurs when a person conveys to a child that he or she is worthless, flawed, unloved, unwanted, endangered, or only of value in meeting another’s needs.5 The perpetrator may spurn, terrorize, isolate, or ignore or impair the child’s socialization. If severe and/or repetitious, the following behaviors may constitute psychological maltreatment6:

1.Spurning (belittling, degrading, shaming, or ridiculing a child; singling out a child to criticize or punish; and humiliating a child in public).

2.Terrorizing (committing life-threatening acts; making a child feel unsafe; setting unrealistic expectations with threat of loss, harm, or danger if they are not met; and threatening or perpetrating violence against a child or child’s loved ones or objects).

3.Exploiting or corrupting that encourages a child to develop inappropriate behaviors (modeling, permitting, or encouraging antisocial or developmentally inappropriate behavior; encouraging or coercing abandonment of developmentally appropriate autonomy; restricting or interfering with cognitive development).

4.Denying emotional responsiveness (ignoring a child or failing to express affection, caring, and love for a child).

5.Rejecting (avoiding or pushing away).

6.Isolating (confining, placing unreasonable limitations on freedom of movement or social interactions).

7.Unreliable or inconsistent parenting (contradictory and ambivalent demands).

8.Neglecting mental health, medical, and educational needs (ignoring, preventing, or failing to provide treatments or services for emotional, behavioral, physical, or educational needs or problems).

9.Witnessing intimate partner violence (domestic violence)."

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/109/4/e68?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=spanking&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=70&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT#SEC2

 

 

 

I think that the social acceptance of spanking provides cover for a multitude of cruelties directed at children. It's a stumbling block for being able to accurately shine a spotlight on parental behaviors that clearly are harmful to a childs well-being, excessive spanking being only one of them.

 

Using intentional pain as a method of child rearing, in my mind, is just plain wrong. Society should condemn the practice in its physical and emotional form.

 

Is it really essential to have spanking/hitting as a tool for successful child rearing? Every day care center in the country seems to manage without it.

[SkepticLance]

Stevo

 

Here in New Zealand you can, in theory, go to jail for spanking a child. For many years we had a law that said that physical force against a child was assault, with all the normal penalties for assault including jail - but had the clause attached that this did not apply to reasonable force used for disciplinary purposes.

 

Then about two years ago, a bleeding heart liberal took a bill to parliament (and won a law change) rescinding the clause permitting reasonable force. The only concession they made to common sense was a clause saying the police had the right to overlook such 'crimes' if they were trivial.

 

The whole reason for this change in the law was to stop serious offenders who claimed that they were applying discipline. The result has been zero. Just as many serious assaults of children have occurred as before, if not even more of them!

 

Trivial cases have made it to court. Several parents have been charged and been required to suffer penalties. A recent case was a man who flicked his son's ear to stop his son from yelling and running around making a nuisance of himself in a public place. He was charged, convicted, and sentenced to community service.

 

The sad thing is that the law change has not worked. Serious offenses against children continue as before. People who assault and even murder children in their care do not stop because the law says it is wrong. The only people who get punished now, who would not have been punished under the old law, are good parents applying minimal punishment.

[D H]

"Most of these countries do not carry criminal penalties for spanking. For example, the law in Sweden carries no penalty. However, in many cases, those who are caught spanking must attend parenting classes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-spanking

In other words, it's yet another namby-pamby, feel-good law that does nothing but makes the people who passed the law think they solved all of the world's problems.

 

If the use of pain (spanking, hitting) is considered to be a justified and acceptable method of child rearing, doesn't that open the door for those parents who feel justified ,and find it acceptable, to use emotional pain and extreme spanking/hitting practices?

Stop with the logical fallacies, young man, or I will take you to the woodshed and spank you!

 

The sad thing is that the law change has not worked. Serious offenses against children continue as before. People who assault and even murder children in their care do not stop because the law says it is wrong. The only people who get punished now, who would not have been punished under the old law, are good parents applying minimal punishment.

Skeptic, the law did work in a very real sense. It made those who passed the law think they had solved all of the world's problems. Isn't that the point of all legislation?

[Mr Skeptic]

It's a stumbling block for being able to accurately shine a spotlight on parental behaviors that clearly are harmful to a childs well-being, excessive spanking being only one of them.

 

Just like drinking excessive water is bad for your health, and can even kill you. I'd recommend a ban on water!

[D H]

I'd recommend a ban on water!

Yes! You are definitely on to something here, but you have only scratched the surface. Look what happened to the poor Apollo 1 astronauts. They died because the fire in the capsule spread far too fast because of the 100% oxygen atmosphere. We must add oxygen to the list of banned substances.

 

 

And food, of course.

[dichotomy]

The sad thing is that the law change has not worked. Serious offenses against children continue as before. People who assault and even murder children in their care do not stop because the law says it is wrong. The only people who get punished now, who would not have been punished under the old law, are good parents applying minimal punishment.

 

I hope you are not suggesting that the law is in vain? Laws don’t generally work magic overnight; they can take time to impact on the majority of guilty parties.

 

In Melbourne there was a trail lockout law. The lockout was a three-month trial of 2am late entry bans for pub, bar and nightclub venues. To reduce the incidence of violent assaults. The venue owners state it was a failure, but where is the science in a 3 month social change trail? Social change generally takes a lot longer than a crumby 3 months I would think…

[SkepticLance]

To dichotomy

Was the law a failure? Depends of which goal you are measuring it against. Those who made the law said it would cut down on serious violent crime against children, and emphasized that it was NOT directed against good parents who used mild physical discipline.

 

Result : Serious violent crime against children, after 2 years, is still as high as ever. A number of good parents who used mild physical discipline have been through the court system and suffered penalties.

 

What do you conclude?

[dichotomy]

What do you conclude?

 

2 years is not long enough for a law that is supposed to change a long standing cultural practice that has more negatives than positives. I assume the law is there to control the many unacceptable examples that were presenting in NZ before it was acctually introduced?

 

What constitutes a “good” parent?

[YT2095]

I think this law/rule is just plain silly;

4.Denying emotional responsiveness (ignoring a child or failing to express affection, caring, and love for a child).

 

Ignoring a child is a useful tool!

if your kid is having a temper tantrum or screaming to get its own way until its physically sick or threatening to hold its breath until it turns blue etc...

the best way to treat that for the long term is acknowledge that your aware of them doing it and then walk away.

when they see that your not impressed and it`s Not going to elicit a desired response from you, they soon change tactics and try something else, when what they try is Reasonable THEN you can be all ears and pay full attention to them.

[SkepticLance]

To dichotomy

 

I am not sure that 20 years would be enough.

The type of crime that we really want to stop is serious assault or murder of children. New anti-spanking laws are really not going to help here. After all, serious assaults and murder have been seriously against the law for ever, and with heavy penalties. No doubt the law and the penalties have stopped lots of child abuse of that type in the past, but not all. Adding a penalty against minor physical punishment of children is not going to stop the serious offenses.

 

And do we really want to punish parents who only spank, without any more serious abuse?

 

In any absolute term, there is no such thing as a good parent - just a whole lot of imperfect humans who love their kids and do their best to raise their kids in the best way they know how. I regard these loving people as close enough to 'good parents'.

[ParanoiA]

And with that can I ask why we think it's a good idea for kids to grow up perfectly?

 

Don't we learn that immune systems that are never tested aren't as strong as the ones that are? Don't we see that theme throughout science?

 

I'm not thinking kids should be raised without spanking, hardships, and etc. I'm thinking they need a careful balance of adversity and care. I'm not sure that kids shouldn't experience these emotions that we find so uncomfortable - like being shunned and so forth. It's also why I'm not sure it's bad for kids to be raised in a house where they have to do more to help out - like taking care of siblings, house cleaning, and etc even at the expense of their social time. After all, family is about putting each other first, cooperating for survival.

[stevo247]

Clearly, many of you firmly believe that the practice of spanking is not a bad thing. In fact, you think it is a very good thing. Maybe even close to 90% of parents in the U.S. would agree with you. With a resounding “yes” you all agree that spanking is a very good thing. Some even think it's a God given right. So everyone goes along on their merry way, all agreeing with each other that spanking is a very good thing.

 

What happens though, when you look a little closer? This group over here, believing that spanking is a good thing, spanks and hits infants. That group over there, spanks on average 3x/week, every week throughout the infant/toddler/childhood years, believing of course, that spanking is a good thing. That group over there, they smack a kid in the head and face and consider it the same as spanking, which of course, everyone knows to be a good thing. This group over here, the atmosphere is full of slapping, smacking and spanking, because everybody knows that spanking is a good thing. And that group over there, they like to use implements (belts, paddles, spoons, etc.). And they all feel totally justified and vindicated, because as we all know, spanking is a very good thing.

 

If you go to one group, “Hey, do you know what there doing over there? They're spanking 6 month old babies on regular basis.” “Oh, that's not spanking, it's child abuse”, says the group that spanks their teenagers with sticks.

 

Expert proponents of spanking say that appropriate spanking is 1-2 swats on the bottom, between the ages of 2 and 12, used sparingly and judiciously. Is this the policy that you guys are defending so vigorously. Personally, I would think that a couple of swats on a child over toddler age to be rather meaningless, and even before the age of 12 to be downright laughable.

 

As I'm sure you are aware, I don't think that children should be spanked or hit, ever. The only time I can picture myself laying a hand on a child, is if I was to suddenly see them engaged in a dangerous activity. The swat could be characterized as “alarm”. There would be little or no redness.

 

Anyone care to discuss their particular spanking policy (and what you consider harmless) in regards to severity, frequency, and the age range that you find it appropriate? I assume you have given it some thought, since spanking is such a very good thing.

[iNow]

Anyone care to discuss their particular spanking policy (and what you consider harmless) in regards to severity, frequency, and the age range that you find it appropriate?

 

Why bother? Your mind is already made up:

 

As I'm sure you are aware, I don't think that children should be spanked or hit, ever.

 

That's fine, too. It's your opinion. Where the challenge becomes is where you try to legislate your personal opinion and morality on everyone else.

[dichotomy]

Expert proponents of spanking say that appropriate spanking is 1-2 swats on the bottom, between the ages of 2 and 12, used sparingly and judiciously.

 

And even then, I personally don't have a torque setting for the force of my hand. People hit with varying force that they all deem as appropriate. This is where things come unstuck. Maybe the invention of a scientifically calibrated arse smacking machine is the answer here. It delivers the same force everytime, 100% satisfaction guaranteed!

 

I also accept that perfection is only an ideal when it comes to parenting (or anything else). All we can really do is what seems to deliver the best success rate. And let Natural Selection sort the rest out.

 

I'm not thinking kids should be raised without spanking, hardships, and etc. I'm thinking they need a careful balance of adversity and care.

 

 

Totally agree. But a measured strike to a child should only be delivered when they are about to potentially get themselves killed, e.g. running in front of a truck. For anything else (e.g. accidentally spilling a drink on someone) it just seems too trivial to me.

[Pete]

Just like drinking excessive water is bad for your health, and can even kill you. I'd recommend a ban on water!

Good one!!!

 

Yes! You are definitely on to something here, but you have only scratched the surface. Look what happened to the poor Apollo 1 astronauts. They died because the fire in the capsule spread far too fast because of the 100% oxygen atmosphere. We must add oxygen to the list of banned substances.

Since all murders were done by humans I say we get rid of the whole lot of those pesky humans.