[RedwoodCity]

It just takes one or two people to take the idea of physical punishment too far before people start calling for change. In the 1970's in the USA teachers were allowed to hit students. I would like to see a teacher try that now.

[tsotha]

I went to school back then, and the teachers weren't allowed to hit students. They could send you to the principal for corporal punishment, but his options were strictly circumscribed. His biggest weapon, in fact, was the threat of a paddling.

I can't say that's the way it was everywhere, but they didn't need to rely on that kind of thing - if you made too much trouble they would simply expel you, something I don't think happens these days.

[jpxxx]

My parents were both in schools where they were physically beat, their fellow students were physically beat, and physical violence was always on the table as a response to student behavior. Their resentment (and the feeling of betrayal by their parents who condoned this behavior) lives on to this day.

[Jtsummers]

In the US? What part?

[jpxxx]

Missouri, circa 50's, catholic school.

[Jtsummers]

So yeah, I think your parent post was talking about public schools. I won't argue that physical punishment (and abuse in some places) was absent from Catholic schools, especially at that time. Missouri also seems to be home to much more conservative Catholics than I'm used to seeing in other parts of the country which may relate to why the teachers/administration behaved that way.

[will_work4tears]

This is my experience. Always the principal.

In fact I got in a spot of trouble in High School in 93-94 and was threatened with a paddle, so it isn't like this practice is ancient.

[gnaritas]

If by physical punishment you mean spanking, it's all too far. You don't need to hit your kids, ever. The ends do not justify the means.

[briandear]

Spanking has decreased in schools. Violence has increased in schools. Just sayin'

[gnaritas]

Whales have decreased in numbers, violence has increased in schools. Just sayin'

[briandear]

Right. And whales were once a significant part of school discipline.

[gnaritas]

Correlation is not causation, my stat is equally as valid as yours. They are both equally worthless for drawing conclusions.

[g8oz]

Treatment of children could possibly connected to subsequent behavior of children? Sounds possible.

[chad_oliver]

I don't agree. I recognize that this is a difficult and controversial issue, but perhaps you would allow me to present a contrary opinion. (Also, understand that this is a general response, not a response targeted only at gnaritas).

A few years ago, the New Zealand legislature passed a law that effectively made spanking a punishable offense(^), which generated a lot of discussion about the topic. About two-thirds of everyone I talked to (classmates, etc) had be spanked as a child, and of those people, I never met anyone who considered it a bad thing or traumatic in any way. In fact, everyone recognized that they had only been spanked because they were misbehaving, and that they had 'earned' the punishment. Let me emphasise that: I have not talked to anyone who has been spanked, and who thought it was traumatic or equivalent to violence in any way.

From this, I suspect that most people who object to spanking have either never been spanked (and assume it would be tramatic), or have parents who thought 'discipline' was an acceptable excuse for abuse. Please understand that I am not defending any parent who abuses their child. Their actions are horrid and without excuse. Instead, my point is merely that spanking, done right, is not at all equivalent with child abuse.

So what makes a 'good' spank? It should be short, sharp, and clearly associated with the crime, not the person.

By short and sharp, I mean that it should hurt but I should not leave any long term effects. There should only be a single strike, the pain should not last longer than 10 seconds, and if there is a bruise then the parent has seriously stuffed up. The purpose is not to inflict pain on the child, but rather to clearly and unambiguously tell the child that certain actions are not acceptable. A baby should never be smacked, because they would not be able to understand the causality, and I would expect that once a child is over the age of 5 or 6, a verbal rebuke or simple smack on the hand should be sufficient. (Note that the smack on the hand would not be designed to cause pain, but rather to serve as a strong rebuke.)

The smack should be clearly associated with the crime, not the person. When my mother smacked me, she would call me into the bedroom, explain what the crime was, smack me once, then hold me as I cried. Also, she always told me that she still loved me.

Gnaritas: you say that the end does not justify the means. I'm not sure I agree with that. If, by being disciplined while I am a young child, I can learn to behave as a civilized member of the human race, I think this is a very good end that does justify the means. I suspect that the only people who can discipline themselves without any external discomfort (whether that's physical pain, boredom from being given a detention, or embarrassment from a boss's rebuke) are those who have been appropriately disciplined when they were young. Certainly, parents should move to the milder forms of punishment as soon as a child will respond to them. But while a child is young (3-5ish), a short sharp smack is an effective tool that doesn't need to be abusive.

I recognize that some people will read this and still thing smacking is horrid. That's okay; you're certainly allowed to form your own opinion. However, please do not make the mistake of assuming that smacking must be abusive or violent, or even that the children themselves resent it. I know I never did. I disliked the pain, but I knew that there was a very good was to avoid a smack -- stop being mean to others around me.

------

^ The purpose of the bill was only to remove a legal defense from those who were 'obviously' Bad Parents, but the ambiguity about what constitutes a Bad Parent made it very controversial.

[gnaritas]

> I have not talked to anyone who has been spanked, and who thought it was traumatic or equivalent to violence in any way.

That the abused don't feel abused doesn't mean they aren't being abused. It just means they're rationalizing or denying; this is common among all kinds of abuse victims and is thus not a measure of whether something is or isn't abuse. Hitting someone at all is abuse, regardless of their age.

> From this, I suspect that most people who object to spanking have either never been spanked (and assume it would be tramatic), or have parents who thought 'discipline' was an acceptable excuse for abuse.

I think you suspect wrong. People who object to violence are objecting to violence because they've reasoned out that it's wrong rather than accept what they were taught is acceptable violence from tradition as you seem to have.

> If, by being disciplined while I am a young child, I can learn to behave as a civilized member of the human race, I think this is a very good end that does justify the means.

And that's faulty reasoning. Lots of things that aren't OK work, that doesn't make them any more acceptable. The question isn't whether it works, the question is is violence the best option, and the answer is no; there is always a better non-violent method of teaching said lesson.

> However, please do not make the mistake of assuming that smacking must be abusive or violent

Hitting someone, regardless of whether it leaves permanent marks, is violent.

> a short sharp smack is an effective tool that doesn't need to be abusive.

Whether a technique is effective or not has no relevance on whether it's wrong or not. By your reasoning, not feeding my kids for a few days (which won't do any permanent damage) is OK as a form of punishment if it works.

Hitting your child is no less wrong than hitting your spouse. You are engaging in rationalization, not logic.

> However, please do not make the mistake of assuming that smacking must be abusive or violent

Hitting someone is violent by definition. There is no assumption involved, it is violence. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. You may be of the opinion that sometimes violence (spanking) is OK, but you are not allowed your own facts.

[antiterra]

> That the abused don't feel abused doesn't mean they aren't being abused. It just means they're rationalizing or denying;

Telling people you classify as abused that they are fully incapable of speaking for themselves unless they agree with you is pretty despicable, and a kissing cousin to victim blaming.

[gnaritas]

Well it's a good thing I didn't actually say that. I'll repeat... That the abused don't feel abused doesn't mean they aren't being abused. That is a statement of fact, not opinion. It doesn't in any way say they are incapable of anything, it merely points out that victims don't always realize they are being victimized; this is especially true of children, as anyone should well know.

[antiterra]

By stating that you believe spanking is never justified, it implies that, from your viewpoint, spanking is unjustified violence, aka abuse. If someone who has been spanked attempts to tell you that they do not believe they were abused, you have declared their motivation to be either rationalization or denial.

Further, when someone is debating whether or not spanking is "violent," they are speaking in the connotation of inflicting injury and harm. They do not mean it in the sense that force, such as beating an egg, is inherently violent.

I was spanked by my parents and by a grade school teacher. I think it functioned as suitable punishment in my case, and overall I was under-disciplined. Being told that I am inherently unreliable or unable to make the determination that I was abused or not is irritating and disrespectful.

I do believe current parenting consensus is that spanking has the risk (and perhaps tendency) of causing harm, and will avoid it as a method of discipline with my children.

[jdhopeunique]

There isn't just one definition of "violence" and the word is sometimes defined to include a malicious intent. Rarely would one say that a surgeon violently injures his patient when performing an operation or that the first responders administered violent CPR. Usually people project their own moral value judgements onto the word so that only what they deem as bad or evil acts are "violent". This is less a matter of fact than it is a matter of definition.

As for whether spanking is the most effective option, the jury is still out. It wouldn't be surprising to find a correlation between spanking and slightly lower IQ or later behavioral problems, but does spanking cause either? Can scientific literature that relies on self-reporting by parents show anything useful?

Regardless of effectiveness, should one spank? Is it morally wrong? What basis do we decide the morality of it?

[bluesnowmonkey]

> Hitting someone at all is abuse, regardless of their age.

What about boxing, martial arts, football? Not all hitting is abuse.

> Hitting someone is violent by definition.

That's a pretty contextual term too. Chopping wood with an axe is not particularly violent, but smashing furniture during an angry fight is.

[gnaritas]

Ok, excluding being voluntarily hit, hitting someone is abuse. And in all cases it's violent.

[mkr-hn]

It's wonderful that your anecdotes had such great parents that they spanked responsibly, but it's not the norm. Let's not kid ourselves: any physical act that sends a message more effectively than well-considered words is violent. I don't trust the average person to use violence responsibly.

[gnaritas]

> spanked responsibly

There is no such thing. Responsible parents don't hit their children, they outsmart them.

[mkr-hn]

I was giving chad_oliver's anecdotes the benefit of the doubt. This is getting a bit meta...

[ansgri]

But the kids have to get hit someday. Better done by you in controlled environment.

[drivebyacct2]

Yes, let's give up the idea of civilization. It's just much easier to inflict violence as a means of discipline and control. That doesn't have any long term psychological or behavioral impact.

Hey kids, if you don't like what someone's doing, use violence. Wonder why the world's nations' military policies are the way they are?