Spanking Leads To Child Aggression And Anxiety, Regardless Of Cultural Norm

reply to post by VestanPants
Kind of contradictory, yet ironic, that your fear of repercussion and discipline prevents you from instilling a fear of repercussion and discipline in chldren, no?
In spite of your observation that your peers by and large turned out fine in spite of....

Originally posted by abecedarian
reply to post by VestanPants

 

Kind of contradictory, yet ironic, that your fear of repercussion and discipline prevents you from instilling a fear of repercussion and discipline in chldren, no?
In spite of your observation that your peers by and large turned out fine in spite of....

Your absolutely right, it is contradictory and ironic. expanding on it more, I was clipped around the ear by my mother in a "normal" way the same as plenty of other people who have said they were smacked as a child and it "did them no harm" and I agree with that, I behaved more for my mother than I did for my dad, who would kick the living crap out of me, I hated him for it, and still do, he left me with a hatred of being given orders.

I also have a daughter as well as my step son, now, if my daughter behaved in the same fashion as my step son, I would probably smack her legs, bum (in the same fashion that my mother did to me, although I dont believe in smacking around the head) yet I wont smack my step son for fear of being arrested, so in essense because of all the BS political correctness that we should never smack children..my daughter would grow up wondering why I smacked her and not my step son...she would become me in the way I hate my dad.

Im probably not making alot of sense right now, and I apologise if thats the case, Im tired (its 1AM here)

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge


Aha, I see You're one of those people who think striking a person a fifth your size in order to inflict emotional or physical pain is NOT in any way violent.

I wonder if you would have the same definition of non-violence if an 800lb gorilla lashed out at you.

Do you also delude yourself into thinking that violence begets respect. It's a common confusion from the spanking lobby, to confuse fear with respect.

Well, as I said, it takes a state of unconsciousness or insanity to operate in such a way. Thanks for the demo.

Originally posted by hangedman13
The problem here is that people are only looking at this on the spanking good or bad axis. Now a days a kid is medicated after being given one of the abc diagnosis. Since spanking was seen as such a bad thing something was needed to control children. Ta da in steps the big pharm. and it's cures for what ails you. Personally I'll take spanking over the dubious benefits of the other methods of controlling kids.

What, do you really believe spanking and medication are the only 2 options?

Originally posted by abecedarian
I made mistakes and was 'spanked' at least 3 times a week, on average. I'm not a killer, am well adjusted, get along with my peers, am not threatened by them nor complacent when dealing with them.

Indeed, you're well adjusted to perpetuate a tradition of violence.

In todays society, that does indeed make you fairly normal Congrats.

I have a high level of anxiety and I was never spanked.

So go figure. What happened to me?


I_R

Prolly too much violent TV/Video games

Yeah well I'm too old for that although I enjoy them now...especially the violence

I grew up with Leave it to Beaver.

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
reply to post by RogerT

 

For me, criminal spanking execution is needed when all other methods fail.

Maybe it's time you got some new, more effective methods?
Admittedly, that's not as easy as raising your hand.

How about admitting that you resort to spanking when the limits of your personal ability to resolve the situation non-violently is made evident.

May I ask, if you knew there was a non-violent alternative, that was much more effective, but maybe a bit more 'challenging' to implement, do you believe you would be able to resist the urge to hit for long enough to employ it? Genuine question seeking genuine answer.

Originally posted by idle_rocker
Yeah well I'm too old for that although I enjoy them now...especially the violence

I grew up with Leave it to Beaver.

For me it was Atari Space Invaders, high score 110,000

Originally posted by RogerT
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge

 

...not directed at me but I do have some things to say so...

Aha, I see You're one of those people who think striking a person a fifth your size in order to inflict emotional or physical pain is NOT in any way violent.

Inflicting pain solely for the purpose of inflicting pain is wrong. Subtle pain inflicted only for the purpose of from which a valuable life-lesson is learned is another story. The first case is self-serving and self-gratification, the second case is utilizing a minor trauma to gain attention for the purpose of teaching cause-and-effect type life-lessons.

I wonder if you would have the same definition of non-violence if an 800lb gorilla lashed out at you.

If the 800# gorilla left me alone after I moved away from the stack of bananas... yea I'd say it's the same definition... meaning if the gorilla only proffered so much violence as necessary to change my behavior- leave the bananas alone and I leave you alone, yeah, the same.

Do you also delude yourself into thinking that violence begets respect. It's a common confusion from the spanking lobby, to confuse fear with respect.

So just where does the line 'lie'? "Time out" only taught my kids to shut up for 10-20 minutes after which they went back to the same behavior. Spankings taught them to not do it again. The non-violent option was just a slight distraction for them whereas a bit of pain told them I was serious and would not make things easy for them to get away with.
So, your opinion means what now?

Well, as I said, it takes a state of unconsciousness or insanity to operate in such a way. Thanks for the demo.

Well it takes a state of delusion to think that cause-and-effect can be taught to an irrational being... a being that doesn't even know the principles of addition or multiplication much less anything other than "I'm hungry" and "I'm always surrounded by things so all the things surrounding me are always mine and I can take them whenever I want".

[edit on 9/30/2009 by abecedarian]

reply to post by RogerT


No, but they are the most popular. As a society once spanking became "barbaric" people where at a loss on how to control their children and in came ridilian and the other garbage they started to inflict on kids. I for one was spanked as a kid. Nothing more than one or two swats on the rear mind you. All it took when I was acting up in public was for my mom to say "do you want me to spank you in front of all of these people?" It was the embarrassment of being disciplined in front strangers that caused me to stop not the idea of being spanked. Children do not understand most of what you are trying to teach them, some things require a little firmer hand to get the point across! You don't put a kid in time out for biting another kid. They will associate I hurt someone, someone else may hurt me because of it. Spanking is more about ramifications for your actions then pain or fear. Society at large makes excuses for bad behavior rather than preventing the bad behavior in the first place.

I believe in fair punishment, so I don't condone adults hitting their kids for a power trip. I also don't believe in spanking your kid on every fault. Most of us pro spanking people view it as the last resort. Remember the wait till your father gets home speech? That was the last resort "big gun" punishment once upon a time. You should have gotten that one when you where really bad. Parenting it seems to me is a little good cop bad cop. Mom is usually good cop and dad is bad cop. My parents where old fashioned when it came to discipline. But my dad was always fair and on more than one occasion he fought with my mom over how she would handle discipline as a power trip and not as a punishment. Unfortunately not everyone has fair parenting. It is not spanking that is the problem but the reasons why you spank. That all being said don't quite a few people pay for the "pleasure" of being spanked?

reply to post by abecedarian


If I waited, you would have summarized my point with less rambling. That was my point thank you!

[edit on 30-9-2009 by hangedman13]

Originally posted by abecedarian

Originally posted by RogerT
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge

 

...not directed at me but I do have some things to say so...

Aha, I see You're one of those people who think striking a person a fifth your size in order to inflict emotional or physical pain is NOT in any way violent.

Inflicting pain solely for the purpose of inflicting pain is wrong. Subtle pain inflicted only for the purpose of from which a valuable life-lesson is learned is another story. The first case is self-serving and self-gratification, the second case is utilizing a minor trauma to gain attention for the purpose of teaching cause-and-effect type life-lessons.

I wonder if you would have the same definition of non-violence if an 800lb gorilla lashed out at you.

If the 800# gorilla left me alone after I moved away from the stack of bananas... yea I'd say it's the same definition... meaning if the gorilla only proffered so much violence as necessary to change my behavior- leave the bananas alone and I leave you alone, yeah, the same.

Do you also delude yourself into thinking that violence begets respect. It's a common confusion from the spanking lobby, to confuse fear with respect.

So just where does the line 'lie'? "Time out" only taught my kids to shut up for 10-20 minutes after which they went back to the same behavior. Spankings taught them to not do it again. The non-violent option was just a slight distraction for them whereas a bit of pain told them I was serious and would not make things easy for them to get away with.
So, your opinion means what now?

Well, as I said, it takes a state of unconsciousness or insanity to operate in such a way. Thanks for the demo.

Well it takes a state of delusion to think that cause-and-effect can be taught to an irrational being... a being that doesn't even know the principles of addition or multiplication much less anything other than "I'm hungry" and "I'm always surrounded by things so all the things surrounding me are always mine and I can take them whenever I want".

[edit on 9/30/2009 by abecedarian]

I think your point about rational vs irrational is interesting.

Your initial references are those of an adult, making a rational explanation of an event, after the event. I don't believe you would be capable of detaching 'violence' from the act of being swatted by someone 6 times your size and weight, during the act, even as an adult. Then in closing, you claim a small child doesn't have this ability to rationalize .... doesn't that give you pause for thought?

You sound like you support the ' I hurt them so they don't hurt themselves' crowd. Eg. inflict pain on the kid as it reaches for the stove. Does that work? No, it simply defers the actual learning process to a later date when you aren't around to interfere with it - touch something hot and it hurts - no amount of smacking can teach that lesson.

Finally, you seem to think that it's either violence or time out, and your version of time out is ineffective, so it has to be violence.

"Spankings taught them to not do it again" is a common delusion shared by smacking parents. In reality, it only teaches your child that they must perform the act in secret, or at least outside of your presence. Of course they won't do it again in front of you, but they have not learned why their actions are undesireable, only that you personally don't approve. Often, that is down to some parent's individual ego, which bears no resemblance to common sense, and the child intuitively knows something is wrong with this picture.

In short, I challenge the whole 'learn by violence' concept. Really, you are teaching something very different than you desire, and they are learning much more than you realise.

I'd wager very few posters here on ATS would actually smack if they were aware and trained in more effective alternatives, so it's really simply an ignorance issue, combined with a childhood training in violent agenda enforcing through personal experience or close witnessing.

[edit on 30/9/09 by RogerT]

[edit on 30/9/09 by RogerT]

reply to post by idle_rocker


Perhaps your parents never hug or assure you?
Just a thought.

reply to post by hangedman13


Fair, intelligent and reasonable post.

My response, if you're interested, would be to suggest that making a commitment to raise your kids without violence doesn't have to be politically correct, trendy or driven by fear of legal repercussions.

I'm not 100% anti-violence in general - it may have it's place if the moment calls for it - self defence springs to mind.

But in my world, violence to small children is simply insane.

reply to post by Jazzyguy

Well you make a valid point because those are most crucial in raising a child. My parents both passed long ago (I'm old...lol).

I spanked my child when she was young...not hard mind you. But she has the same level of anxiety I do and about the same things. I guess the point I'm making is that spanking a child to enforce knowledge of dangerous events can be useful. Like lightly spanking a small child when they run in the street. There is, however, a difference between spanking and abuse, so I want to make that perfectly clear.

So, since I was not spanked but my child was, and we both experience the same level of anxieties and our anxieties are about the same things, I can't say that I agree anxiety is caused by spanking. I would say anxieties are passed along by unconscious emotions exhibited by the parent about specific things. I'm more likely to agree with the aggression part, but I think aggression would more likely be caused by "excessive or abusive" spanking.

Just two cents added from the aged

Originally posted by RogerT
I think your point about rational vs irrational is interesting.

Your initial references are those of an adult, making a rational explanation of an event, after the event. I don't believe you would be capable of detaching 'violence' from the act of being swatted by someone 6 times your size and weight, during the act, even as an adult. Then in closing, you claim a small child doesn't have this ability to rationalize .... doesn't that give you pause for thought?

So, after you trying to pick up on the server at "insert your favorite hang out here", a bouncer comes up to you at the night club and is about twice as wide, 2 feet taller and 1/2 the body fat as you and tells you to "stop patronizing the server or else" and you feel that the bouncer putting you in a choke hold, or even the compatriots tossing you out of the bar, is different than you trying to teach a toddler a lesson after being warned and the warning being ignored?

Please- put some perspective on it. The bouncer tried to reason with you and you wouldn't listen so force was necessary. Is it any different with a child? You, as an adult, don't like being told what to do, or otherwise forced to do something, and somehow you think a child is going to be
more complacent and willing?

My rationalization was always done during the event: does the situation warrant spanking, and if so, how hard or how many?

You sound like you support the ' I hurt them so they don't hurt themselves' crowd. Eg. inflict pain on the kid as it reaches for the stove. Does that work? No, it simply defers the actual learning process to a later date when you aren't around to interfere with it - touch something hot and it hurts - no amount of smacking can teach that lesson.

Um... well, not exactly. I never forced them to get burned... contrary to what you're suggesting. I warned my kids of the dangers of the stove. I brought them in to the kitchen and asked them to move their hands as close to the burner as they could, slowly mind you so physical burning did not occur, and did not force them to move any closer than they could. They realized quite early on that fire hurts so I never had to take them to the doctor for soup-burns or the like and they never played with matches either so, you're point in trying to make me look like a bad parent was what again?

Finally, you seem to think that it's either violence or time out, and your version of time out is ineffective, so it has to be violence.

If you think my version of time out is setting alone in a corner, setting in your room without TV, not listening to radio or playing video games while the neighbors' kids get to do those things, then yeah, that's my idea of time-out. I try to separate 'rights' from 'priveledges'- meals are rights, games, talk, TV, entertainment are priveledges. Take them away and the kid doesn't change, then some other means is necessary.

I'd wager very few posters here on ATS would actually smack if they were aware and trained in more effective alternatives, so it's really simply an ignorance issue, combined with a childhood training in violent agenda enforcing through personal experience or close witnessing.

If there were a more effective alternative than smacks, I'm sure you'd be right about more effective alternatives... otherwise, it's an ignorance issue, so please enlighten us all on what we can do to create more compliant children without imparting temporary blemishes on their skin or hurting their ego.

Waterboarding maybe?

[edit on 9/30/2009 by abecedarian]

I got spankings and so did most of my friends. We have all grown up to be rather laid back and non-aggressive. Several of my friends that did not spank their kids have turned out kids that are mean as hell, aggressive and down right useless. They regret the days when they didn't apply hand/belt/switch to the behinds of their kids!

My 2 nephews and neice got spankings - very rarely because they very rarely needed one. They all three grew up to be wonderful adults and great parents.
The all apply hand to butt when needed and their kids are terrific little kids.
Non-aggressive, polite and well mannered, loving. They will also grow up to be fine adults.

So, I think this is a load of PC crap.

You know I thought you were serious until I read your last line.

Not much point conversing if you are more interested in scoring a point for your ego with sarcasm than learning better ways to help your kids socialise than physically hurting them.

By the way, there is no intention in any of my posts to label anyone a 'bad parent'. If you wish to interpret a label, 'lacking in information' would be more accurate.

In your case, it would seem 'lacking in the desire for information' would seem more appropriate.

[edit on 30/9/09 by RogerT]