Do You Think Spanking Should Be Illegal?

SPANKING BAN?

Take the Online Poll Here.(under the video)
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/14701492/detail.html

Results so far:

Do You Think Spanking Should Be Illegal In Massachusetts?

Choice -- Votes -- Percentage of 367 Votes

Yes ----- 21 --------- 6%

No ----- 346 -------- 94%

do not think it should
be illegal. When I was
a child, whether or not
I would get 'my tail tore
up' was a big factor in
my decision making about
doing things I was not supposed
to do.

There is a difference between
discipline and abuse. Sadly,
some parents do not know the
difference.

was what the hell? We need a lot more things taken care of in this state besides this

and how the hell can they enforce this? What if your 17 yr old decides to 'get even' and
makes up a story because you took away his IPod or some other silly reason and reports you?

I don't even see how this is enforceable and aren't there already laws against beating your kids?

:shrug:

Spanking is barbaric and it doesn't work.
If adults think it's ok to hit little kids then they should be subject to the same type of discipline at work and from their spouse - doesn't that sound stupid? It is and so is hitting kids.

I'm all for time outs, etc. but trying to make this a law that a parent can get arrested for?

I don't agree and it's unenforceable! This seems like a huge waste of time to me!

If my kid tries to touch a hot burner and I slap his hand away, will I be arrested? :shrug:

I think you meant to respond to another reply. ;)

I'm sorry to hear that you were abused as a child. :hug:

I already told you down thread.

My kids are fully grown and are now adults!

I posted this poll due to the pending legislation.

Not because spanking is MY pet issue.

One's a fender bender and the other a total car wreak - neither should happen.

away complaining how bad his hand hurt from hitting me.. i distinctly remember how absurd that was...

the beatings continued till i was a teenager...we were outside, he said he was going to get his strap and teach me a lesson, i picked up a 3 foot piece of pipe and said, 'no, i don't think that would be a good idea'

he never threatened me again and i never went to the Free Holyness Pentecostal church again either

i became a very angry and cynical person,.. it took nearly 40 years to get a decent view of life.. when i discovered Buddhism

i just sat with my child and calmly explained to him why.. i diverted him before he got into a situation.

i told him what to do before i told him what not to do.. i explained the options and the consequences even as a toddler.. then said lets do something we can enjoy..

i was his primary caretaker, from birth.. his mother wasn't at all maternal

That wasn't a spanking!

That was a beating and he should've been arrested for that!

:hug:

But there's no way to ban spanking in a home and it's unenforceable.

Beating a child is already against the law.

I can relate. :hug:

Buddhism is not a religion, it is best described as a psychology of living based on training the mind. there are levels of 'Mind' behind the 'Conventional' mind and the ultimate mind..discribed as a vase, the conventional mind is the inside of the vase, the ultimate mind everything outside the vase, described as where subject and object cease to be a duality

the levels outside are not obvious to the senses and are attained during meditation, some are called 'skillful means', which is a level of relating to negative, discursive and destructive thoughts, actions and habits... yours and others in a productive manner. just something that happens along the way...

there is no faith involved in Buddhism, it is something you do, and if it works for you, continuing is up to you.

check out http://www.buddhanet.net they have levels of study.. start at the beginning.. which is the Four Noble Truths. basically it is a logical posit. 1/the world involves suffering, dissatisfaction, 2/there is a cause of suffering.. anger, aversion, desire, grasping 3/if there is a cause, there is a solution 4/ the solution is the 8 fold path, which is a format of living that prevents collecting more bad karma while you practice training the mind to become liberated from delusion.

i am interested in Tibetan Buddhism, the Galupa school.. there is a little book .'fundamentals of Tibetan Buddhism by rebecca mcClen novick

meditation is the fundamental practice, it is good to have a teacher, started with Insight Meditation people and Pema Chodron.. till i ran into a Tibetan Lama in el paso tx after a couple months of serious meditating.

if you live near a larger city it is usually easier..but you never know

when i went to my first meeting at the Chenrezig Center and Tenzen explained the 4 Truths i cried.. i finally found a whole bunch of people who thought just like i did, and Buddhism fit like a glove, i was finally home after a hellatious long horrible journey.

there are all kinds of Buddhism for all kinds of different peoples mental dispositions.. Zen 'isn't for everyone'.. SGI isn't Buddhism.. NKT is something to stay away from...

till later..

looked into Transcendental Meditation and Buddhism a bit. I think I need something! Thanks for the link, I'll explore some more.

http://www.amazon.com/Diamond-Mind-Psychology-Rob-Nairn/dp/1570627630/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product

http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Tibetan-Buddhism-Rebecca-McClen/dp/0895949539/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product

cheap used..

TM is debatable, it is on a cult list.. a very good friend of mine got into it.. we parted ways,
they do some good research, but the Buddhists have had a all inclusive practice for 2500 years

the Tibetans have had a culture dedicated to generations of life long scientific research into meditation for the last 1400 years. the product od that is called 'The 7 step Lojong mind training'

check out pema chodron on amazon used for a cd set called 'hooked' or dont get hooked

keep in touch

Thanks for sharing this with me.

MMM

for a spanking every so often. Not a joke.

Well maybe she was but it sounds like that was a good thing. B-)

into all aspects of citizens' private lives.

I was going to include a variation of that in the poll but decided to refrain. ;)

Watch and listen...........Rush, Insanity, Tucker, et al. I'm willing to bet you'll hear something along that line before too long.

:eyes:

of parents and not what you fear.. they are 'discussing the need for legislation... there is no bill yet..

first to have a discussion you have to define what you are talking about.. i was started by a nurse

so maybe we just need to decide how thick a switch to use, and how deep it is allowed to cut into the flesh....

or a belt, how thick, how wide, how high a welt..

or a hand... do you realize that you can give a child whiplash spanking them.. which can cause brain swelling... even bouncing a child on your knee can cause brain swelling..

the nurse i probably sick of seeing dislocated shoulders and wrists from spankings..
you may have some restraint.. what about the alcoholics and nut cases brutalizing children calling it a spanking.. maybe it is for a legal definition

did you know that the first SPCA laws to prevent the brutalizing of horses that pulled street cars led to the FIRST laws protecting children

that's not what we're taklking about or what this proposed legislation is about.

The proposed legislation is about spanking and arresting the parents.

Not about beating up a kid!

That's already against the law and you can be arrested, as that is abuse!

How in HELL could ANYONE think hitting a child is OK? It's not acceptable to hit adults to settle disputes, how can hitting a child -- one who relies on us for protection -- be justified? Answer: It can't. Anyone who advocates "spanking" a child is advocating child abuse. Period!

It saved my kids from getting burned or worse, at the time.

Startled them enough to stop the dangerous behavior.

We're not talking about beating a kid into submission or hitting them hard, at all.

As another poster said, it teaches that might makes right. There are LOTS and LOTS of ways to get a kid's attention WITHOUT violence. I can't believe anyone justifies this anymore.

But I agree it depends on the degree and the amount of force used.

If a lot of force is used, that would be abusive but that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about a slight slap on a diapered bottom or a tap on a hand.

Spanking is not. Enough, with the inflammatory rhetoric, please. There IS a difference, and if you cannot see it, it is only because you choose not to, for unknown reasons.

As we have had many of these type "discussions" on this board, I have come to realize that most of the people who take such a staunch stance against spanking have been the objects of real abuse.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Verbal abuse! Why are you name calling? :shrug:

How do you propose enforcing a spanking ban?

You were abused severely and that's terrible

but there is a difference between spanking and beating.

Well, it all depends on the severity, I guess. :sarcasm:

He's name calling.

Please, please don't project those deep seated feelings on others here, nor lash out at others here who intend you no harm whatsoever. Remember the dharma, as I recall a lovely post you made last week on Buddhism. Remember people here do care. Take a break, friend, ok?

not going to chase them around trying to hit them. then you are going to grab their arm and raise it up to keep them from sitting down..TO PROTECT THENSELVES..it will be pulled on by YOU or them AVOIDING YOU.

they are growing and their joints are very soft and tendons are attacked to cartilage on the growing ends of soft bones

i was never able to play sports well at all, for which i was also brutalized by class mates, because my shoulder rotator cuffs were damaged starting from a toddler.. at 58 i can not raise my elbow to horizontal without terrible pain. i could not throw a ball in elementary school, i could not swim, i was constantly humiliated by others because i could only dog paddle.. so i stayed away from nearly every activity other children delight in.

i'm wasting my time here but here are some links on the physical and emotional damage spanking does.. i hated my father, shed no tears at his funeral, he died in my arms, i watched him go with no emotion. spanking didn't work for him very well


http://www.nospank.net/maurer8.htm

http://www.ur.umich.edu/0405/Sept13_04/24.shtml

http://www.nospank.net/susan.htm

http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=108

We're talking about spanking, not beating up a kid.

I'm sorry you were treated like shit by your parents but what happened to you was out right abuse.

My kids are grown and I don't need to learn about raising kids.

I don't plan on doing it again. Thanks for posting the links though.

I'm sure someone else will read them.

laws against murder, child pornography, rape, or any other vile behavior could also be considered a "nanny state." No?

Those are crimes.

How does the state monitor all the families and whether or not they are spanking their kids? :shrug:

We aren't talking about beatings and out right abuse that is already outlawed.

law will make violence against children a crime -- as it should be. And there is no way of monitoring it. I'm assuming it would be catch as catch can. You don't seem to understand that violence is violence, whether a "swat" on the diaper (good God!!! -- THINK about that) or beatings. There is no degree here, it's VIOLENCE against a child by the person who is SUPPOSED to be protecting them.

incest is unenforceable because it's difficult to catch. That doesn't mean it isn't morally wrong and shouldn't be against the law.

I'd rather human beings were capable of coming to this understanding without a "law," however...

We don't spank our daughter for several reasons. One, it displays the parents inability to communicate effectively without resorting to violence. This teaches children that violence solves problems when it only amplifies them, and further encourages irrational attitudes of submission to authority.

should they be arrested for abuse and/or neglect?

Sometimes, a slap on the butt or hand are called for, imho.

I think to myself, poor kid ... too bad he/she has such typically ignorant parents. Probably lost patience with the child cause their actions interrupted their watching sports. A "slap" is never "called for" in our family. Is it automatically "abuse" to the degree that intervention is warranted? Depends. Of course I don't advocate black and white, and no one wants the state involved domestically. However, if the kid gets smacked in public, chances are good they're also being smacked - or worse - in private.

slap on the butt or hand and they're great adults now, that are well adjusted and are non-violent.

I rarely received corporal punishment as a child, mostly time outs, but there were occasions

and I am non-violent. I think it's ridiculous for the state to think they can enforce this.

I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with making corporal punishment illegal ... I've seen too many fucked up situations where the parents clearly had no business attempting to be "parents."

and I always felt it was wrong; however, sometimes it was very necessary to get the child's attention, and to make sure he NEVER repeated what may have been a dangerous act--running out into the road, for instance. I mean, I suppose you could sit down and reason with your two-year old, maybe show him/her gruesome pictures of kids splatted all over the pavement, or something; but sometimes it seemed just a little more effective to associate such an act with an immediate negative consequence.

My "kids" are now 24 and 21 years old. The older is working on his Ph.D. in biology and the younger is a college senior. Neither one is a violent, hostile, or resentful person.

(BTW, I don't think I ever knew a parent who spanked their kid for interrupting TV sports.)

How effective it was, how wonderful their family is, their children are great, no problems, etc ... whatever. Some can't acknowledge their own wrong doing, others can't fathom the evil human beings are capable of, so they trivialize the worst case scenarios to better align with their own preferential view of reality. I also see this as one out of a very long list of cultural checkpoints which signify how marginal the percentage of far-to-the-left liberals there are in America...but that's just my take on it.

way to teach a two-year old not to run into the road?

I'd walk our daughter around the block while teaching her to ride her trike/bike - just doing that seemed to help. We never experienced any issue with our daughter that resulted in a frustration which led to smacking her. She's still quite young, but certainly understands that running out in the street is very dangerous ... and it didn't require showing her bloody pictures or whatever you suggested earlier.

when a family with a young boy moved across the street from us. I knew the temptation to go and play with a similarly-aged kid would be greater than any admonitions about not crossing the street, so I taught my son to look both ways before he crossed. He was probably about four at the time, and we lived on a very quiet street. Don't know what I would have done under other circumstances.

I ran toward the road as a toddler. We lived on a very busy highway, and fortunately, had a large front yard. I thought we were playing a game, and ran away from her. She chased me and caught me, and most likely spanked me, although I don't remember that part. What I do remember is when the mother of a little girl on our favorite soap opera died shortly thereafter,(_The Edge of Night_--it was Mike Carr's wife, for all the oldies on here) I couldn't understand what had happened. My mother told me that the little girl had run out into the road, and her mother had chased her and been hit by a car, and died. To me it seems much more cruel to make a child responsible for her mother's life than to receive a smart little swat on the behind.

I have two sons. One was what I call a "tester" and no matter what the situation, he would push a far as he could get away with. He was like that from around age 1 1/2. He has always been a "risk taker" and still is (at age 42!).

The other son was the opposite. He was a very cautious child who always calculated the risks v/s the rewards, and would never take any chances if he believed he owuld get hurt.

As you can imagine, the one was getting a swat on the behind from a very young age because nothing else got his attention. The other rarely, if ever, got that swat because with him all you had to do was look at him with a stern look and he'd stop the poor behavior.

BTW, my gradchildren are the same. One is an obstinent risk taker (a girl), and the other (a boy) is in tears if you give him a stern look! Both of those grandkids are the children of my careful, cautious son too!

I always thought that if the younger one had been born first he would have been an only child.

Nothing teaches a 2-year-old that. 2-year-olds run into the road if they aren't supervised. You can spank them until they get older, or you can not spank them till they get older. Either way, you're going to be watching them to make sure they don't run out into the road. I don't know a single parent who is confident in the abilities of a 2-year-old to not run into the road, no matter how they've dealt with it.

Either one beats hitting your kid.

he figured out how to open all those locks and he still got out of the house, while I was
cleaning up his younger brother! Luckily a neighbor got him for me and returned him unharmed.
Scared the crap out of me but he didn't get spanked. He got a time out and my ex got a better
lock and put it up even higher. Even I needed a chair! :P

They should be in the company of an adult. Hold their hand. Have them in a stroller. My kid grew up in a very rural spot- no road near our house, but when we went to London to visit my folks, I put one of those kiddie harnesses on him when we were out walking and he wasn't in his stroller.

coming to the child and cruel beatings, eh, Echo? This is why these kinds of threads turn into flame-fests, because there are always some that want to feel the ultimate in sacrimony towards other DUers. Adopting a simplistic "no tolerance" attitude (i.e., all spanking is wrong and anyone who differs with that point of view must be a cruel child abuser) may make one feel good, but it certainly isn't going to result in any kind of constructive discussion. :eyes:

about how THEIR children will always listen to calm and rational discussion and how fabulous they turned out (and they'll throw in a sports insult to boot!).

it's the same logic and it's still wrong.

Are you saying that there is virtually no distinction between a grown woman and a toddler?

You exaggerate and are way off base.

Same logic, after all.

And, there are child/family psychologists on here who agree with you.

Because I know of no competent child/family psychologist who advocates violence against children and if they were, I'd be checking to see where their degree is from.

I answered so many of these I just got confused. Chalk it up to impending senility. B-)

I would recommend this one. Bravo(a)!

"It displays the parents inability to communicate effectively without resorting to violence." This needs to be plastered on the forehead of everyone who ever thought "spanking" a child was just fine and dandy.

allowed you to draw THAT conclusion?

I find it interesting to see my step son and daughter in law raise their 4 year old. They agree with you. I was raised with spanking discipline, and I do have to supress violent feelings, it seems.

Does the data support it? I'm asking cause I'm too lazy to look it up and you may know.

Thanks.

prisons and probation programs. :eyes:

Who's going to monitor all of these abusive and neglectful parents?

Who's going to be in each and every home to be able to enforce this anyway?

This is like that 'fluff 'n nutter' guy who wanted to outlaw marshmallow spread in schools! :eyes:

I mean, we're losing jobs here and we need a lot of affordable housing and other issues

but this is the big topic here today? :banghead:

They are not going to start locking up mothers and putting kids in foster care over a swat on the rump. The system is already to clogged up now with legitimate cases of abuse.

It is more then just silly, it will cause more harm to families then help and it is logistically unrealistic.

it just really irritates me that they're even wasting any time on this nanny crap!

I had to look up that Rep, thinking he was a Repub and he's a Dem. *groan*

I'm no fan of spanking (although it's been a component of our parental discipline in the past), but all types of of negative physical reinforcement really can't be banned. The most bleeding-heart parents I've ever known have slapped a wrist or two; I don't want them jailed.

(if that makes any sense; I don't care enough about this going-nowhere measure to make some brilliant case against.)

:popcorn:

These thraeds are always... interesting.

For the record, I think spanking should be done away with.

1.Light tap or "poke" (redirects attention)---->

2.light smack using parent's bare open hand to back side or to the child's hand (light punishment producing more embarrassment than pain)--->

3.switching or beating with belt, "switch", or other device (definitely pain producing)--->

4. all out beating (closed fists, or use of belt or other implement without regard to effect and may even result in severe injury or death



As it is now, the law requires one to make a determination somewhere between #3 and #4 in terms of child abuse, versus "punishment." That seems like a reasonable distinction that most law enforcement officials could make, particularly with the aid of health professionals that evaluate the child. If one outlaws any form of spanking, the result will be trying to divine what is #1 and what is #2--very very subtle differences and for which there could be some very important justifications for use (preventing child from moving into traffic or touching a hot burner, for instance). So, we are left with whether or not it "looked bad," which of course it always will if a child is left crying. As a result, many many errors will be made and parents conceivably punished without cause.

If the intent is to protect children from true harm, it would seem that making clear the line between 3 and 4 is paramount.


I'm sure those pushing this law are well meaning, but we have repeatedly seen the confusion and harm that comes from "no tolerance" laws (Gini being sent home for having brought a butter knife to school where there are "no tolerance" policies against weapons). The fact is we need to be able to apply common sense and situational assessment. No tolerance laws take this flexibility away.

My two cents. Flame away, if you wish.

and doesn't hurt the kid but it does startle them enough

to stop them from hurting themselves or others.

I think #'s 3 & 4 are outlawed anyway. I don't think, as a

child reaches prescool age (3 & 4 yrs old) that spanking is

necessary anyway. At that age, timeouts usually work better, imho.

But there's no way the state could enforce this proposed law.

Jesus fucking Christ! I think I'd be ashamed to announce 2-year-old got the better of me and the only way I could win, er "teach" them was to hit them.

The butt is padded by a diaper and yes, it does get their attention. ;)

I didn't say BEAT THEM!!! Get a grip.

on the diaper they cry because -- they're startled???? How about they're crying because the person who is supposed to be protecting them is all of a sudden hitting them? Oh man, you've got some serious denial going on there. There is NO difference between HITTING and BEATING. YOU get a grip and I hope to goddess you're never EVER in a position to "take care" of kids again.

They might have cried at first because the noise was loud and startled them but

it usually was behavior that wasn't repeated by them, so the "spankings" were limited.

They just didn't do that anymore! ;) When they got older, time outs worked better anyway.

contact even. Rather the sound of hand-air contact on a well diapered child causes a SOUND that startles the child. In such cases, the child feels NOTHING, but the sound startles and disrupts whatever behavior was occurring.

Get a grip.... Do some DUers really feel such a need to imply EVERYONE but themselves is a vicious child abusing sociopath? If that is what it takes to make one feel SUPERIOR to others, well, that is just beyond the pale.

This has nothing to do with feeling superior and everything to do with protecting children against abuse. Once and for all: HITTING IS ABUSE. Hitting is an ignorant person's way of dealing with a child and if you're that ignorant, maybe you (not literally "you") should re-think that whole child-rearing concept.

the child's attention. Perhaps YOU need to rethink your own ignorance (or at least reading comprehension).

get a child's attention without hitting. Get a pot, a metal spoon, strike metal spoon against pot. It really is that simple.

I'm not trying to annoy you. It seems from an earlier series of posts re: Sam Sarrha's revealing his having been beaten (not spanked)-- but physically and horrendously beaten and abused, that you might have been implying that you were as well. If that is the case, I feel badly for you. I don't imagine I could argue the distinctions between non-abusive physical contact had I been the victim of such experiences either. So, let's just leave it at agreeing to disagree... We can all agree that children need to be protected from harm. That is the bottom line, after all.

LTH

my sister-in-law firmly believed in NEVER, ever, ever spanking her kids, no matter what they did. They were two of the most undisciplined, uncivilized brats you've ever seen.

I have a vivid memory of her son--at age seven--grabbing food from the other kids' plates. She put him upstairs for a time-out, and when he came back he was just as awful, but since he'd already been "punished" for what he had done, he didn't get punished again.

My kids weren't allowed to play with his Legos, because they might put then together "wrong." (Each set could ONLY be assembled in the way it was pictured on the box.

Once they were at our house, and let the water out of our waterbed so they could swim.

The older kid nearly drown my son at a hotel pool once--with two parents right there. My child was probably only about three or four, and was deathly afraid of water. He would play on the pool steps and never venture into the actual pool itself. My husband and the other kid's mom were chatting and heard screams from about ten feet out in the pool--and peals of laughter from the nephew. The sis-in-law immediately jumped in and got my boy out before anything happened. Her version of events was that my child had "somehow" mysteriously gotten out into the middle of the pool, and that her kid was rescuing him.

She was so blind to what a menace her kid was that she once considered becoming a foster parent because her kid was so good with little kids. I shit you not! If she had actually gone ahead with that, I think we would have had to intervene.

"My kids weren't allowed to play with his Legos, because they might put then together "wrong." '

:eyes:

Your SIL sounds like she needed parenting classes in common sense and consistency.

That would have driven me nuts! I probably would have stopped going to their house.

I can't stand bratty kids, as you described above.

BUSH*!

Look at the results...

http://books.google.com/books?id=CNestaJsKk8C&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=barbara+bush+spanking&source=web&ots=unwyPnbZoi&sig=VVdPqDjna-Gm8Uk0HQ6i6b_SlRQ

case closed.

and both clearly had many other issues. So, no, THAT case is NOT CLOSED.

:eyes:

And rumor has it they did NOT go to the burial!

They are not good examples, imho.


Case still open....

but we taught our kids that the better they were, the worse the other two looked! Yeah, pretty awful, I know, but funny as hell to watch in action!

The SIL was an older mom--had waited a long time for those kids, and gone through some fertility analysis. She had been a special ed. teacher, and (IMHO) just didn't know how to handle a couple of not-mentally-challenged kids.

They were both very, very bright, and by the time she realized there were some serious problems there she was more than willing to blame the problems on their giftedness.

The older kid (whose behavior was far worse than his sister's) has actually turned out OK. He is a programmer for a game company--which absolutely doesn't square with the lack of imagination he showed as a child, but, who knows? The sister is an expert at being a college freshman. She flunked her first semester four or five times! Does nothing now.

Either one can create monster children.

Children need consistent limits, but parents don't have to spank to accomplish that. Your sister-in-law didn't have any real limits at all.

bear the brunt of this, I imagine.

There's got to be some percentage of DU'ers who are responsible for such children.

which can be perpetuated whether or not one spanks. And not correcting and guiding those children by setting guidelines and consequences to bad behavior is actually just another form of child abuse.

It's child abuse.

A new study shows that disciplining children by spanking puts youngsters at risk for becoming aggressive, antisocial, and chronically defiant, the Washington Post reported June 26.

In addition, study author Elizabeth Gershoff, a researcher at Columbia University's National Center for Children in Poverty, found that spanking is linked to delinquency and a failure to learn right from wrong.

Gershoff said there is an increased risk with spanking that the discipline technique might turn into child abuse. "The bottom line is that corporal punishment is associated with numerous risks for children," she said. "I would argue parents should to the best of their ability avoid using corporal punishment and instead use nonphysical and more positive types of discipline that we know are effective."

Gershoff analyzed 88 studies over 62 years to determine the effects of spanking on 11 child behaviors. Apart from immediate compliance, the research showed that spanking had negative effects on other behaviors.

The study is published in the June 24, 2002 weekly issue of the Psychological Bulletin, a publication of the American Psychological Association.

http://stopspanking.com/

physical discipline as much as possible. Yet, the issue for many, myself included, is that there are gradients that these kinds of studies do not differentiate. Likely, this and similar studies are based on extreme and repeated physical punishment that most of us would clearly consider abuse, rather than spanking. But, it is impossible to tell. This leads to blanket statements, 'no tolerance policies' that seek to enforce that it is never acceptable to have physical contact with your child in order to discipline or otherwise change their behavior.

Touch is important. Watch the mother dog grab her unruly, overly curious pup by the neck scruff before he wanders into danger. I don't think anyone would argue that is "cruel." By contrast, a parent who taps the wrist of their child in tearful tantrum to likewise get their attention and break the behavior, may be construed as abusing the child under these kind of "no tolerance" laws. I doubt seriously that is what Gershoff was implying from the findings of that (and similar) studies. It is, sadly, how some will construe it.

As cited in:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2353775&mesg_id=2354228

the issue is to protect children from abusive parents, and make people more mindful of the physical pain they cause children in the interest of "discipline".

that such a law would be impossible to fairly enforce, protecting children as intended while likewise 'protecting parents' from mistaken prosecutions, including those that may derive from a motive of retaliation on the part of a third party.


If clear, very very clearly delineated definitions were made part of any such law, perhaps. But, that will be a significant challenge. Most people feel (like the courts re: pornography) that they recognize abusive contact and "spanking" when they see it. The truth is, that is not always so simple. As emotional creatures, we react (as we should) to the crying child. The question is, was the child crying before or after what we perceive as physical intervention. Is the child crying out of pain from untoward spanking or the continuation of a tantrum. When mistakes are made by well meaning citizens in the grocery store, for example, how does that help the child? Having his mother with them, rather than being forceably removed from her as she is led to jail--to spend the night in foster care--shouldn't that also be a "goal?"

emphasis mine.

conclusions, since they read only the summary abstract at most (or a media interpetation)...

A new study has found that children who are spanked and slapped are twice as likely to develop alcohol and other drug abuse problems, the Toronto Star Health reported Oct. 5.

The study, conducted at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, found that spanking and slapping children is linked to increased rates of anxiety disorders, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, anti-social behavior, and to some extent, depression.

The results of the study come at a time when the Canadian Foundation for Youth and the Law, a children's rights group, has filed a constitutional challenge in the Superior Court of Justice against Section 43 of the Criminal Code, which allows parents to physically discipline children.

"My opinion is that Section 43 should be repealed because I believe it sanctions physical discipline of children," said Dr. Harriet MacMillan, lead author of the study.

The study was based on an estimated 10,000 responses in a supplemental section of the Ontariohealth ministry's 1990 population health survey.

The study was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. The court case is expected to be heard in early December.

http://stopspanking.com/

It's always difficult and awkward—and arguably misguided—to use the law as a tool for changing attitudes. In the case of corporal punishment, though, I'm not sure we'd be crazy to try. A hard-and-fast rule like Sweden's would infuriate and frustrate some perfectly loving parents. It would also make it easier for police and prosecutors to go after the really bad ones. The state would have more power over parents. But then parents have near infinite amounts of power over their kids.

http://www.slate.com/id/2158310/pagenum/2

It would be too difficult to enforce and such laws always promote contempt for the law in general.

Things like outlawing spanking just lead to further government control of our lives. There are laws to prevent child abuse, and I'm all for that. However, when the government is allowed to tell us how to parent beyond laws that seek to make sure children are reasonably safe, we might as well get ready for children being taken from their parents at age two so they can be "raised by the state." Some may think physical punishment is wrong, but they don't have the right to force their views on other parents and more than those parents have a right to force theirs on them.

While at airports this Thanksgiving I saw two kids, both boys about age five or six (different families, different airports) wearing some sort of child-harnass. It was some sort of harnass that fit over the chest (one leather, one elastic) of the child and was attached to a six to ten foot leash held by the parent. I really don't know what to think about that. Were those kids really so out of control they had to be leashed to the parent? Is that where we're at now?

"out of control" but that the parents didn't want them to get away from them in a crowd. Kids can be very fast at slipping away and thus put themselves in danger.

When genuine punishment stopped so did the children's accountability. No lesson is learned from a "time out" or any other of the various non-punishments allowed today.

A generation of vindictive, enabled, spoiled brats has been the result of namby-pamby non-punishment punishments and is indeed a major part of this nation's downfall.

So, I don't agree with your premise that 'time outs' don't work.

I think a combination of both works and it all depends on the age of the child and the behavior.

I don't think there are any perfect answers but arresting the parents for non-abusive spanking

would be emotionally abusive to the child and more traumatic, imho.

And I don't think there is a whole generation of vindictive, nasty, unruly kids either.

That's an exaggeration.

I can imagine how complicated enforcing such a law would be. I don't think spanking is effective (hitting doesn't usually teach anything good in my view), but I also think that level of enforcement would be incredibly problematic.

Seems to me that parental attitudes might be easier to change...

As a former Child Protective Services worker, I learned and saw in many hones, that abuse is a very complicated matter. Sometimes obvious, and sometimes not.

Time outs and other punishments (and rewards) DO work. In most cases, spanking indicates lazy parenting, to me.

Involved parents usually know how to get through to their kids without hitting 'em.

:P

However, my own mother told me otherwise. As a deaf child she would repeatedly tell me to look both ways while crossing the road. I would ignore her request often. One time (ONLY one time) after I had ignored her, she spanked me and told me to look both ways. After that I looked both ways.

She's very kindly and loving and it was something she had done to try to get it in my head that I had to do this for my own safety.

It's not something I would do to my own kids (when I have some), but if time-outs or something like that don't work... look at it as a last resort. What I don't like is the fact when people REPEATEDLY do it without punishing their children in other ways. I remember a tv program a couple of years ago about spanking children and showed a family that used it as a punishment all the time. It was like: didn't eat their vegetables (smack), didn't clean up their room (smack), didn't put away their toys (smack), and I remember saying, "Isn't that a bit excessive? I can think of other ways to punish the child."

I remember my parents refused to take me to the Science Museum because I didn't clean up my room. My mother was so sick of me leaving my baseball cards on the floor (she had REPEATEDLY told me to clean up and I didn't listen) and threw them one by one (maybe only 5 of them) into the fire until I said, "Ok ok, I promise, I'll clean up! I'll clean up! I'm sorry!" and it worked.

As for the vegs... my mother was educated at a Catholic boarding school and they would force her to eat vegetables, so to this day she absolutely hates brussels sprouts. If I didn't want to eat vegetables, she would say ok, that's fine (and my dad would finish my vegs). There was a phase where I only wanted french fries and my mum complied to my requests. After a while, I got sick of it and started trying vegetables and other things... I absolutely loved it! My mother believed that if I wasn't forced to eat certain things, I would grow to love them. Even brussels sprouts which I love to gobble down!

I agree they were out of control and I mean the parents! :spank:

Sometimes kids can be stubborn and you have to get their attention, like your Mom did.
But forcing kids to eat certain things will most certainly turn them off. I didn't force my
kids to eat anything but I didn't have to...they ate everything I gave them and they're not fat. ;)
But I served the sweets right along with the meal. I didn't put emphasis on any one thing, like
cookies or pudding and that seemed to work well. When my kids refused to pick up their things?
I'd start filling a trash bag! That made them hop-to in a heart beat! :P

every time spanking thread pops up I simply submit the following 2 links.

http://www.nopunish.net/
http://nospank.net/

Also read anything by Alice Miller.

See OP for links.

I'm fully aware of the OP.

"Outlawing" spanking is fine in theory, but I'm sure you can see the hypocrisy of having any "punishment" attached to the "crime" of spanking.
Sweden's anti-spanking law, for example, is non-punitive.

DOH!

That was the response my psych professor gave to a mother who asked, "How much should I spank my child."

The truth is most parents spank, slap, shake, their kids out of anger, not some inclination to "correct" their behavior.

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." - Isaac Asimov

as it would be difficult to make a sound argument that spanking is not physical assault, no matter how mild.

But I voted "No" for a simple, if less logical, reason...my mom and grandparents (who I love and who loved me) spanked me on occasion for discipline. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I hardly believe their conduct should have been criminalized, nor do I think otherwise loving, caring and nurturing parents should be made into criminals for occasionally spanking their kids.

Repeated, angry spanking using belts or other objects perhaps should be illegal, if, in the context of the situation, it's deemed to be part of a pattern of abuse. But having rather anti-authoritarian sentiments myself, I'm very wary of criminalizing even more things-- seems like we have way more legal restrictions on personal conduct than we need to begin with.

Petition Against Corporal Punishment

http://parentinginjesusfootsteps.org/petition.html

Signature #65) Kathleen Wolf, RN, Arlington, MA, USA

(she's the RN asking that this be legislated in MA)

not to mention an over-reach.

We have enough unenforceable laws that over-reach as it is.

Spanking doesn't mean the parents are bad at parenting and aren't involved.

Getting through to a two year old? Good luck! :P

A pat on the rump is sometimes needed but I doubt this will pass as law.

I stated my opinion. And I am a parent, so I'm not just making this up as I go along.

The only time I consider it reasonable is when you have a toddler and a physically dangerous situation, like "don't run into traffic", that sort of thing. As a rare response to an immediate situation that needs to be addressed, to communicate the seriousness of the imminent danger.

As a general method of discipline, I think it's a bad way to go. But I don't tell other people how to raise their kids.

Spanking <> abuse.

Abuse is abuse whether it involves physical violence or not. I've seen some pretty bad parents raising either emotionally abused or, on the opposite side, spoiled rotten kids who refused to "hit" their kids. As if that made them better parents.

Punish the abusers. DO NOT punish parents who love their kids because they do something you don't agree with.