Spanking young children may turn them into bullies later on - Who could have imagined?

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/290481

Parents who decide to spank their toddlers may be surprised to find out that by the time that child is 5-years-old, he or she is very likely to start to exhibit aggressive behaviors like bullying, fighting, or cruelty. snip

Doctors say this new study really shows a distinct link between spanking and aggressive behavior because it controlled many maternal risk factors that have been used to explain the link, like neglect, a mother's use of drugs or alcohol, maternal stress and depression. One of the interesting outcomes from this study is that mothers or father who slap children as young as 3 years old have already set them on the road to becoming not only an aggressive 5-year old, but an angry teenager and adult.

:rofl:

:yourock:

violence to teach goodness.

the second time the kid tries to run out into the street, just enough to get the kid's attention when nothing else has.

Spanking that is meant to inflict hurt is different.

You know, assuming the run out into the street doesn't kill the kid the first time, there is absolutely no reason a swat on the bottom is essential to impress the child with the fact that this is DANGEROUS AND MUST NOT BE DONE. Forcing the child to face you, see the anxiety and fear and upset on your face, and speaking very directly and very seriously and very sternly about WHY YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST NOT RUN INTO THE STREET! (perhaps with a few details as to why) should do the job just fine.

and often that one open handed swat that makes a noise is the only thing that will break into it.

Just be clear on the purpose. If your purpose is to cause pain, think of something else because causing pain to your children is not a great idea at any age.

Pre verbal children are just not going to understand a lecture.

noise. Or a whistle. But then again causing noise isn't really being honest is it?

If a parent wants to wear a whistle, that's fine, too.

Unfortunately, most people who are out in the yard with Junior have neither.

Kids brains don't work like that. The average kid anyhow.

Pre-verbal children respond very well to a calm, rational explanation re: why you shouldn't run out into traffic or drink the bleach or stand on the toilet seat. In fact, I urge you to have such a conversation with the next 13-month old you meet; you'll be pleasantly surprised at the sophistication of their discourse.

You are telling me I have no idea what I'm talking about. How is that conducive to civil conversation?

And this is where it's gotten me...

:toast:

:hi:

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

I'm disappointed to see this from you.

grab their attention? If you're close enough to clobber a kid you're close enough to pick em up to get their attention.

I personally have not let my child play in the street. By age 5 she knew how to cross a street, and that cars would run her over if she did not look left, right, left before crossing. Didn't have to clobber her once, didn't have to yell at her, didn't have to do any damage to her. I got down on my knees and looked her in the eyes and said pay attention, this is important, over and over until i knew she got it. It took years, but it finally became ingrained in her. So parents that hit, yell, or use other humiliating methods are just fucking lazy. Parenting is hard and takes time. Hitting is the easy way out.

What did you do, exactly, when she walked away during your informative lesson? Did you follow her, get on your knees again, and start over? If so, then what did you do when she walked away again? Did you spend the afternoon in this fashion? The day? The weekend? The week? Or did you let her go? Or did you physically intervene in some way to prevent her leaving?

And if you used the venerable "time-out" strategy, what did you do when she exited the time-out spot? Did you simply instruct her to return to the seat, and did she comply? Or did you physically intervene in some way to prevent her leaving?


I've met plenty of parents who claim that their rational lectures have been sufficient to steer their children on the paths of righteousness, and I'm sure that they believe that they're correct, regardless of what reality might actually be.

Just as I'm sure that they believe that their methods are applicable and effective in all situations, regardless of what reality might actually be.

I do what i do and it works. I have a child that will never fear me or distrust me. And lo and behold I have done this without clobbering her. I am fucking proud of that. She has made me a better person. Now that's what it truly is all about.

If you can't see the difference between one and the other, then I don't know what to tell you.

I asked you specific, direct questions about your claimed mode of child discipline. If you can't answer these rationally when asked by a rational adult, how can you claim to react rationally when facing an irrational child in the throes of a tantrum?

You stated outright that parents who aren't 100% perfect 100% of the time are "fucking lazy." You therefore need to give a better answer then "I have no answers for you," or else there's no basis for accepting your account as true or realistic.

Oh we should call it a "swat" now? Really. Spin words?

And as far as rational adults, neither you or I fit that role at the moment. But at least i do not ignore you or my child lol. Rational adult indeed.

An open-handed swat on the butt is exactly that. How is that a spin-word?

Simply because you've realized that you're unable to support your empty argument, don't accuse me of being irrational. I posed my questions in a measured, reasonable fashion, and you are unable to answer them.

And somehow you expect people to believe that you're able to face your tantrum-throwing child with a cool, rational response? Forgive me for calling bullshit. I'm sure that you believe that you're wholly rational and effective in your handling of your little angel, but I suspect that reality is quite different.

You have questions? I really have not seen any other than some sarcastic comments posed as questions. Tell you what. Post it like this and I will answer your "questions"


1. Question

a. I will answer


Then you will not be able to do the accusation "you did not answer my question" shuffle.

Your attempt to dismiss them as "sarcastic comments" is really all the answer I need. You don't have any answers--instead, you preach and condemn but don't actually have anything useful to contribute.

Here are the questions in the format you requested. I look forward to your answers, but I don't actually expect any. (Now that's a sarcastic comment).


QUESTION: What did you do, exactly, when she walked away during your informative lesson?

QUESTION:Did you follow her, get on your knees again, and start over?

QUESTION:If so, then what did you do when she walked away again?

QUESTION:Did you spend the afternoon in this fashion? The day? The weekend? The week?

QUESTION:Or did you let her go? Or did you physically intervene in some way to prevent her leaving?

QUESTION:If you used the venerable "time-out" strategy, what did you do when she exited the time-out spot?

QUESTION:Did you simply instruct her to return to the seat, and did she comply?

QUESTION:Or did you physically intervene in some way to prevent her leaving?

misbehavior. I think children typically learn this.

Totally.

Parenting skills these days are sorely lacking.

Anyone can hit a little kid. Actually guiding and nurturing one is more difficult.

~

absence of an otherwise stable, loving, nurturing environment that the spanking can lead to later bullying

Your own experience and anecdotal evidence means nothing.

we both turned out to be socially responsible, nonviolent, liberal Democrats.

FWIW.

Cause someone told me in another thread that, because my Mom slapped me in the face, I was NOT OKAY and that I should think hard about having my own kids...soasnotto continue the cycle of violence.

I was older too--16 or 17 at the time.

I was screaming at her about something--can't remember what--and all of a sudden SMACK! I shut the hell up real quick.

Your Mom was an abuser and you were abused.

I hope you don't have children of your own. Because you are violent, as was your Mom.

:sarcasm:

Yeah, I know--now I'm just damaged goods.

I wish people would realize that there's a difference between an occasional spanking and physically abusing your child.

That other poster was a prime example.

Southern Baptist, conservative parents from the South who, on occasion, swatted our asses!!! Yet, we both have turned out fine (and I love and respect my parents).

both hubby and I turned out very well with no violent tendencies. shrug.

neither violent nor a bully.

As I grew up and through my teens my parents taught my sister and I to respect others and treat others how we wanted to be treated. In my teens I was always aware that I didn't want to dissapoint or shame my parents.

When I was a child I knew that if I threw a temper tantrum in a store (back in the day) my mom would take me outside swat me on the behind and then we would go back in the store. I did not show out again. Just sayin...My sister and I was not abused and we both are perfectly adjusted adults.

Aggressive, mean-spirited children are simply more likely to get swatted because they act like filthy, vicious little animals who respond only to pain. Some people just suck ass, and that applies as much to children as anyone else.

"some people just suck ass" <-- again talking about 5 year olds.

mean spirited

(if either)

the article seems to be lacking answers to such questions. :shrug:

...spanking and an uncontrolled, emotional beating (i.e. child is bruised, thrown against walls, pummelled, attacked in anger, etc.). i think there is a difference between the two, and that should be established. there are parents who wouldn't dream of "beating" a child, but they might be inclined to "spank."

there also seems to be a difference between some kinds of punishment and the severe corporal punishments utilized as "discipline" by some parents (punishment that scars/traumatizes a child forever).

i know of those that were spanked (i.e. patted firmly on the butt, back of hand, etc.) who seem to feel that it didn't damage them. i've also heard and read about individuals who experienced more of a "beating" than a spanking. it obviously damaged the child's psyche (for the worse). :( :scared:

With so many previous generations using spanking as a form of discipline, it's amazing the humanity managed to survive. The streets must have been teeming with bullies and other social reprobates.

:eyes:

Their currently called teabaggers, but they've been around as long as corporal punishment (spanking/discipline) has been around; in one form or another.

Don't raise children.

:rofl:

and I ended up being bullied, not a bully.

Amazing the number of people lining up to justify hitting children.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

~

- I received. I was a hard-headed kid and would probably not have made it to 21 if someone hadn't slowed me down with some serious discipline. I am neither a bully nor aggressive. Certainly never cruel and have never been in a physical fight.

With my own children, I had no problem swatting their bottoms if they did something that was dangerous. Run out in front of a car = get your butt cracked. Go for the hot stove = whack on the rear. Whenever I wanted to make sure it was a lesson they would NOT forget, I punctuated it on their behinds. All grown, there isn't a bully nor aggressive trait for any of them. None have ever been in a fight.

IMO, the bullies are the ones that have missed a spanking or two. Someone tell them "NO", crack their aggressive butts and knock them down to size would likely help the lot of them.

It only stopped when I told him if he did it again I'd kill him. He stopped.

I've never hit, slapped or punched anyone. I didn't want to be like my dad in any way.

I'd say every child reacts in their own way to the treatment they get. Some may learn from the beatings that it's the way to handle anger. Others may learn like I did that violence is no way to handle negative emotions.


edited to add: no I would never have killed him... but I had no other way to make him stop then to at least make the threat.

....and I suspect most "adults" realize this. The first deception in this "research" should be the equation in the first paragraph "spanking" to the the reference "slapping" in the second, and inferring that every parent who chooses to discipine their child with a swat on the butt must be a drug-using alcaholic.
Slapping a child is abuse. Spanking a child is discipline. Usually lost among those who are wondering why their child is a spoiled brat when they've been "so good to them" in allowing their children to "express themselves". By the way, where are all the 50 year olds and upwards that are "bullies". How many are afraid to visit their fathers or grandfathers because they, in the "proven" research, must all be bullies having grown up in a society that approved discipline by parents, and received all those paddlings in school? Why do my two grandchildren literally bounce off the walls at the prospect of a visit from Nana and Papa? Why aren't they hiding under the bed, fearful of the "dreaded" visit by the old bullies? Why? Because as I stated before, the "research" is utter, stupid, ignorant bullshit. Thanks.
quickesst

"+1 for common sense. Appreciated. Now excuse me. I have to go shove my grandkids around.:sarcasm::toast:
quickesst

No need to spank.

My own instinct would be that any punishment that brings on humiliation (not the same as shame; you should feel shame if you've done something wrong) would result in messed up kids. Some might turn out to be bullies, others would be likely to be abused/bullied themselves.

A quick swat to a 4 year old who keeps walking into the streets is at worst momentarily humiliating; a bare-bottom, ritualistic belting or paddling of a 10 year old is thoroughly demeaning and, IMHO, most likely to result in a disturbed child.

abuse as well. Adds a new level of damage to the victims.

my question to people who think it's OK to hit a kid...even if it's "only" a swat on the ass to "get the kid's attention" is this...

Do any of you use this technique to "get the attention" of adults who are not behaving as they should? You know...people who should know better but continue to do stupid or mean things.

Kids don't know any better. They need to be removed from the situation and redirected...or, if they're old enough, have something explained to them.

what, exactly, does a "swat on the ass" actually teach a kid besides that, for some reason the kid doesn't understand, a human four times his size has inflicted whatever degree of pain on him?

and yeah...adults who wouldn't even consider doing this to another adult but think nothing of doing it to kids...why not? Afraid of getting hit back, maybe? Sued for assault and battery? What would happen if, for example, workplace "discipline" involved bosses being able to swat their employees' asses?

Adults deserve dignity, but kids don't?

Really...I don't understand it.

People need to think about the message that child is actually getting from that swat or spanking. Does a toddler understand that the parent is trying to "get their attention"? No, all it accomplishes is that the child might associate that pain or humiliation with the infraction, but it doesn't explain to the child what the consequences (other than pain) of their actions are. So, just what are you getting their attention for? Geez, when house-training my 3 month old puppy, I get a better response with a firm "no" then a whack on the butt. All a whack on the butt does is make the puppy scared to come near when you're angry. My father spanked me when I was a kid. I remember specific spankings, but to this day I DON'T remember anything about the infractions that warranted the spanking. I just remember that my father was angry each time.

everyone else.... I may not be violent, but the scars it left will remain forever. I've never had to hit my kids and they are perfectly well behaved, socially conscious kids... If you need to hit a kid you've lost control...

teaches me that when I say don't do that, and they do that, I haven't gotten their attention. A swat on the ass usually focuses a kid.......we're not talking about beating here.
Cripes, I got a spanking at home and at school once in a while (you can tell how old I am) and it didn't make me into anything I'm not because the punishment wasn't excessive or on going.

:thumbsup:

"What would happen if, for example, workplace "discipline" involved bosses being able to swat their employees' asses?"

I believe that would fall under the category of sexual harrassment. Your post is like the "research" in the op, and my opinion of said "research" is documented in this thread. You've done the same thing in equating adults to children just as the op equates "spanking" to slapping children while in a drug induced drunken state. Thanks.
quickesst

Since, after all, everything that applies to adults applies equally and in all cases to children.

So, just shut up or I'll beat you up! :D

And what message is being sent when a parent hits a child?

They think that if you don't believe in spanking, you don't believe that children need to be disciplined or punished and that think they should be coddled and talked to in cute little baby "No Jeffy we don't do that" voices. It's bullshit. They're setting up straw men to win the argument.

There's a huge amount of middle ground in which children can be disciplined and even punished without the need for any kind of corporal punishment. And the "running out into the street" scenario used as justification for spanking is just as silly as the "ticking time bomb" scenario used to attempt to justify torture. The implication that kids who don't get swatted on the bottom for running into the street will inevitably do it again and again, and keep doing it until they end up dead, is silly.

I've witnessed both extremes, too - in a way, they're both examples of parents shirking their responsibility. It's easier to hit than to take the time to explain and to teach. And it's easier to shrug and not teach (which is what discipline is, not corporate punishment) because to correct the child might not meet with the child's immediate approval. (I can still remember a neighborhood kid pushing the others around. The parent's reaction: "oh, X honey, don't do that! You might get hurt!." Yeah. That'll teach him.

I think the results are often similar.

Whoa...heavy.

Claim study is therefore disproven here.

...that there are two types of parents who spank.

The first type of parent, is the parent who spanks--but also talks with their child
frequently, communicates effectively, gives time outs and also spends time with their
children and expresses lots of love and respect. The spanking, in these cases, is
very controlled and is used after warnings and other methods have failed. The
spanking is not an anger/frustration response.

The second type of parent hits, screams and has a great deal of anger. They are lazy
and they don't put a lot of effort into parenting. They rarely teach their children
and have little respect for them. Usually, spanking and hitting is an emotional
release for the parent, and a way to vent anger.

I do not spank. Nor would I ever. In fact, I totally disagree with spanking
as a form of punishment. However, I do think that there are good parents who
use spanking in ways that don't harm the child long term.

I think there are many parents who do great harm. In addition to spanking--they
engage in all sorts of other uncaring parenting behaviors and they rarely make time for
their children or have a lot of empathy. I do believe that these types of parents
do breed bullies. These kids are very angry, and it is justified. And this
type of parenting happens at all socioeconomic levels. I'm in the suburbs, and
I see many kids who are just vicious and very angry--and bullies. Bullying
is a huge issue in our elementary schools--in our upper-middle class suburb. If
you want to see an angry child--visit the homes of kids who have narcissists for
parents. Kids from these homes suffer immensely--well into their adult years.

If parents model physical violence as a means to deal with problems, the kids learn it as a valid and validated (by their parents) approach for dealing with frustrations. Life is at times inherently frustrating. It is often helpful to give your kids a better set of tools.

I don't think so.

I got whippings when I was little and I turned out just fine, even though I'm in my 40's and still single, but it's not like I was robbing banks or shooting anybody. I went to college and made something of myself. Besides, with the way these kids are acting now, as much as I hate to say this, and I know the flames are gonna come--fuck the time outs! Get a ruler or a belt and wear their butts out (but don't go overboard)!! That's the old school way. Many may disagree, but it's better considering the alternative.

First of all, the parents are speaking from experience, the non-parents are speaking, for the most part, theoretically.

Spanking is not easily defined. All sorts of variables make a huge difference in what we are talking about. The article reveals nothing of spanking frequency, intensity, presence or absence of emotional content, where the line crosses into beating and abuse, etc. We're all talking about different things here.

Everyone's psychology is different. Some might be traumatized by corporal punishment, some totally non-plussed.

I suspect the correlation is loose at best between spanking and bullying. Look how many people here can refute the conclusion. I can, too.

I was spanked, very rarely (perhaps 4 or 5 times), and always, in retrospect, for good reason. I am not a bully; quite the contrary, I've never been in a fight and I seek to avoid conflict. This is by temperament, and I don't feel spanking had any significant psychological effect on me.

For the record, I am against spanking with my own kids, but I've seen parents do it in a non-emotional, non-angry and controlled way, and I have no problem with that.

If their role model indicates that physical abuse is the way to deal with anger, that is what they will act upon. It is a very simple and often sad, lesson.

which is pretty vague ...

when I deserved it, and I was never any of those things.

offenses that constitued an ass beating:

lying

stealing

disrepecting or backtalking elders

Hell even my friends parents had permission to spank me if they caught me doing those things.

on all counts. I never got a whippin' that I didn't reserved. It taught me that there are consequences for bad behavior and not to get caught.

although I beat the shit out of one once.

that most of those whoopins weren't done in a fit of anger, and even if they were I always had it explained to me why I had recieved the punishment I did, and why the behavior was not acceptable.

Would it have worked on me without the physical reenforcement? Its possible, but the desire to avoid a possible world of pain did infact keep me from repeating past mistakes.

have parents who beat the tar out of them for no good reason.

It's similar to people who kick the crap out of dogs when they misbehave. Often these dogs turn aggressive and mean.

Is it because he might hit me back or I don't "own" him.

didn't cheer me up a bit in the end. Had to do something pretty bad, like nearly burn the house down playing with matches : (

There is a difference between a light-but-firm slap on the but used to get the attention of a young child and the hard spanking as punishment for bad behavior. The first is OK, the second is not.