Times sure have changed

[Puppycow]

I can hardly believe what I just read. I'm fairly liberal, but unless the reporter is lying by omission or something, this is just ridiculous judicial overeach.

Texas Mom Gets Probation, Loses Kids, for Spanking her Daughter

Quote:

CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas – A Texas mom has been sentenced to probation and has lost custody of her children for spanking her daughter.

Rosalina Gonzáles of Corpus Christi pleaded guilty on Wednesday to Injury to a Child for swatting the 2-year-old on her buttocks.

According to prosecutors, Gonzáles in December hit the girl with an open hand, leaving some red marks.

Police arrested Gonzáles after the child's grandmother reported the injuries and took the child to a hospital.

Congratulations Grandma!

I mean, red marks on the butt? This is grounds for taking a child to the hospital? This is grounds for taking away children and putting someone on probation for five years?

And how much did all this cost the community, including the extra police work, the court costs, etc.? Can we really afford this crap? :?

[FattyCatty]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I can hardly believe what I just read. I'm fairly liberal, but unless the reporter is lying by omission or something, this is just ridiculous judicial overeach.

Texas Mom Gets Probation, Loses Kids, for Spanking her Daughter



Congratulations Grandma!

I mean, red marks on the butt? This is grounds for taking a child to the hospital? This is grounds for taking away children and putting someone on probation for five years?

And how much did all this cost the community, including the extra police work, the court costs, etc.? Can we really afford this crap? :?

I can't believe that spanking a child is a crime. Especially in Texas (maybe shooting the kid would have been ok?)

And you're right about the costs. Not to mention the cost of having adults who were never disciplined as children. It will be the Brat Generation. (And I'm a bleeding-heart liberal.)

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Frankly, I doubt this story is even accurate because everything I've read says that such discipline is acceptable in Texas. Here is a recent example:

Quote:

We put that question to Bexar County Assistant District Attorney Cliff Herberg. "The law allows you to spank your child. You are allowed to impose reasonable, physical discipline on your child."

So how does a parent know what is "reasonable?" The law doesn't say specifically, but we did find these guidelines from the Attorney General's office.

Don't hit a child in anger. Abuse is most likely to occur when the parent is out of control. The A.G.'s office also says striking a child above the waist is more likely to be considered abusive, since disciplinary spanking is usually confined to the buttocks area. And the most obvious guideline: Punishment is abusive if it causes injury.

"Spanking a child on the butt is not generally going to be seen as child abuse," adds Herberg. "When you beat a child with a belt where it leaves welts across that child's back, or other parts of their body for days or weeks, you've crossed the line. And you are going to get into trouble for that."

The red marks above her son's waist are probably what led to Shanna Hartman's arrest, although she denies causing them.

Finally, the A.G.'s office says an open hand, belts and hair brushes are not likely to be considered abusive when used for spanking. But things like electrical cords, boards, sticks, ropes or shoes are likely to be.

If you are a parent who uses time-out instead of spanking, that could also be considered abuse if it involves locking a child in or out, depriving them of food, or restraining them in some way.

Linky.

But to put the issue in terms of emotional outrage or financial costs seems a poor way of examining the issue.

I guess it depends on if you interpret the "marks" in the story to be from the same day, or if they were welts, etc. We don't know, and the articles I've read were all equally vague about the key part of the story.

I'd agree that the judge's comments seem odd given the precedent, but again we just have this odd, isolated quote in a media story.

[JudeBrando]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I can hardly believe what I just read. I'm fairly liberal, but unless the reporter is lying by omission or something, this is just ridiculous judicial overeach.

Texas Mom Gets Probation, Loses Kids, for Spanking her Daughter

Congratulations Grandma!

I mean, red marks on the butt? This is grounds for taking a child to the hospital? This is grounds for taking away children and putting someone on probation for five years?

And how much did all this cost the community, including the extra police work, the court costs, etc.? Can we really afford this crap? :?

You disagree with liberals?! They know better than parents. Why do you support child abuse? What's wrong with you? How could you hate children?

[FattyCatty]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Frankly, I doubt this story is even accurate because everything I've read says that such discipline is acceptable in Texas. Here is a recent example:



Linky.

But to put the issue in terms of emotional outrage or financial costs seems a poor way of examining the issue.

I guess it depends on if you interpret the "marks" in the story to be from the same day, or if they were welts, etc. We don't know, and the articles I've read were all equally vague about the key part of the story.

I'd agree that the judge's comments seem odd given the precedent, but again we just have this odd, isolated quote in a media story.

I don't see anything strange about reacting to what seems to be a very bad judicial decision. The story did not indicate any harm to the child (a temporary red mark from a spanking is not harm). Even a bleeding-heart liberal like me can be outraged over the attack on parental rights this represents. And I think it is valid to consider both immediate and long-term costs of such inappropriate actions by the court, especially when they go against the actual law (as seems to be the case based on what we know so far).

Here's more on the subject. They say that the child was spanked on the bottom. I haven't seen whether the mother used her hand only or used a paddle or brush or something. That would make a difference, as would the length of time the red marks lasted.

I don't know why the State Attorney General's Office refuses to comment on the legality of the ruling. I don't understand why the judge is allowed to say something contrary to state law. Is this a local judge and a local prosecution?

And here's the quote from the AG's website:

Quote:

Is spanking okay?

Texas law allows the use of force, but not deadly force, against a child by the child's parent, guardian, or other person who is acting in loco parentis. Most parents do, in fact, use corporal punishment (in the form of spanking) at least occasionally, and most do not, in fact, consider it abusive. Experts disagree about the advisability of ever spanking a child. Some say that, combined with other methods of discipline, mild spanking of a small child is harmless and effective. Others claim that other methods of discipline work as well as spanking or better, and that spanking is not necessary. Many child advocates and experts in child development contend that all forms of corporal punishment, including spanking, are harmful. Most believe that spanking an infant is always inappropriate. The law does not attempt to arbitrate between the different views on the best method of disciplining a child. What we do know is that severe corporal punishment can be extremely damaging and dangerous, and this is what the law prohibits as abuse.

When is discipline abusive?

Some parents who become abusive believe that what they are doing is in the best interest of the child and are confused about when an attempt at discipline crosses the line and becomes abuse. Whether an action is abusive really depends on the circumstances of the individual case. However, the following guidelines may help:

• Striking a child above the waist is more likely to be considered abusive; disciplinary spanking is usually confined to the buttocks.
• Spanking with the bare, open hand is least likely to be abusive; the use of an instrument is cause for concern. Belts and hair brushes are accepted by many as legitimate disciplinary "tools," and their use is not likely to be considered abusive, as long as injury does not occur. Electrical or phone cords, boards, yardsticks, ropes, shoes, and wires are likely to be considered instruments of abuse.
• It is best not to hit a child in anger. Abusive punishment is most likely to occur when the parent is out of control.
• Finally, and most important, punishment is abusive if it causes injury. A blow that causes a red mark that fades in an hour is not likely to be judged abusive. On the other hand, a blow that leaves a bruise, welt, or swelling, or requires medical attention, probably would be judged abusive.

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

This is grounds for taking away children and putting someone on probation for five years?

I wonder if race, poverty, drug use, or other secondary reasons play a role here.

In any case, times have apparently changed the grandmother, not the current generation mother.

If this story is true, all I have to say is: this court commits huge violations of human rights. The judge should be tried internationally and thrown to prison. You just don´t take kids from a mother, for any reason much lesser than murder or something. If you don´t understand what that really means, we can take your kids from you, so you´ll see.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Pfft. Turn down the hyperbole a bit, OK?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

If this story is true, all I have to say is: this court commits huge violations of human rights. The judge should be tried internationally and thrown to prison.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by FattyCatty

I haven't seen whether the mother used her hand only or used a paddle or brush or something. That would make a difference, as would the length of time the red marks lasted.

It was in what I quoted in the OP:

Quote:

According to prosecutors, Gonzáles in December hit the girl with an open hand, leaving some red marks.

I rather doubt those would cause any permanent injury unless she really wailed on the girl. Perhaps it was more severe than the description implies, but usually mere "red marks" on the bottom are not a serious injury.

[FattyCatty]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

It was in what I quoted in the OP:


I rather doubt those would cause any permanent injury unless she really wailed on the girl. Perhaps it was more severe than the description implies, but usually mere "red marks" on the bottom are not a serious injury.

Sorry, I focused on the bolded text and missed that.

While searching to find court records (using a different search string that than before), I found an article that indicates there's more to the story than originally was reported.

Quote:

A local case sparked a nationwide debate about the legality of spanking, but prosecutors and court records showed that it was about much more than spanking.

The controversy began after 214th District Judge Jose Longoria's told a mother the days of spanking being an acceptable practice were gone.

"You don't spank children. You understand?" he said.

But his brief characterization left out many of the circumstances. Court records, police reports, photos and witness statements show the girl had widespread bruises and other injuries when she was taken to a hospital on Dec. 29.

"This is not just a spanking case," said First Assistant District Attorney Gail Loeb. "Ultimately, she admitted to the assault."
<snip>
Gonzales has a history with Child Protective Services dating to 2009 when investigators suspected her of physically abusing and neglecting the girl. Back then, the girl was twice hospitalized for bruises on her thighs and buttocks that could have been caused by fingers. Investigators found Gonzales had been the primary caregiver and that she couldn't offer a possible explanation for the bruises, but they weren't able to prove who injured the girl, according to a CPS affidavit.

Gonzales' mother called police Dec. 29 after the girl returned from an overnight stay with Gonzales with bruises on her buttocks and bruises on her back and around her neck.

The girl was taken to Driscoll Children's Hospital and officials there then met with investigators after determining the girl's injuries appeared to have been intentional.

A doctor who examined the girl reported that besides the bruises to her buttocks, there was an abrasion on her ear consistent with when a child is pulled by the ear, pinpoint bruises on the chest and red dots that were signs of broken blood vessels under the skin. The girl also had two healing arm fractures that also seemed consistent with child abuse, according to a CPS affidavit and police reports.

So, I jumped to a false conclusion. I'll try to be more careful in the future.

[Alan]

It's not at all surprising that there was more than was first reported.

[Lamuella]

so, what's the betting that despite this being a story about an abusive parent assaulting her child it will be used as evidence of the nanny state in email forwards for years to come?

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by FattyCatty

I jumped to a false conclusion. I'll try to be more careful in the future.

So the reporter really did "lie by omission."

Sorry folks!

I'll try to vet things better next time. Especially if it comes from Fox "News".

But it was an educational thread, for me anyway.

[Lamuella]

puppycow, I'd just like to say that you exemplified one of my favourite things about this forum: You expressed an opinion based on what you knoew, new information came along, and you revised your opinion based on it. May we all have this much humility and intellectual honesty.

[Puppycow]

Aw shucks.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by JudeBrando

You disagree with liberals?! They know better than parents. Why do you support child abuse? What's wrong with you? How could you hate children?

Careful, all those strawmen area fire hazard.

[Halfcentaur]

Originally Posted by JudeBrando

You disagree with liberals?! They know better than parents. Why do you support child abuse? What's wrong with you? How could you hate children?

Aw, it's starting to learn from it's environment. Fallacies and sarcasm, now try snark.

[Cayvmann]

I was doubtful when the article said the grandmother took her to the hospital. I almost always assume grandmas know what's going on. ( I may be wrong in some cases )

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by FattyCatty

I can't believe that spanking a child is a crime. Especially in Texas (maybe shooting the kid would have been ok?)

And you're right about the costs. Not to mention the cost of having adults who were never disciplined as children. It will be the Brat Generation. (And I'm a bleeding-heart liberal.)

While I don't think that a simple spanking is child abuse, I find it very telling when people think that not hitting your kids = kids having no discipline.

Lazy parents have to resort to hitting because they aren't smart enough to be able to discipline their kids any other way. My parents never lay a hand on me and I was still disciplined. I was an extremely well behaved child who almost never got in trouble. In fact, almost none of my friends when I was younger had parents who hit them, and we were all honors students who stayed out of trouble, were respectful and polite, and are now successful, hard working, well behaved adults. The kids I knew who were hit were typically kids with parents who were, frankly, really trashy unsuccessful people, and the kids were in turn aggressive and got in trouble a lot. The kids whose parents were intelligent and successful seemed to have no trouble disciplining their kids by other means.

Our parents just had the ability to actually teach their children things rather than just resorting to intimidation to make them behave.

It's still true today. My friends and relatives who are smart and successful don't hit their kids, and their kids are well behaved and respectful. There are a few people I work with though who are just very trashy, rude, unprofessional people who talk about how they spank or hit their kids. And then they wonder why their kids get in trouble for bullying at school. I'm not saying this is universally true, but in my experience, people who hit/spank their kids are typically unintelligent and unsuccessful. And their kids are more likely to be problem children. Studies I've read seem to reflect this as well, i.e. a high correlation between kids who were spanked/hit who become bullies and aggressive. Also, I've lived and traveled all over the world, and hitting/spanking is most common in places where people lack education and live in a society with high rates of violence and social instability.

I don't think it should be illegal, but spanking is unnecessary, and is a good way to teach kids that you can use physical force to control someone smaller and weaker than you to get them to do what you want.

[Spindrift]

Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat

While I don't think that a simple spanking is child abuse, I find it very telling when people think that not hitting your kids = kids having no discipline.

Lazy parents have to resort to hitting because they aren't smart enough to be able to discipline their kids any other way. My parents never lay a hand on me and I was still disciplined. I was an extremely well behaved child who almost never got in trouble. In fact, almost none of my friends when I was younger had parents who hit them, and we were all honors students who stayed out of trouble, were respectful and polite, and are now successful, hard working, well behaved adults. The kids I knew who were hit were typically kids with parents who were, frankly, really trashy unsuccessful people, and the kids were in turn aggressive and got in trouble a lot. The kids whose parents were intelligent and successful seemed to have no trouble disciplining their kids by other means.

I guess our parents just had enough brain cells to rub together to figure out a way to actually teach their children things rather than just resorting to intimidation to make them behave.

It's still true today. My friends and relatives who are smart and successful don't hit their kids, and their kids are well behaved and respectful. There are a few people I work with though who are just very trashy, rude, unprofessional people who talk about how they spank or hit their kids. And then they wonder why their kids get in trouble for bullying at school.

I don't think it should be illegal, but spanking is unnecessary, and is a good way to teach kids that you can use physical force to control someone smaller and weaker than you to get them to do what you want.

I know this is a hot button item for some, but I have to agree. I never spanked or used any other corporal punishment on my kids and they've grown into well-adjusted disciplined teenagers. Our kids like us and we like them, but we are not "BFFs", we are parents and children. Growing up, I was spanked occasionally and it really did nothing to change my behavior and I'm now a semi-well-adjusted adult.

ETA: I do disagree that it is always "lazy" parents. I think it is sometimes frustrated parents. Disciplining a child is not easy, it's easier to just ignore bad behavior. Having to punish your own child causes a lot of angst, at least it does for me. And trying to get through to kids can be an exercise in a test of wills.

[FattyCatty]

Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat

While I don't think that a simple spanking is child abuse, I find it very telling when people think that not hitting your kids = kids having no discipline.

Lazy parents have to resort to hitting because they aren't smart enough to be able to discipline their kids any other way. My parents never lay a hand on me and I was still disciplined. I was an extremely well behaved child who almost never got in trouble. In fact, almost none of my friends when I was younger had parents who hit them, and we were all honors students who stayed out of trouble, were respectful and polite, and are now successful, hard working, well behaved adults. The kids I knew who were hit were typically kids with parents who were, frankly, really trashy unsuccessful people, and the kids were in turn aggressive and got in trouble a lot. The kids whose parents were intelligent and successful seemed to have no trouble disciplining their kids by other means.

I guess our parents just had enough brain cells to rub together to figure out a way to actually teach their children things rather than just resorting to intimidation to make them behave.

I found your post very offensive. I'm happy for you that you were a model child with model parents who did things better than everyone else. However, that does not mean that other parents can't believe in other methods of child raising.

Points of disagreement and ideas I found offensive:

1. Parents Who Spank Are Lazy. Parents who spank are not all lazy. Many of them just have a different philosophy of child raising.
   
2. Spanking = Hitting. Spanking is not hitting. Hitting implies more violence with potential for injury, is not done just to the bottom, and is a very loaded word to use; after your first mention of spanking in the first sentence, you use hitting instead.
   
3. Bragging Anecdote Used as Evidence. Anecdotes about how one method of child raising is wonderful do not prove that other methods are terrible.
   
4. Implication That Choosing to Spank Makes a Parent Trashy and Unsuccessful." Not all people who chose alternate methods of discipline are "trashy unsuccessful people" even if you personally look down on them.
   
5. Implication That Children Who Have Been Spanked Are "Aggressive and in Trouble a Lot." Not all children raised by methods different than that of your parents are "aggressive and in trouble a lot". (Anecdote Warning: me, the original miss goody two-shoes when young. It took me years to become aggressive. I never did manage to get in trouble a lot.)
   
6. Denigration of Those Who Differ From You. Many people who use other means of disciplining their children are intelligent and successful, despite your implication. (Anecdote Warning: my parents.)
   
7. Implication That Your Way Is the Only Way for "Intelligent and Successful" Parents. Many parents who have a different philosophy of discipline are intelligent or successful or both.
   
8. Implication That Choosing to Spank = Lack of Intelligence. Many people with "enough brain cells to rub together" make a reasoned choice that is different from that of your parents. (Anecdote Warning: my parents.)
   

[Lamuella]

fattycatty, you committed several of those sins yourself. You stated that not spanking would lead to "adults who were never disciplined as children". This was an implication that choosing not to spank meant a parent did not discipline at all. You also described a potential generation of unspanked children as "the brat generation". This was denigration of those who differed from you and an implication that your way is the only way for successful parents.

If you found Schrodinger's Cat's post offensive, you need to be aware that similar concepts were in your own words.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by FattyCatty

I found your post very offensive. I'm happy for you that you were a model child with model parents who did things better than everyone else. However, that does not mean that other parents can't believe in other methods of child raising.

Points of disagreement and ideas I found offensive:

1. Parents Who Spank Are Lazy. Parents who spank are not all lazy. Many of them just have a different philosophy of child raising.
   
2. Spanking = Hitting. Spanking is not hitting. Hitting implies more violence with potential for injury, is not done just to the bottom, and is a very loaded word to use; after your first mention of spanking in the first sentence, you use hitting instead.
   
3. Bragging Anecdote Used as Evidence. Anecdotes about how one method of child raising is wonderful do not prove that other methods are terrible.
   
4. Implication That Choosing to Spank Makes a Parent Trashy and Unsuccessful." Not all people who chose alternate methods of discipline are "trashy unsuccessful people" even if you personally look down on them.
   
5. Implication That Children Who Have Been Spanked Are "Aggressive and in Trouble a Lot." Not all children raised by methods different than that of your parents are "aggressive and in trouble a lot". (Anecdote Warning: me, the original miss goody two-shoes when young. It took me years to become aggressive. I never did manage to get in trouble a lot.)
   
6. Denigration of Those Who Differ From You. Many people who use other means of disciplining their children are intelligent and successful, despite your implication. (Anecdote Warning: my parents.)
   
7. Implication That Your Way Is the Only Way for "Intelligent and Successful" Parents. Many parents who have a different philosophy of discipline are intelligent or successful or both.
   
8. Implication That Choosing to Spank = Lack of Intelligence. Many people with "enough brain cells to rub together" make a reasoned choice that is different from that of your parents. (Anecdote Warning: my parents.)
   

Uh, you're the one who said that kids who aren't spanked are brats who were never disciplined. I was responded to YOUR assumption that anyone who doesn't hit their kids is raising undisciplined brats. I didn't give anecdotal evidence to brag. I did it to refute your contention that if my parents didn't spank me, I was an undisciplined brat. I find it hilarious that you write a post in which you denigrated people who don't spank their kids, then write a post complaining about people who denigrate different parenting techniques. Irony, much?

But your behavior is very indicative of bullying on your part. You make an insult, then when someone defends themselves against that insult, you mock that defense as "bragging." You also get mad at people doing something that you yourself do (denigrating parenting techniques). That's the sort of technique bullies like to use, which makes me think you yourself likely have bullying tendencies, which is common amongst people who were spanked.


I find that someone who thinks that hitting is the only way of disciplining a child is spanking to be an unfit parent, and that someone who thinks kids who aren't spanked turn into brats to be an unfit parent.

If you take offense to that, that's fine. I find the fact you think that spanking is the only form of raising a child to be respectful is pretty disgusting. Sorry you were raised that way to think that violence is the only answer.

And it's not an opinion. Study after study has shown that parents who spank their kids have children who are more anxious and aggressive than parents who use other forms of discipline.


And lol, spanking is not hitting, that's ridiculous. You hit a child with your hand when you spank. That's hitting. The definition of the word hit is: to deal a blow or stroke. When you spank, you deal a blow to the child's backside to cause pain. You are controlling you child by causing pain to them. Saying spanking is not hitting is ridiculous. Is it the same as worse, more painful or dangerous types of hitting? No, but it's still hitting, whether you like it or not. The fact that you need to lie about the definition of the word in order to justify it is telling.

And it's not just a matter of looking down on parenting techniques that differ from those I favor. There are plenty of parenting techniques I wouldn't use personally that I have no problem with.

I look down on parenting techniques that make children more dangerous to other children, and which causes psychological damage in children, which is exactly what spanking does. Makes kids more likely to bully and prone to violence in general.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1114110820.htm

Also, children who are spanked have lower IQs than children who are not spanked. This is indicative that they come from low IQ parents. I.E. Parents who are unintelligent. Or at the very least, that they come from parents who do not know how to raise children who are as intelligent as those from parents who do not spank their kids.

Studies also have supported my contention that spanked kids tend to be more problematic in general than non spanked kids, and just generally have bad behavior.

http://www.physorg.com/news173077612.html


Here's a Time article on the long term effects of spanking


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...983895,00.html

Quote:

The study, led by community-health-sciences professor Catherine Taylor, was the first to control for a host of issues affecting the mother, such as depression, alcohol and drug use, spousal abuse and even whether she considered abortion while pregnant with the child. After controlling for all these factors — each of which can contribute to a child's aggression — spanking remained a strong predictor of violent behavior....


As 5-year-olds, the children who had been spanked were more likely than the nonspanked to be defiant, demand immediate satisfaction of their wants and needs, become frustrated easily, have temper tantrums and lash out physically against other people or animals.

I find it simply sad that you're defending a parenting technique that makes kids dumber, angrier, meaner, and more anxious for no other reason than your parents did it.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by JudeBrando

You disagree with liberals?! They know better than parents. Why do you support child abuse? What's wrong with you? How could you hate children?

So now that you've seen that there was more to the story, have you changed your mind, JudeBrando, or will you just avoid this thread from now on?

[uk_dave]

In order to be more fully informed on the subject, I am going to go and google 'spanking'....

[FattyCatty]

Originally Posted by Lamuella

fattycatty, you committed several of those sins yourself. You stated that not spanking would lead to "adults who were never disciplined as children". This was an implication that choosing not to spank meant a parent did not discipline at all. You also described a potential generation of unspanked children as "the brat generation". This was denigration of those who differed from you and an implication that your way is the only way for successful parents.

If you found Schrodinger's Cat's post offensive, you need to be aware that similar concepts were in your own words.

Thank you for pointing that out. I did respond too quickly and emotionally to the OP without thinking things through. I do believe that spanking is a viable method of disciplining children (not whipping, beating, or slapping, but swatting open-handed on the bottom). I do not believe that it is the only viable method, and I am sorry my words implied that.

I did not state "that not spanking would lead to" adults who were never disciplined as children. And, although you're correct that my words implied that not spanking equated to no discipline, there was no implication of choosing not to spank, but rather of being forced not to spank.

And I do admit to thinking that prohibiting spanking equates to lack of discipline. I don't think that parents have to spank, but I do think that an environment where they can't spank is one of permissiveness (I knew many never-say-no parents). I also think that not letting parents spank or otherwise discipline their children in their own way (barring child abuse) interferes with the rights of parents.

After reading your post and thinking about it, I agree that my "Brat Generation" comment was wrong and ill-advised. Not every child who is not spanked (or not disciplined in other ways) will be a brat. I wish I could think of a good way to say what I meant. Because I do believe that most children who are never disciplined will be brats and that many will grow up to be selfish (having never learned that they can't have and do whatever they want). And I do mean to denigrate parents who never discipline their children, just as I denigrate parents who abuse their children. I do not mean to imply, however, that everyone has to discipline their children in the same way. And I think we have been seeing some results of past lack of discipline (all those never-say-no parents I met when I was younger); self-centered, selfish adults.

[Spindrift]

Originally Posted by FattyCatty

Thank you for pointing that out. I did respond too quickly and emotionally to the OP without thinking things through. I do believe that spanking is a viable method of disciplining children (not whipping, beating, or slapping, but swatting open-handed on the bottom). I do not believe that it is the only viable method, and I am sorry my words implied that.

I did not state "that not spanking would lead to" adults who were never disciplined as children. And, although you're correct that my words implied that not spanking equated to no discipline, there was no implication of choosing not to spank, but rather of being forced not to spank.

And I do admit to thinking that prohibiting spanking equates to lack of discipline. I don't think that parents have to spank, but I do think that an environment where they can't spank is one of permissiveness (I knew many never-say-no parents). I also think that not letting parents spank or otherwise discipline their children in their own way (barring child abuse) interferes with the rights of parents.

After reading your post and thinking about it, I agree that my "Brat Generation" comment was wrong and ill-advised. Not every child who is not spanked (or not disciplined in other ways) will be a brat. I wish I could think of a good way to say what I meant. Because I do believe that most children who are never disciplined will be brats and that many will grow up to be selfish (having never learned that they can't have and do whatever they want). And I do mean to denigrate parents who never discipline their children, just as I denigrate parents who abuse their children. I do not mean to imply, however, that everyone has to discipline their children in the same way. And I think we have been seeing some results of past lack of discipline (all those never-say-no parents I met when I was younger); self-centered, selfish adults.

I apologize if I'm inferring something that isn't there, but you seem to deem spanking to be, if not necessary, then very useful for discipline. However the studies above show that spanking is detrimental to the development of children.

[FattyCatty]

Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat

Uh, you're the one who said that kids who aren't spanked are brats who were never disciplined. I was responded to YOUR assumption that anyone who doesn't hit their kids is raising undisciplined brats.

Please see my reply to Lamuella. I acknowledged that spanking is not the only method of disciplining a child and apologized for implying that it was. I also acknowledged that my "Brat Generation" comment was wrong and ill-advised.

Quote:

I didn't give anecdotal evidence to brag. I did it to refute your contention that if my parents didn't spank me, I was an undisciplined brat. I find it hilarious that you write a post in which you denigrated people who don't spank their kids, then write a post complaining about people who denigrate different parenting techniques. Irony, much?

See above. Irony works both ways, and the fact that I made a mistake in my first response to the OP doesn't mean that my response to your post was any less valid. Whatever the purpose of your post, the tone and the word choices were denigrating and offensive to me. I stand by my response.

Quote:

But your behavior is very indicative of bullying on your part. You make an insult, then when someone defends themselves against that insult, you mock that defense as "bragging." You also get mad at people doing something that you yourself do (denigrating parenting techniques). That's the sort of technique bullies like to use, which makes me think you yourself likely have bullying tendencies, which is common amongst people who were spanked.

I've never been accused of bullying before; I've never thought of myself as a bully; in fact, I don't think I am a bully. Nor did I "mock" your glowing account of the superiority of an upbringing without spanking (complete with aspersions on and badmouthing of those who employ or receive spanking). I did not "get mad" in my post. I was offended, not angry. The fact that your post called me out for denigrating behavior implies that the behavior was wrong; yet the same denigrating techniques were very visible in your post. Perhaps I just didn't see the sarcasm; if so, please use smilies next time.

I've read enough of your posts to know that you are neither a psychologist nor a psychiatrist. So I give little credence to the perception that I "likely have bullying tendencies, which is common amongst people who were spanked."

Is this the insult your post references?

Originally Posted by FattyCatty

And you're right about the costs. Not to mention the cost of having adults who were never disciplined as children. It will be the Brat Generation. (And I'm a bleeding-heart liberal.)

Your first sentence in your post says "...when people think that not hitting your kids = kids having no discipline." Please see my reply to Lamuella, linked above. I apologized for implying that spanking is the only viable method for disciplining children. I also retracted by "Brat Generation" comment. I'm sorry you felt personally insulted.

Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat

I find that someone who thinks that hitting is the only way of disciplining a child is spanking to be an unfit parent, and that someone who thinks kids who aren't spanked turn into brats to be an unfit parent.

I have acknowledged that spanking is not the only method of disciplining a child. I do not think, however, that choosing spanking as a method of disciplining children makes a parent unfit. In fact, spanking (at home) is legal in all states of the U.S.A.

Quote:

Corporal punishment is lawful in the home in all states. State laws confirm the right of parents to inflict physical punishment on their children and legal provisions against violence and abuse are not interpreted as prohibiting all corporal punishment in childrearing.

Spanking is also legal, at least to some degree, in Australia, Canada, and the U.K.

Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat

If you take offense to that, that's fine. I find the fact you think that spanking is the only form of raising a child to be respectful is pretty disgusting. Sorry you were raised that way to think that violence is the only answer.

See reply to Lamuella, referenced previously.

Quote:

And it's not an opinion. Study after study has shown that parents who spank their kids have children who are more anxious and aggressive than parents who use other forms of discipline.

Not everyone agrees.

Quote:

The scientific evidence is totally inadequate for imposing spanking prohibitions on parents, especially for 2- to 6-year-old children. The evidence against spanking does not distinguish appropriate spanking from inappropriate usage and makes unjustified causal conclusions from correlational data. For example, the strongest evidence that spanking causes an increase in children’s behavior problems in Gershoff’s (2002) widely cited review is based on longitudinal correlations. But correlations are biased against all corrective actions. Even psychological treatment then looks detrimental, being associated with a 14 times higher risk of suicides in adolescents, because of child effects (Larzelere, Kuhn, & Johnson, 2004).
[<snip>A recent literature review partially corrected those problems by distinguishing among four types of physical punishment and comparing their outcomes with alternative disciplinary tactics (Larzelere & Kuhn, 2005). The conclusions: 1) Child outcomes of physical punishment compared unfavorably with alternative disciplinary tactics only when it was the primary disciplinary method or was overly severe. 2) Outcomes of customary1 spanking did not differ from any alternative, except for one study favoring spanking. 3) When 2- to 6-year-olds responded defiantly to milder disciplinary tactics, conditional nonabusive spanking led to less defiance or less antisocial behavior than 10 of 13 alternative tactics and had equivalent outcomes otherwise. Such spanking can then be phased out rapidly as children learn to cooperate with milder tactics (Roberts & Powers, 1990), which is how psychologists trained parents to use spanking for 25 years through the mid-1990s

There also can be mitigating factors that reduce the impacts of spanking, such as maternal sensitivity, secure early attachment by the end of the first year, normativeness, and context.

Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat

And lol, spanking is not hitting, that's ridiculous. You hit a child with your hand when you spank. That's hitting. The definition of the word hit is: to deal a blow or stroke. When you spank, you deal a blow to the child's backside to cause pain. You are controlling you child by causing pain to them. Saying spanking is not hitting is ridiculous. Is it the same as worse, more painful or dangerous types of hitting? No, but it's still hitting, whether you like it or not. The fact that you need to lie about the definition of the word in order to justify it is telling.

Please don't say I'm lying. Especially when not everyone agrees with your interpretation. For instance, this study differentiates between spanking and hitting:

Quote:

...in the PMCP, the spanking measure did not specify whether the spanking was done with a hand or object, but the harsher physical discipline indicator included slapping or hitting with a hand, fist, or object.

And Caring for Our Children: National Health and Safety Performance Standards; Guidelines for Early Care and Education Programs, Third Edition also lists hitting and spanking as separate actions (and they agree with your views on spanking):

Quote:

STANDARD 2.2.0.9: Prohibited Caregiver/Teacher Behaviors

The following behaviors should be prohibited in all child care settings and by all caregivers/teachers:

The use of corporal punishment. Corporal punishment means punishment inflicted directly on the body including, but not limited to:
Hitting, spanking (refers to striking a child with an open hand on the buttocks or extremities with the intention of modifying behavior without causing physical injury), shaking, slapping, twisting, pulling, squeezing, or biting;
<snip>

Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat

And it's not just a matter of looking down on parenting techniques that differ from those I favor. There are plenty of parenting techniques I wouldn't use personally that I have no problem with.

I look down on parenting techniques that make children more dangerous to other children, and which causes psychological damage in children, which is exactly what spanking does. Makes kids more likely to bully and prone to violence in general.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1114110820.htm

Again, not everyone agrees with you.

Quote:

How detrimental (or beneficial) spanking is depends a great deal on the age of the subject, frequency of administration, race, who administers the spanking, family context, and whether it is used as a primary means of discipline, or as a 'backup' strategy (Gunnoe and Mariner, 1997; Larzelere, 1996; Larzelere and Kuhn, 2005). These findings do not necessarily generalize to milder, less frequent, and less persistent episodes of spanking ending before age 6.

And your own link says:

Quote:

"A particular parenting practice may become a problem only if parents use it in a cultural context that does not support the practice (for example, if they migrate from one country to another)."

Harm from spanking doesn't sound quite as cast in stone as your post indicated.

Quote:

Also, children who are spanked have lower IQs than children who are not spanked. This is indicative that they come from low IQ parents. I.E. Parents who are unintelligent. Or at the very least, that they come from parents who do not know how to raise children who are as intelligent as those from parents who do not spank their kids.

That is not necessarily true. According to The Wall Street Journal:

Quote:

Three recent, widely reported studies on spanking children claimed to show that the disciplinary practice impairs cognitive development in children. Together, they held out the promise of providing the latest, definitive word on a passionate debate.

Yet the three aren't likely to resolve anything. Many statisticians say they find in them less a firm conclusion than further proof of the difficulty of measuring spanking's impact.
<snip>
Martin Wells, a statistician at Cornell University, re-ran the statistical test to check whether regional variations in IQ -- which is lower in Latin America and Africa -- could account for the IQ differences Prof. Straus found. After accounting for regional variations, Dr. Wells found the effect of spanking vanished. Dr. Wells plans to use the Prof. Straus's research in the classroom to demonstrate why it is important to consider alternative explanations.

This is from The News-Reporter, Washington, Georgia:

Quote:

There have been two or three new university studies out recently that said spanking would lower a child's IQ, and if you're not discerning, you might fall for their combination of bad science and blind bias.
<snip>
Murray Straus, a professor of sociology at the University of New Hampshire, says that according to two studies he has conducted, children who are spanked more have statistically lower IQs by three to five points than children who aren't spanked. That means, he insists, that spanking causes lower IQ in children.
<snip>
They're dishonest studies because they imply causality, when they merely point out correlation. Straus finds places where spanking is more common, and low IQ is more common, and swears that one causes the other. It just isn't true.

The studies are academically dishonest because Straus has been trying to take away parents' right to raise their children for decades, wanting to make spanking a Federal crime. His slanted studies mix children who underwent "severe corporal punishment" with children who are given the slightest form of hand-spanking, and say the effect is the same.
<snip>
As I said, it's not my purpose to argue the pros or cons of spanking. I just want to warn parents -- and everyone else -- not to believe what they hear on the news just because some academic goober has twisted the facts to fit his agenda. Be wise consumers of the news, be skeptical of university studies, and certainly don't raise your children based on "facts" some professor has twisted for his own ends.

Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat

Studies also have supported my contention that spanked kids tend to be more problematic in general than non spanked kids, and just generally have bad behavior.

http://www.physorg.com/news173077612.html

Again, not all studies agree with you.

Quote:

Overall, associations between physical abuse and conduct problems are well established.⁽¹⁵⁾ In the Christchurch longitudinal study, child sexual abuse predicted conduct problems, after controlling for other childhood adversities.⁽²⁶⁾ Links with conduct problems are not however straightforward. The risk for conduct problems does not apply equally to all forms of physical punishment. The E-risk longitudinal twin study was able to compare the effects of corporal punishment (smacking, spanking) versus injurious physical maltreatment using twin-specific reports of both experiences.⁽²⁷⁾ Results showed that children’s genetic endowment accounted for virtually all of the association between their corporal punishment and their conduct problems. This indicated a ‘child effect’, in which children’s bad conduct provokes their parents to use more corporal punishment, rather than the reverse. Findings about injurious physical maltreatment were the opposite. There was no child effect provoking maltreatment and moreover, significant effects of maltreatment on child aggression remained after controlling for any genetic transmission of liability to aggression from antisocial parents.

And this one:

Quote:

While such lawmaking may seem harmless, even commendable, the empirical data indicate that a spanking ban is a grave mistake. With spanking bans have come increased rates of child abuse, aggressive parenting, and youth violence.¹² Indeed, criminal records suggest that children raised under a spanking ban are much more likely to be involved in crime than other children.¹³

Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat

Here's a Time article on the long term effects of spanking


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...983895,00.html

I don't consider age 3 to age 5 long term.

Quote:

I find it simply sad that you're defending a parenting technique that makes kids dumber, angrier, meaner, and more anxious for no other reason than your parents did it.

Not everyone agrees with you about the effects of spanking. And nowhere did I say that I only support a parent's right to choose spanking as a disciplinary technique because my parents did it.

[FattyCatty]

Originally Posted by Spindrift

I apologize if I'm inferring something that isn't there, but you seem to deem spanking to be, if not necessary, then very useful for discipline. However the studies above show that spanking is detrimental to the development of children.

No apology is necessary. I do believe that spanking can be a useful technique for discipline. I do not believe that it is necessary. Parents should be able to decide what is appropriate to discipline their child, excluding abuse. And I do not consider spanking (open palm on the bottom) abuse.

There are problems with some of those studies. See my post above in response to Schrodinger's Cat.

[Ryokan]

Didn't we have a debate on this not long ago?

You're not allowed to use violence on an adult, so why should it be allowed when it's a child? Using violence against any human being should be illegal, and should be prosecutable.

In many parts of the civilized world, is is! And I'm glad I live in one of those parts.

[Drachasor]

You know, I remember well the last time my father spanked me. I don't remember what I did or anything about why I was being spanked. I do remember my father repeatedly hitting me, and my mother's new guide dog, Kachina, who had adopted my brothers and I as defacto puppies, decided that spanking was not allowed in her household. Through the application of growls and barks, she effectively communicated her displeasure to my father without the use of violence. He went to his room to reconsider his parenting methods. Kachina came over and made sure I was ok in the manner most common to dogs.

Honestly, there's no research that shows spanking is beneficial or remotely necessary. There's a lot that shows it is potentially quite harmful to the psychological development of a child (for one, they'll tend to think violence is an appropriate answer to problems).

[sadhatter]

Originally Posted by FattyCatty

I found your post very offensive. I'm happy for you that you were a model child with model parents who did things better than everyone else. However, that does not mean that other parents can't believe in other methods of child raising.

Points of disagreement and ideas I found offensive:

1. Parents Who Spank Are Lazy. Parents who spank are not all lazy. Many of them just have a different philosophy of child raising.
   
2. Spanking = Hitting. Spanking is not hitting. Hitting implies more violence with potential for injury, is not done just to the bottom, and is a very loaded word to use; after your first mention of spanking in the first sentence, you use hitting instead.
   
3. Bragging Anecdote Used as Evidence. Anecdotes about how one method of child raising is wonderful do not prove that other methods are terrible.
   
4. Implication That Choosing to Spank Makes a Parent Trashy and Unsuccessful." Not all people who chose alternate methods of discipline are "trashy unsuccessful people" even if you personally look down on them.
   
5. Implication That Children Who Have Been Spanked Are "Aggressive and in Trouble a Lot." Not all children raised by methods different than that of your parents are "aggressive and in trouble a lot". (Anecdote Warning: me, the original miss goody two-shoes when young. It took me years to become aggressive. I never did manage to get in trouble a lot.)
   
6. Denigration of Those Who Differ From You. Many people who use other means of disciplining their children are intelligent and successful, despite your implication. (Anecdote Warning: my parents.)
   
7. Implication That Your Way Is the Only Way for "Intelligent and Successful" Parents. Many parents who have a different philosophy of discipline are intelligent or successful or both.
   
8. Implication That Choosing to Spank = Lack of Intelligence. Many people with "enough brain cells to rub together" make a reasoned choice that is different from that of your parents. (Anecdote Warning: my parents.)
   

All well and good, but the second you spank your child, you no longer have the ability to tell them violence does not solve problems. Little johnny has you backed into a moral corner if he gets into a fight in school, because he was just doing what you taught him, to use force when he cannot think of another method.

And the whole spanking is not hitting thing makes me giggle. Always used by liberal parents who just can't bring themselves to be able to say the words " Hitting my children is effective for me. ".

Hitting is any strike, i can hit a baseball, am i intending to do physical damage to it? I can hit a nail, again, i want to avoid doing physical damage in this case, don't want a bent nail. I can hit a heavy bag, wouldn't want to do damage to that, gets expensive. Along with many other examples.

Just because saying the phrase " I hit my kids" gives you the jimmies, doesn't mean that you can change the very clear definition of the word. A spank is a hit directed toward the buttocks with an open hand, in the same way a haymaker, is a hit directed toward someone's head in a roundhouse fashion with a closed fist.

If even admitting that you hit your children makes you feel dirty, maybe, just maybe you should stop.

[FattyCatty]

Originally Posted by sadhatter

All well and good, but the second you spank your child, you no longer have the ability to tell them violence does not solve problems. Little johnny has you backed into a moral corner if he gets into a fight in school, because he was just doing what you taught him, to use force when he cannot think of another method.

And the whole spanking is not hitting thing makes me giggle. Always used by liberal parents who just can't bring themselves to be able to say the words " Hitting my children is effective for me. ".

Hitting is any strike, i can hit a baseball, am i intending to do physical damage to it? I can hit a nail, again, i want to avoid doing physical damage in this case, don't want a bent nail. I can hit a heavy bag, wouldn't want to do damage to that, gets expensive. Along with many other examples.

Just because saying the phrase " I hit my kids" gives you the jimmies, doesn't mean that you can change the very clear definition of the word. A spank is a hit directed toward the buttocks with an open hand, in the same way a haymaker, is a hit directed toward someone's head in a roundhouse fashion with a closed fist.

If even admitting that you hit your children makes you feel dirty, maybe, just maybe you should stop.

Most of the ways that I disagree with you are given in my reply to Schrodinger's Cat, post #28.

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by sadhatter

If even admitting that you hit your children makes you feel dirty, maybe, just maybe you should stop.

Exactly right.
Rather like people saying 'my parents spanked me and it didn't do me any harm'.
Yes, it did. It taught them that spanking children is a good form of discipline.

[Mark6]

Originally Posted by sadhatter

All well and good, but the second you spank your child, you no longer have the ability to tell them violence does not solve problems. Little johnny has you backed into a moral corner if he gets into a fight in school, because he was just doing what you taught him, to use force when he cannot think of another method.

Luckily I never claimed "violence never solves anything". In certain situation violence IS the appropriate response, both on personal and on societal level, and I taught my children that. I also made sure they learn basics of self-defense.

I am sure some people really believe "violence never solves anything". Very likely there are hypocrites who SAY that, but do not act in accordance. I am neither.

[Morrigan]

Originally Posted by sadhatter

All well and good, but the second you spank your child, you no longer have the ability to tell them violence does not solve problems.

Violence is rarely the only solution to most problems... but sometimes, it is. The whole "violence never solves anything" canard is a trite cliché with no basis in reality.

[Drachasor]

Originally Posted by Morrigan

Violence is rarely the only solution to most problems... but sometimes, it is. The whole "violence never solves anything" canard is a trite cliché with no basis in reality.

Granted, but violence is a solution of last resort. If you spank your kids, you really can't tell them that without being a hypocrite.

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

Rather like people saying 'my parents spanked me and it didn't do me any harm'.
Yes, it did. It taught them that spanking children is a good form of discipline.

Well played.

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence either way.