Spare the rod . . .

Elizabeth Gershoff, a researcher at University of Michigan's School of Social Work, says Straus's findings are consistent with the literature. "I have every faith in his research," Gershoff says. "The more children are spanked, the more aggressive they are and the more likely they are to engage in delinquent or at-risk behaviors." Sexual behavior is just one example of that behavior, she says. One lesson kids learn, says Gershoff, is that if you have the power in a relationship, you can use aggression to get your way. Another: "[Kids] may learn that sometimes there's pain and fear involved in loving relationships."

Meaningful to whom?

People who "spank" are just lying to themselves about what they are doing.

At least have the guts to defend the reality of what you do, if you approve of hitting kids.

not born out by my life experiences

I don't agree with the conclusions that many modern researchers seem to have reached on this and several other subjects.

I'm usually not a traditionalist, but in this case I totally am - spare the rod, spoil the child.

I'm glad you feel that you suffered no ill effects from the treatment you received. That doesn't really prove anything though. This is one of those things that is risky. Sometimes it's damaging, sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's profoundly damaging, sometimes it's moderately damaging. But time and science has really not borne out the idea that it's something you should do.

You can join the flat earthers and creationists in disliking the conclusions of science if you wish, I suppose.

Huh? I was beaten, too.

And I know the law very well, thank you.

Your position is indefensible...re the weasel word of calling hitting "spanking"...so I have no concern about how long you have been defending it.

Why spanking is not the best choice

The American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend spanking. Although most Americans were spanked as children, we now know that it has several important side effects.

*

Even though spanking may seem to "work" at first, it loses its impact after a while.
*

Because most parents do not want to spank, they are less likely to be consistent.
*

Spanking increases aggression and anger instead of teaching responsibility.
*

Parents may intend to stay calm but often do not, and then regret their actions later.
* Spanking can lead to physical struggles and even grow to the point of harming the child.

It is true that many adults who were spanked as children may be well-adjusted and caring people today. However, research has shown that, when compared with children who are not spanked, children who are spanked are more likely to become adults who are depressed, use alcohol, have more anger, hit their own children, hit their spouses, and engage in crime and violence. These adult outcomes make sense because spanking teaches a child that causing others pain is OK if you're frustrated or want to maintain control"even with those you love. A child is not likely to see the difference between getting spanked from his parents and hitting a sibling or another child when he doesn't get what he wants.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm usually not a traditionalist, but in this case I totally am - spare the rod, spoil the child.

This is the absolutely least defensible aspect IMO. It's actually saying that it's BAD to NOT hit a child. You offer yourself as proof. I can match that with myself (I wasn't spanked, and I'm sickeningly law-abiding), and my daughter (never spanked, same).

I'm quite glad that those of you who have the opposite opinion have been lucky in the way your kids have turned out; that has not been the case for those I have met.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm quite glad that those of you who have the opposite opinion have been lucky in the way your kids have turned out; that has not been the case for those I have met.

You're conflating spanking with good parenting.

I wouldn't know nothing about psychology, but the state I worked in defined clearly in statute that using a belt=leaving a bruise constitutes child abuse, period.

Learning the lesson that those who are 'bigger' than you - and note that this isn't really about physical size, but about a power discrepancy - can punish you if you break the rules is an important lesson for children to learn, as they are going to experience exactly this situation over and over in their lives, whether the 'bigger' person is the Law or your Employer or some other authority-bearing unit that we are forced to deal with.

But none of those entities can hit you, right? Not ONE. Why? Because it's assault and assaulting a child is no way to teach them a lesson.

dyslexia wrote:

I wouldn't know nothing about psychology, but the state I worked in defined clearly in statute that using a belt=leaving a bruise constitutes child abuse, period.

Properly administered corporal punishment does not leave bruises, and as I stated earlier, is much more psychological in nature than physical.

Cycloptichorn

sozobe wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm usually not a traditionalist, but in this case I totally am - spare the rod, spoil the child.

This is the absolutely least defensible aspect IMO. It's actually saying that it's BAD to NOT hit a child. You offer yourself as proof. I can match that with myself (I wasn't spanked, and I'm sickeningly law-abiding), and my daughter (never spanked, same).

I am not claiming that all children need to be spanked, or they will be ruined;