Spare the rod, spoil the child.

[AAAhmed46]

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/l...cle6974059.ece

Quote:
A smacked child ‘is a successful child’
Young children smacked by their parents may grow up to be happier and more successful than those who have never been hit, a study has found.

According to the research, children smacked up to the age of six were likely as teenagers to perform better at school and were more likely to carry out volunteer work and to want to go to university than their peers who had never been physically disciplined.

Only those children who continued to be smacked into adolescence showed clear behavioural problems.

Children’s groups and MPs have tried several times to have physical chastisement by parents outlawed. They claim it is a form of abuse that causes long-term harm to children and say banning it would send a clear signal that violence is unacceptable.

However, Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of psychology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, said her study showed there was insufficient evidence to deny parents the freedom to choose how they discipline their children.

“The claims made for not spanking children fail to hold up. They are not consistent with the data,” said Gunnoe. “I think of spanking as a dangerous tool, but there are times when there is a job big enough for a dangerous tool. You just don’t use it for all your jobs.”

Research into the effects of smacking was previously hampered by the inability to find enough children who had never been smacked, given its past cultural acceptability. But Gunnoe’s work drew on a study of 2,600 people, of whom about a quarter had never been physically chastised.

Gunnoe’s findings were welcomed by Aric Sigman, a psychologist and author of The Spoilt Generation: Why Restoring Authority will Make our Children and Society Happier.

“The idea that smacking and violence are on a continuum is a bizarre and fetishised view of what punishment or smacking is for most parents,” he said.

“If it’s done judiciously by a parent who is normally affectionate and sensitive to their child, our society should not be up in arms about that. Parents should be trusted to distinguish this from a punch in the face.”

Penelope Leach, the British parenting guru whose book Your Baby and Child has sold more than 2m copies, said physical discipline should always be avoided.

“No good can come from hitting a child,” said Leach. “I do not buy this idea that children will learn positive behaviour from being smacked. The law says adults hitting adults is wrong and children should be protected in the same way. Children are people, too.”

British parents have traditionally followed the maxim “spare the rod and spoil the child”. More recently, however, the opposition of children’s charities to smacking has gained support, with 71% of Britons in one poll saying they would support a ban. The law allows smacking as long as it does not leave a mark.

The government says it does not want to criminalise parents for chastising their children with the best of intentions.

Gunnoe’s research included detailed questioning of 179 teenagers who were asked how old they were when they were last smacked and how often they were smacked as a child.

Their answers were compared with information they gave about their behaviour that could have been affected by smacking. This covered bad outcomes, such as antisocial behaviour, early sexual activity, violence and depression, and good outcomes, including academic success and optimism about the future.

Teenagers who had been smacked only when they were aged two to six performed slightly better on almost every positive measure and no worse on the negative measures than those who had never been smacked.

The results were less clear for a separate group of teenagers who had been smacked until they were slightly older — aged seven to 11. They fared slightly worse on negative behaviour scores — they reported being involved in more fights, for example — but were also likely to be more academically successful than those who had not been smacked.

Teenagers who were still being smacked, however, scored significantly worse than every group on all the measures. Gunnoe found little difference in the results between boys and girls and between racial groups.

She is now trying to explain the reasons for the differences. She suggests parents who rule out smacking as a matter of principle may be less likely to help their children develop the self-discipline and social skills needed to succeed in life.
...................................................................................
Now go kick little Timmy across the floor!!!

[Bill Glasheen]

I'm thankful that - for once - the social engineers aren't seeking data to support conclusions arrived at before evidence has presented itself.

This study does fly in the face of other studies which allegedly show a lower IQ for kids spanked, although the age range wasn't specified. Thankfully in some such studies, the authors suggested it MIGHT be that kids with lower IQs aren't as amenable to behavior modification by reasoning. In other words, the lower IQ may begat spanking, and not the other way around. (That could be because of the parent, the child, or both.)

My boys know I reserve the right to spank, although at their ages (17 and 11) it doesn't happen any more. However when they were younger, there were special occasions where I didn't think twice about a swat on the butt. One such instance was when number 1 son (as a child) thought it was funny to go running out of a restaurant and straight into a parking lot. The way I figure it, a swat on the butt is more humane than an automobile tire rolling over the head. The punishment very much matched the crime, so to speak.

He didn't do that any more, by the way. And no parent who observed me questioned my method of discipline.

I think the key here is spanking as opposed to beating, and sparingly as opposed to routine. The nuclear option should always be available, without necessarily being applied.

And if you haven't guessed by now, these observational studies are weak at best. Without a randomized trial, there's no way to attribute outcome causality to the intervention in question.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

Just to add a little odd history to this subject...

"The rule of thumb" has its origin in an old (English) law which stated that you couldn't beat your wife with a stick any thicker than the width of your thumb. We can't be leaving permanent marks on the little lady you know...



- Bill

P.S. The law is the truth. My making light of it is humor. If you can't recognize both, then you deserve to be ...

[CANDANeh]

. And no parent who observed me questioned my method of discipline.

My dad made it clear that any contact with another living thing should not be out of anger. Therefore, one can access more clearly if there is a need. Yes at times (rare) he determined a need existed and we (my brother and I) can look back and never question his motives. Actually I am certain it contributed much to managing anger as adults. Can a child be raised with success without "spanking"? Likely so.
I for one am not at all uncomfortable with witnessing a child being disciplined as long as I sense it is done with out anger or frustration being the primary motive. Am I wrong in believing that another adult can sense the difference?

[Bill Glasheen]

I for one am not at all uncomfortable with witnessing a child being disciplined as long as I sense it is done with out anger or frustration being the primary motive. Am I wrong in believing that another adult can sense the difference?

Most can. Not all can.

This brings to mind an incident where my older son (as a child) got his hand caught in a restaurant bathroom door that had a door-closing spring with just a little too much torque to it. His hand immediately began to swell. So I asked for - and got - a baggie from the kitchen with some ice in it. I applied it to my son's now-swelling hand and... Let's just say he wasn't happy.

Well then what? Some mother comes up to me and starts lecturing me about abusing my child. As I continued to monitor my son's hand, I quietly told her to go away and mind her own business. But that wasn't good enough for her. She went on and on about how HER husband was a DOCTOR and... She looked around. Her doctor husband had left the restaurant and gone out to the car. She left.

Most parents and people are reasonable. Some feel a need to legislate our behavior, or interject their opinion when it is neither needed nor even of sound mind.

Nobody likes the sound or sight of pain or unhappiness. It takes a level-headed person to proceed through the chaos with mushin. Interestingly enough, my wife is a wonderful health care practitioner, but... When one of the boys comes in covered with blood from some boys-being-boys accident, I need to take over. Not everyone has the stomach for that, but some (myself included) go into automatic pilot. It's difficult to explain, but it's quite helpful under extreme circumstances.

- Bill

[Glenn]

The problem with any punishment, spanking or otherwise, is usually not with the means of punishment itself, but with the way the parent uses it. For any punishment to be effective it has to be consistent (including between the parents), not based solely on emotion, and at a level appropriate for the offense. As a hypothetical example: If a small child normally touches a window with no consequences, but then one day after a tired parent has just cleaned the window and the kid runs over and puts hand-prints on it, for the parent to explode and spank the kid will only confuse the child.

And of course the parent needs to take the time to explain why the kid is being punished. Kids younger than 2 years old probably will not be able to tie their behavior and the punishment together well enough for punishment to be effective, but I know that definitely by age 3 all three of my kids fully understood that their behavior caused the punishment if I took the time to explain it to them.

I personally think spanking has its place, particularly in the 2-6 ages the article focuses on. Sometimes that is the only way to get through to a kid that age, and reset them to a less dangerous or more appropriate bahavior.

[CornMaiden]

Good comment, Glen. I agree with that age for spankings to be understood.

My thoughts:

* Spank when necessary, life/death or serious situations.
* Mete out punishment when you have calmed down and are not angry.
* Explain the moral reason the offense is wrong.
* Make the punishment proportionate to the offense.
* Be fair.
* Be consistent.

Corn Maiden

[Dana Sheets]

People who hit their kids are more likely to do so more often and more severely when the parent is stressed (http://crcw.princeton.edu/workingpapers/WP09-18-FF.pdf). Great, the kids pay the price for stressed-out parents.

Kids who are hit often by stressed out parents are more prone to violence, drug abuse, depression, becoming abusers in their own right, etc. Particularly if that punishment involves a belt of any kind.

84% of parents in the U.S. believe that corporal punishment is OK. That hitting a kid without injuring them physically is the option to go to after a child has misbehaved 3 times.

That's really the extent of our patience, parenting skills, and desire to model non-violent solutions to difficult behaviors or conflict?

Sure, little kids age 2-6 respond very quickly when hit. They're like little cave people. If somebody twice your size and the center of your life grabbed you off your feet and gave you a swat or two, then you'd stop whatever you were doing as well. But what lesson does that teach?

A few years ago when I posted on this topic I was told that when I became a parent I'd understand. OK, I'm a parent. I do understand why parents hit and I still don't agree with it. I do not hit my son. I don't want him to associate "really important" with the back or front of my hand.

I simply can't see hitting our children as the way to a better future.

-Dana

[Bill Glasheen]

A few years ago when I posted on this topic I was told that when I became a parent I'd understand. OK, I'm a parent. I do understand why parents hit and I still don't agree with it. I do not hit my son. I don't want him to associate "really important" with the back or front of my hand.

I simply can't see hitting our children as the way to a better future.

-Dana

Then you should continue with practices which you believe will make for a better grown adult.

Kids don't come with an owner's manual, and they certainly don't come alike. God knows I've had puppies from the exact same litter with diametrically opposed personalities. Big Guy and Brandon - both Great Danes- come to mind. My boys are similarly very different, although on the surface they seem to be similar. The older one is intelligent, emotional, sensitive, stubborn, sometimes impulsive, and a follower. The younger one is more quiet, resilient, observant, follows his own way, has an "advanced" sense of humor (to a fault), organized, and also intelligent. I have to cater my discipline practices to each. I had discipline issues at home and at school with the older one as a child, and now have to deal with occasional outbursts as a 17-year-old. The younger one is much easier to guide to an acceptable path.

A brother/sister Uechi combo I know of (both black belts and both sparring champions) had legendary physical battles as children. I believe it was in their genes. It got put to good use in the dojo.

You have one boy. You live a very controlled environment. It is working. I'm very happy for you. If we are lucky, we can learn from you.

If I am away from my two boys for any length of time, my wife loses control of them. And you can decide not to get physical with the kids in any way, but good luck stopping older son from beating the sheet out of younger son. My older brother did it to me as well, and only equilibrium (me growing up) stopped it. (We're now best of friends.) It's a challenge.

Congrats on your wonderful boy, Dana. I have no doubt you're doing a fantastic job. Good genes are a start... Give a hug to the other half for me.

- Bill