Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths

[albeto]

This is the big question indeed! Are parents overstepping the boundaries of their rights as parents when the attempt to control and manipulate their children into thinking a certain way or becoming a certain type of person? In other words, how much parental influence is too much influence?

Interesting to me how you focus on the "right" of the parent whereas Jetson focuses on the "duty" of the parent.  The implication his statement offers is the child's rights are greater than the adult's due to the child's utter dependence on the adult for many years.  It's the point of view that recognizes and respects the individuality and vulnerability of the child.   Respecting those who are vulnerable against possible abuse of power is generally understood as a morally superior stand. 

[Truth OT]

This is the big question indeed! Are parents overstepping the boundaries of their rights as parents when the attempt to control and manipulate their children into thinking a certain way or becoming a certain type of person? In other words, how much parental influence is too much influence?

Interesting to me how you focus on the "right" of the parent whereas Jetson focuses on the "duty" of the parent.  The implication his statement offers is the child's rights are greater than the adult's due to the child's utter dependence on the adult for many years.  It's the point of view that recognizes and respects the individuality and vulnerability of the child.   Respecting those who are vulnerable against possible abuse of power is generally understood as a morally superior stand.

I focus on it because it is an issue that merits addressing and has been given little focus. The duty of a parental guardian of caring for and providing safety to those entrusted to their care is basically a given that is generally understood and accepted as fact. What people disagree on appears to be at what point do guardians cross the line as it pertains to the rights their duty endows them with. In other words, what limits should be imposed on the rights of the parents as it pertains to the rearing of the children entrusted to them? That is what I'm asking and trying to put out there for discussion.

[jetson]

I focus on it because it is an issue that merits addressing and has been given little focus. The duty of a parental guardian of caring for and providing safety to those entrusted to their care is basically a given that is generally understood and accepted as fact. What people disagree on appears to be at what point do guardians cross the line as it pertains to the rights their duty endows them with. In other words, what limits should be imposed on the rights of the parents as it pertains to the rearing of the children entrusted to them? That is what I'm asking and trying to put out there for discussion.

Parents should not be allowed to harm their children, period.  Parent or not, we don't allow adults to assault each other, but it's OK for parents to beat their children because they own them, or have special rights? 

[Truth OT]

I focus on it because it is an issue that merits addressing and has been given little focus. The duty of a parental guardian of caring for and providing safety to those entrusted to their care is basically a given that is generally understood and accepted as fact. What people disagree on appears to be at what point do guardians cross the line as it pertains to the rights their duty endows them with. In other words, what limits should be imposed on the rights of the parents as it pertains to the rearing of the children entrusted to them? That is what I'm asking and trying to put out there for discussion.

Parents should not be allowed to harm their children, period.  Parent or not, we don't allow adults to assault each other, but it's OK for parents to beat their children because they own them, or have special rights?

What then is the hard and fast line of demarcation that spells out what is harmful and what is acceptable? Is there a way to impose this line objectively and insure that doing so is always in the best interest of the child in both the long and short term?

We don't allow adults to assault each other? So if someone spit on me I can't knock their teeth out? Damn!

[pianodwarf]

We don't allow adults to assault each other? So if someone spit on me I can't knock their teeth out? Damn!

Strictly speaking, your knocking his teeth out would be assault and battery (or something similar to that, in any event), but whether you'd be charged with a crime in a case like that is iffy because you were provoked.  And if you got charged, there's still the matter of whether twelve people would convict you instead of saying to themselves, "I'm not going to send this guy to jail.  In his shoes, I'd have done the same thing."

In any event, I'm pretty sure Jetson was referring to unprovoked assaults, not unusual cases like this one.  We don't normally allow people to kill each other, either, but there are also unusual circumstances under which taking someone else's life is permitted.

[albeto]

Strictly speaking, your knocking his teeth out would be assault and battery (or something similar to that, in any event), but whether you'd be charged with a crime in a case like that is iffy because you were provoked.

Parents who employ physical punishment in response to children's behavior, justifying it as having been provoked (attitude, defiance, etc), is simply an abuse of power.  The parent has the upper hand with regard to knowledge, executive functioning, impulse control.  To respond to a child for acting like a child in a manner that isn't tolerated towards adults is an immoral act, imo.

[nogodsforme]

C'mon, TOT!
You know that if you assault an adult the way most parents physically "discipline" their children it is considered a crime.

You can't put an employee over your knee and whack them with a paddle for being late to work. You can't smack your neighbor across the legs with a belt for disrespecting you. You can't hit your buddy on the palm with a ruler for breaking your living room lamp, even if he was horsing around and you had already warned him to stop.

You also know that nobody cares whether physical punishment of an adult "works" or not. The employee who was paddled in front of the entire office might never be late again as long as he lives. It may be very effective. It may make the person "respect" (ie fear) you and obey you without question or hesitation. But you would not advocate it, would you? Because you know that hitting an employee is an abuse of the power relation between the worker and the boss. You know that fear can not exist between people who are trying to have a friendly relationship, even when the power is unequal. And you also know that pain is a perverse way to get another adult's cooperation.

How much more severe when the hitter is the one person who a dependent child must turn to for everything important in life? I think sometimes adults forget how powerless kids really are. Grown people make all the important decisions: where to live, when to eat, when to sleep, when to get up, what school to go to, how the house is arranged, who lives with the family, what holidays to celebrate and how, what pets to have or not, what chores are to be done and by whom and when.

They have to follow the rules set up by adults. They know how few rights they have. A child's biggest fear is abandonment by the parent. That's why they put up with whatever we dish out. Even severely abused kids don't want their parents taken away from them. Kids would rather be hurt every day than to lose the parent. Do we need to exploit that vulnerability even more by using fear of physical pain to get obedience? 

You don't have to become  a "free child" advocate who lets the kids run around dirty and naked, stay up all night, eat whatever they want whenever they feel like it and throw screaming tantrums if you tell them to stop smearing peanut butter on the walls and furniture.[1]

But can't a kid assert their own personality, express anger using words--much better than physically-- and be secure in their own person without the threat of being hit or hurt? 

1.	I read that Brad Pit and Angelina Jolie are like that with their numerous kids.

[Truth OT]

We need to clarify some very important things. First, what are the parental responsibilities and requirements that parent should live up to? Secondly, what are the extent of the rights of the dependants? Is there a relationship and if so, what is the relationship between having more responsibility yielding more rights? When is it okay for a child to say no to his or her guardians and be justified (right) in doing so?

What actually "belongs" to a parent, is it the child or is it rather the responsibility to ________ the child? 

[nogodsforme]

I'm confused as to why you chose to argue against the alternatives to hitting?  It reminds me of when a creationist tries to tear down the theory of evolution, instead of simply proving that creationism is a better theory.

I was trying to do both. Gnu's concern is for the psychological harm it causes the child. All forms of punishment cause psychological harm. So should we then cease using all forms of punishment? Many people say yes. I haven't made up my mind yet. And according to the evidence I referenced, spanking is superior to other forms of punishment. So much so that the rate of violent crime in Sweden has increased dramatically since they banned spanking outright.
The conversation becomes more dynamic as a result. We can't just focus only on the impact of the child. There is more to consider.

[Emphasis mine.]
This got my attention. Ex post facto fallacy, IIRC, is where you say that because something came after, it had to be caused by the thing that came first. Like people who say that the US crime rates went up after prayer was banned from the schools. Did public school prayer keep crime down in the US? Probably not. Did spanking keep crime down in Sweden? Probably not.

Violent crime rates go up for a lot of reasons-- increased reporting and better tracking of crime for one. Another factor is the percentage of people, esp. males, between 14-25. When that percentage is high crime goes up. As a population gets older, crime tends to drop. Go figure, very few 60+yr  olds are out holding up convenience stores, jacking cars and snatching purses.

In order to say that banning spanking led to increased crime you would have to have a controlled study. One Swedish community before and after the spanking ban, with other factors taken into account.  You can't just look at anecdotal data, like people who say that they feel more unsafe, etc. People who watch more tv feel more unsafe, esp people who watch news shows. Did Sweden get CNN about the same time as the spanking ban? 

[nogodsforme]

FYI

Comparing US and Swedish crime stats:
http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Sweden/United-States/Crime

Check out "murders committed by youths" and "murders with firearms"-- yikes. No wonder my overseas friends think I'll be shot down at any minute. Keeping in mind that Sweden has 10 million and US has 300 million people, figure that the US should have about 30 times the rate of whatever to be the same as Sweden. The rape figures in Sweden are astoundingly bad-- I wonder what's the deal with that.

I also saw that the rise in crime[1] in Sweden parallels the rise in the pop. of unemployed and underemployed immigrant youth, who are also over-represented in the crime stats. I guess those poor immigrants should be beating their kids more....

1.	the vast majority of the crime is mugging/ theft of wallets, cell phones and the like

[albeto]

We need to clarify some very important things. First, what are the parental responsibilities and requirements that parent should live up to? Secondly, what are the extent of the rights of the dependants? Is there a relationship and if so, what is the relationship between having more responsibility yielding more rights? When is it okay for a child to say no to his or her guardians and be justified (right) in doing so?

What actually "belongs" to a parent, is it the child or is it rather the responsibility to ________ the child?

I think you're looking at this backwards.  What about looking at it from the angle of what the child needs and what fears and anxieties the parent harbors?  Attend to the parent's fears and the approach to meeting the child's needs will be different.  When a parent fears a child not getting or holding a "good job" or even finishing school (and in much of American society, the fear is losing faith or "choosing"  ~gasp~  to be gay), then they are reacting to the child's behavior in response to a future possibility.  A child ought to have the right of a safe home.  The parent ought to have the right to support.  It behooves us all as a society to see that our younger generations grow up emotionally healthy. 

[Truth OT]

People so often seem to think that other groups, races, etc are somehow getting away with something. White kids get away with disrespecting their parents, doing drugs and spending money; white parents get away with absent parenting and lax discipline. Black kids get away with failing in school, having sex and being hoodlums; black parents get away with neglect and child abuse. Etc.

Actually, everyone is pretty much trying to do the right thing. And for the most part we do. That's what holds everything together. Most of the time, most people mostly do right.

video of Kourtney Kardashian telling her mom to shut the fuck up.

This is an example of how a lot of people in my circle of extended family and friends think "white kids" that don't get whipped turn out.
 http://www.conversations.blackvoices.com/entertainment/99435682aaea4564b24369ed6fc90973/wow-kardashians-disrespect-their-mom/81b2497f821e42b6b073e3ff2fc32dfe

 Actually has some interesting comments that give further insight into this worldview.

[curiousgirl]

TOT, I was hit a lot by my mom and belted by my dad, and that caused our relationship to crumble. In fact, I was so angry at my parents for hurting me (I was usually a good kid who got awards and really good grades) that I did cuss out my parents as a teenager, even with the consequence of being hit or having my hair pulled. It has cost me money for therapy and meds to deal with the depression and anxiety that resulted from my childhood. I would not have cussed my parents out if they had treated me better. I grew up and found out that my parents were hypocritical jerks. My mom almost got us kids taken away by CPS on multiple occasions, and my dad has been to prison. Even though I am polite with them now, I have barely any respect in my heart for them, because respect needs to be earned.

[albeto]

video of Kourtney Kardashian telling her mom to shut the fuck up.

This is an example of how a lot of people in my circle of extended family and friends think "white kids" that don't get whipped turn out.
 http://www.conversations.blackvoices.com/entertainment/99435682aaea4564b24369ed6fc90973/wow-kardashians-disrespect-their-mom/81b2497f821e42b6b073e3ff2fc32dfe

 Actually has some interesting comments that give further insight into this worldview.

When one stops applying the double standard they can't help but see kids who are physically abused do the same thing.  Research shows those who are physically abused do the same thing to a greater extent than kids who are not, Kardashians notwithstanding. 

Come to think of it, cg had already explained this.   Regardless of what you or your family think, reality shows a different picture. 

[Mr. Blackwell]

Now, do you think that rather than implying that the scientific community is biased, you could admit that you could possibly be wrong about spanking being positive? After all, there really are numerous studies that conclude that spanking has negative effects. I highly doubt that people are making that up.

I am willing to admit that I could be wrong. I don't claim that people are making anything up either. My question is, why are there very very very few studies done by competent scientists to evaluate or test for positive effects as well. The conventional wisdom was "spare the rod, spoil the child". That "wisdom" was what was being challenged by psychologists in the first place. If they were unbiased why wouldn't they also set up their studies to analyse positive effects of corporal punishment on society?

[Mr. Blackwell]

I was rather surprised by this conclusion from jayb.  I did not expect the "science conspiracy" approach.

Commin atcha from all angles bro!

[Mr. Blackwell]

I have a number of questions about it though. Is making spanking illegal all they looked at? What about the parents? Were they properly trained in alternate methods of child-rearing?

From what I read, the Swedish government sent a pamphlet to every single home in the country. Ran commercials and ad campaigns. In short, spent a lot of time and money before and after the ban.

[Mr. Blackwell]

In other words, that research is held in high regard by the scientific community.

I am not sure why you feel compelled to point this out. It is not something I am disputing is it?

Edit:

Last post for the night...gotta go. Probably wont be back on till Sunday or Monday. Hope everyone has a good weekend

[nogodsforme]

Now, do you think that rather than implying that the scientific community is biased, you could admit that you could possibly be wrong about spanking being positive? After all, there really are numerous studies that conclude that spanking has negative effects. I highly doubt that people are making that up.

I am willing to admit that I could be wrong. I don't claim that people are making anything up either. My question is, why are there very very very few studies done by competent scientists to evaluate or test for positive effects as well. The conventional wisdom was "spare the rod, spoil the child". That "wisdom" was what was being challenged by psychologists in the first place. If they were unbiased why wouldn't they also set up their studies to analyse positive effects of corporal punishment on society?

Maybe because there aren't any positive effects of hitting kids? If there was real empirical data, I am sure the "spare the rod" religious folks would be presenting it. Instead of doing real studies, they write books full of anecdotes and parables that encourage people to hit their kids, just because Christian parents are supposed to do it. Anecdotally speaking, a lot of those strictly raised kids come out completely bonkers.[1]
 
When I was a social worker (that was back in the 80's so the info is a bit dated ) among other jobs, we had to teach non-violent parenting classes. Most of the families (mainly low-income black single moms) refused to accept that it was possible to raise kids without hitting or at least threatening to hit. So, we worked mainly with families where the kids were hit. And those folks had multiple serious problems. Now, it could be that those families had many problems that would have been there even if they never hit their kids. Or it could be that families that don't hit kids have fewer problems.

Bottom line, most parents in the US do hit their kids, and many of us who were hit have serious issues about it.

1.	Kids whose parents were way too lax and neglectful seem to produce rigidly controlled adults who join the NRA and vote Republican, to judge by my bro-in-law. His hippie mom smoked dope with him.

[curiousgirl]

I am willing to admit that I could be wrong. I don't claim that people are making anything up either. My question is, why are there very very very few studies done by competent scientists to evaluate or test for positive effects as well.

Jay, even if the researchers were only looking for the negative effects of spanking, and if they were to find that spanking has no negative effects and only positive effects, they would record that. These scientists are recording their observations. It's not like they set up a study and ignore the results based on what they like or do not like. This was from an article that I posted on the first page of this thread (my bolding):

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/26/health/main513469.shtml

After analyzing six decades of expert research on corporal punishment, a psychologist says parents who spank their children risk causing long-term harm that outweighs the short-term benefit of instant obedience.

"Children become aggressive, delinquent, and have mental health problems, both in childhood and in adulthood," Elizabeth Gershoff, researcher at Columbia University's National Center for Children in Poverty, told CBS Radio News.

The psychologist found links between spanking and 10 negative behaviors or experiences, including aggression, anti-social behavior and mental health problems. The one positive result of spanking that she identified was quick compliance with parental demands.

This researcher was clearly unbiased, because she did admit that there was truly ONE positive result of spanking. However, she did point out that there were TEN long-term problems as a result of spanking, which outweigh the one short-term benefit of it. I think this is the same psychologist that Gnu mentioned earlier, along with one of his links.

The conventional wisdom was "spare the rod, spoil the child". That "wisdom" was what was being challenged by psychologists in the first place. If they were unbiased why wouldn't they also set up their studies to analyse positive effects of corporal punishment on society?

The "conventional wisdom" was also that God exists, but now that is being challenged more so than in the past here in the US. So is spanking, because we are learning more and more because of science. The psychologists did not just decide that spanking was bad. That is why they conducted experiments in the first place: to see if it was affecting children in a good way or a bad way. Authentic scientists don't rig the results, they just share them with the world. That is what is happening over and over again with the results from the spanking studies, so the scientific community is just spreading their observations.  I think the results of various studies are the reason that the scientific community is anti-spanking. If the studies showed that children benefitted from spanking, that is what would be shared with the public.

[curiousgirl]

In other words, that research is held in high regard by the scientific community.

I am not sure why you feel compelled to point this out. It is not something I am disputing is it?

Edit:

Last post for the night...gotta go. Probably wont be back on till Sunday or Monday. Hope everyone has a good weekend

OK, good. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page.

You have a good weekend too!

[Truth OT]

TOT, I was hit a lot by my mom and belted by my dad, and that caused our relationship to crumble. In fact, I was so angry at my parents for hurting me (I was usually a good kid who got awards and really good grades) that I did cuss out my parents as a teenager, even with the consequence of being hit or having my hair pulled. It has cost me money for therapy and meds to deal with the depression and anxiety that resulted from my childhood. I would not have cussed my parents out if they had treated me better. I grew up and found out that my parents were hypocritical jerks. My mom almost got us kids taken away by CPS on multiple occasions, and my dad has been to prison. Even though I am polite with them now, I have barely any respect in my heart for them, because respect needs to be earned.

CG, I don't know what to say, it sounds like you had a terribly rough go of it and had to endure a nightmare of a childhood being belted a lot and getting your hair pulled by hypocritic parents.

Did they ever give you an explanation for their behavior?   
How long did they treat you that way?
Did you know what would trigger them to lash out in the manner they did or was their behavior random and unpredictable?

[curiousgirl]

CG, I don't know what to say, it sounds like you had a terribly rough go of it and had to endure a nightmare of a childhood being belted a lot and getting your hair pulled by hypocritic parents.


Did they ever give you an explanation for their behavior?

No, they did not ever explain it. My mom said we should not talk about the past (yet she apologized later for hurting me), and my dad said he did not remember a lot of stuff that he did (yet he apologized as well).
   

How long did they treat you that way?

My mom treated me that way until I was about 15, which was the age I was the last time I cussed her out. I figured out after getting smacked around enough that I did not want to be around. At about that age, I started sleeping over at friends' houses way more often to be away from home, so my mom was somewhat nicer toward me because I barely spent time with her. My dad stopped belting me when I was 10, but he still would cuss at me until I was about 16. When I was 16, I worked at a fast food place after school, started buying some of my own groceries, and was sleeping over at other girls' houses almost every night. My parents started to see me differently, because I didn't need them as much anymore, so they both decided to treat me even better after that.

Did you know what would trigger them to lash out in the manner they did or was their behavior random and unpredictable?

I was a pretty good kid who was sweet, sensitive and quiet. I loved to read. I remember when I was 10 (shortly after my parents divorced), I started going to the public library every single day with my friends after school for hours because I felt like my mom did not want me around. Normal kid stuff would make my mom lash out. There were four of us kids, and if we were too loud or we ran instead of walking we might get slapped. My mom was shameless, and she would smack us around in public and scream at us. Strangers would scold her for it. She let her anxiety and depression get the best of her, because until I was about 16, she refused to admit there was anything wrong. I have the same conditions, but I went to therapy so I would not act the same way.

My dad lashed out because he was a control freak. He would hit my mom as well until they divorced. I remember one time he belted me really hard upside the head when I was about 9 because I looked up at him from a book that he had told me to read. He hit me much less than my mom hit me, but the belt hurt a lot worse and left more redness. Then there was the cursing, "You fucking idiot," or "Don't fucking do that," or "You know, your mom is a fucking bitch," etc. Or one time, when I was also 9, I did not bring a houseguest some water when he asked me to (because I thought someone else was getting it) and he told me that next time the guest came, he would rip off my dress in front of him to humiliate me. And that was not the worst of it either.

And they called themselves Christians. The weird thing is, my other three siblings are still Christians. I am the odd one out.

Anyway, that was part of my joyful childhood, filled with ponies and rainbows. 

Now you know why I take the parenting classes, read the books, and take studies on corporal punishment very seriously. Many children are smacked with a hand or hit with a belt, and they grow up to have problems too. I don't spank my son, and he may act up occasionally, but he is a good boy. I think corporal punishment should be eliminated by parents as a discipline method because as long as it is thought of as OK, some parents are going to be more forceful than others. Some (like the judge who beat his daughter) think that they are being good parents, and they don't know when to draw the line with hitting. That is why I say no spankings for my son. It is better to have a clear line drawn rather than leaving room for a mistake.

[Truth OT]

I think corporal punishment should be eliminated by parents as a discipline method because as long as it is thought of as OK, some parents are going to be more forceful than others. Some (like the judge who beat his daughter) think that they are being good parents, and they don't know when to draw the line with hitting.

I doubt that further outlawing it will help. CPS can already be called in many situations and along those same lines, despite the fact spousal abuse is both frowned on and gainst the law, it is still a frequent happenning.
I wonder what made the judge feel that his actions were merited. His daughter at the time was a teenager, and by that age, especially for girls, spankings are ineffective and somewhat inappropriate. To me, all he did was vent his anger and no lesson was taught. Taking away her keys, her cell phone priviledges, or grounding her at that age are far more effective disciplinary tactics.
To further put my prejudices out there, I gotta say that it's harder for me to deal with or have my attention drawn to a girl getting a whipping than it is for a boy. In my experience, girls typically listen and follow instructions better and are more apt to be influenced by verbal communication and the threat of being temporarily "cut off" from their social circles. Hitting my niece in my eyes would be cruel when I can get the same thing accomplished by other pretty simple means. My nephew on the other hand, had a tendency to want to test people and at times would do what he wanted no matter what or how many times he was told otherwise and would only be effected when he was made, yes forced to comply. 8 to 10 months, however, of living with uncle ToT and having to come to the realization that the buck don't stop with him started yielding better behavior. Initially, CP was oft employed on him because talking to him was like talking to a brick wall, so he needed a little, "motivation" to persuade him to believe that listening to those who were caring for him was the best course of action. As time went on, CP has become less necessary and lo and behold the little dude is much more apt to listen to reason, not pout like a little girl when he doesn't get his way, he does talk back at his teachers, and he much more well behaved and comfortable in his skin. Now I know that the belt wasn't the reason that he changed, it was due to a loving environment that paid attention to him and placed expectations on him rewarding him for positive acheivement and making him stand accountable when his behavior was unacceptable. The belt however, was one of the tools employed that aided in affecting the change that we were looking for. 

[curiousgirl]

I doubt that further outlawing it will help. CPS can already be called in many situations and along those same lines, despite the fact spousal abuse is both frowned on and gainst the law, it is still a frequent happenning.

I do support outlawing CP, however I know that is currently just wishful thinking here in the US, so I just don't spank my own son. I think that parenting classes that teach parents alternatives to CP are a good idea. I agree that child abuse and spousal abuse are frequent happenings.  I think that an increase in family counseling and classes to prevent abuse might help. That way parents would feel like they have a support system and they will act out of frustration less.

I wonder what made the judge feel that his actions were merited. His daughter at the time was a teenager, and by that age, especially for girls, spankings are ineffective and somewhat inappropriate. To me, all he did was vent his anger and no lesson was taught. Taking away her keys, her cell phone priviledges, or grounding her at that age are far more effective disciplinary tactics.

I agree with you that the judge should not have hit his daughter.

To further put my prejudices out there, I gotta say that it's harder for me to deal with or have my attention drawn to a girl getting a whipping than it is for a boy. In my experience, girls typically listen and follow instructions better and are more apt to be influenced by verbal communication and the threat of being temporarily "cut off" from their social circles. Hitting my niece in my eyes would be cruel when I can get the same thing accomplished by other pretty simple means. My nephew on the other hand, had a tendency to want to test people and at times would do what he wanted no matter what or how many times he was told otherwise and would only be effected when he was made, yes forced to comply. 8 to 10 months, however, of living with uncle ToT and having to come to the realization that the buck don't stop with him started yielding better behavior. Initially, CP was oft employed on him because talking to him was like talking to a brick wall, so he needed a little, "motivation" to persuade him to believe that listening to those who were caring for him was the best course of action. As time went on, CP has become less necessary and lo and behold the little dude is much more apt to listen to reason, not pout like a little girl when he doesn't get his way, he does talk back at his teachers, and he much more well behaved and comfortable in his skin. Now I know that the belt wasn't the reason that he changed, it was due to a loving environment that paid attention to him and placed expectations on him rewarding him for positive acheivement and making him stand accountable when his behavior was unacceptable. The belt however, was one of the tools employed that aided in affecting the change that we were looking for.

I would say that girls are not necessarily more well-behaved than boys (although I was a stereotypical good girl). I would say that you have to take it case-by-case. My sisters were way more feisty and aggressive (perhaps because my mom was slap-happy) than my brother for some reason. My brother was the docile, easiest child for my parents to deal with, so I think my sisters got in trouble more. Maybe because there were three of us girls in each others’ space.

Anyway, I agree that it was a loving environment in your home that probably helped your nephew do better. Do you think that the belt was entirely necessary? I am only asking because I noticed that increasing time-outs for my son (rather than spanking) usually makes him behave better, it just takes more time, effort and repetition than spanking.

[Gnu Ordure]

JayB:

Please accept my apologies for the lengthy delay. I have found it difficult to find many studies on the positive effects of spanking.

Or another way of looking at that would be, "I can find many studies of the effects of spanking; very few of them show positive effects".

it's even harder to find scientific studies about the negative effects of "time-out" than it was to find scientific studies which examined the positive effects of spanking. In fact...I couldn't find any.

So stop and think about your experience here, JayB; you've looked for evidence to support your position and admitted that you've found very little.

The implication is that either you're wrong, or that the whole body of scientific enquiry into this matter is wrong, and the scientists involved are corrupt or biased and have been so for decades.

Which is more likely?

Yet you say:

It seems all the science has been bent towards disproving the prevailing conventional wisdom and not the other way around. It is difficult for me to view the lack of comprehensive studies, by the scientific community, in support of spanking as a natural unbiased phenomena.

So you made your choice; you reject all the scientific evidence we can produce because it's biased.

So there doesn't seem to be much point in continuing the discussion, because all we have on our side is evidence.

A couple of points though:

There has been a long steady campaign initiated by educated *elites* and supported by the state  designed to erode parental authority  support children's rights not just in the US but in Europe as well.

Fixed that for you. Children's rights trump parental rights. If parents abuse a child's rights, the State can remove the child from their care.
 

mental punishments like timeout, reasoning, privilege removal, threats, verbal power assertion, ignoring, love withdrawal, or diverting.

How on earth can reasoning and diverting be considered mental punishments?

So, should we also suspend time-outs until we have a better understanding of what impact that punishment has on developing young minds?

You admitted you can't find any evidence that time-outs are harmful, so why suspend them? Unlike the deliberate infliction of physical pain, for which there is evidence of harm...
 

What are the extremes you are willing to go to, Gnu, to protect children from any and all harm?

Straw man. I didn't say that children should be protected from all harm.

Yet you believe that some violence is acceptable. So your problem is how to distinguish between acceptable violence and unacceptable violence. How exactly do you define that line - personally or legally?

That is the crux of the problem isn't it? Where do we draw the line? Obviously I agree that abuse is bad and leads to anti-social behavior and psychological problems which ultimately effect all aspects of society. However, you view ALL forms of corporal punishment (regardless the reason or method) as *abuse*, whereas I don't.

Yes indeed, but you didn't answer my question.

It's simply not possible to legislate how hard one could hit a child. What is the unit of measurement concerning the force of each blow? How does one measure the pain experienced? How does one distinguish between the pain caused by a blunt instrument such as a shoe and a sharp instrument such as a whip? And how many blows are permitted?

I don't know the law in the States, but here in Britain, the rule is that any spanking/slapping "shouldn't leave a mark on the body" - which appears to mean that anything that doesn't leave a scar is OK - in which case behaviour such as the judge's would be legal, as bruises and cuts usually heal without scarring.

[Azdgari]

^^ Electrocution wouldn't leave marks, either.  So presumably that would be allowed.  Methinks that law's wording needs some revision...

[Traveler]

...I don't know the law in the States, but here in Britain, the rule is that any spanking/slapping "shouldn't leave a mark on the body" - which appears to mean that anything that doesn't leave a scar is OK - in which case behaviour such as the judge's would be legal, as bruises and cuts usually heal without scarring.

I'm not British, and I'm not a lawyer. But a bruise or cut is a mark on the body. If that bruise was witnessed and photographed, it seems to me that it shouldn't matter at all that it's a temporary mark. If it really needs to be a permanent mark then shame on the legal system. That law needs revision ASAP.

[Mr. Blackwell]

Don't quit me too soon Gnu. I feel I am on the verge of a breakthrough, oddly, as a result of the conversations revolving around mocking over this past weekend.

I have just been trying to look at ALL possible angles in the CP debate. Today I started thinking about how I am going to apologize to my daughter in the likely event that I come around.

I still want to discuss some of the details with you specifically regarding the psychological impact of various types of corrective action and the responsibilities parents have to their children as well as the society they find themselves living in. I would like to compare the findings of the meta analysis you provided and the one I provided but I still need help reading the actual numbers in her analysis. I don't understand the industry specific symbols and abbreviations. Thanks for coming back to the discussion.