"Spanking" is a special word. If the act was done to an adult, it would be called hitting, slapping

[Liberal_in_LA]

punching, physical assault. But no one wants to say "I hit my kid" when that's exactly what they did. So we have the word "spanking". A judge calls it a crime. Kid-hitting advocates are in an uproar

---------------------------------

A Texas judge declares spanking a child a crime

A Texas woman was sentenced to five years probation after pleading guilty to the charge of Injury of a Child. What did this Corpus Christi mother of three do? She spanked her then nearly 2-year-old daughter.


Rosalina Gonzales: Charged with Injury of Child for spanking her toddler.

"You don't spank children today," said Judge Jose Longoria. "In the old days, maybe we got spanked, but there was a different quarrel. You don't spank children."

Prosecutors are requiring Rosalina Gonzales to take parenting classes, follow Child Protection Services (CPS) guidelines, and pay $50 to the Children's Advocacy Center in addition to being on probation.

Gonzales spanked her daughter in December 2010. Her daughter's paternal grandmother noticed red marks on the child's bottom and took her to a hospital to be checked out, according to KZTV-10, Corpus Christi.

The state has put Gonzales's three children


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfmoms/detail?entry_id=91595#ixzz1QbnZdjP6

But before she was let go, 214th District Court Judge Jose Longoria made it very clear to her and everyone else that even a simple straight forward case of spanking is a crime.

"You don't spank children today," said Longoria, "in the old days, maybe we got spanked, but there was a different quarrel. You don't spank children. You understand?"

Gonzales answered, "Yes, sir."


Continue reading on Examiner.com Texas mother sentenced for spanking child - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/texas-mother-sentenced-for-spanking-child#ixzz1QboevmXf

[Zen Democrat]

1. Back in the day, kids got belt whippings. Many things have gotten better.

I remember when parents believed that "sparing the rod" would "spoil the child." How absurd and cruel that is.

[Cleita]

161. I remember friends of mine getting the belt.

Frankly, those kids were the worst behaved who got whipped. It's like beating them made them brattier.

[Cali_Democrat]

230. Buckle side or leather only side?

[derby378]

193. Back in the day, a man could rape his wife AND his kids...

...and no jury in America would convict him!

Fortunately, many husbands and fathers back in the day were a fairly decent lot, but there were a few who were outright monsters. Still are.

[originalpckelly]

2. Who spanks a two year old anyway?

What the hell?

And yes, it is wrong. You'd never be able to do that to an adult...well...at least without permission and a well known safety word.

[Liberal_in_LA]

5. lots of people hit 2 year olds.

[Devil_Fish]

88. my daughter is almost two, and I can't imagine any reason to hit her. ever. NT

[WatsonT]

13. You can't put adults in time-out without their consent

children aren't miniature adults. Treating them as such is foolish.

[awoke_in_2003]

29. Growing up...

being told to go stand in the corner was one of the worst things you could do to us, especially if company was over. It was simple and effective in our (me and my sisters) situation.

[customerserviceguy]

33. They put adults in time-out all the time

It's called prison. And it's chock full of people who would have turned out better if they had a slap on the ass, and heard the word, "No!" enough times in their early childhood.

[sudopod]

46. Implying child abuse isn't more of an issue than being spoiled is within poor communities. nt

[vanlassie]

71. Right. All those guys in prision, if they had ONLY been spanked....

[Luminous Animal]

91. Actually, prisons are full of people who have been physically abused. And yes, spanking is physical

abuse.

[WatsonT]

119. delete

[Dappleganger]

39. Tons of parents do it...

dang, if it left marks then she hit hard enough to get through a diaper.

I don't get it either (mom to four teenagers). At that age the name of the game is redirect, redirect, redirect.

[Lionessa]

3. How entirely ridiculous.

[LiberalAndProud]

4. That was not a spanking.

I find it offensive that the article called it that. The headline is sure to make people's hackles rise at state interference, even though the child was badly bruised.

Beatings are beatings, and they are in no way related to the quick tap to a toddler's diapered behind that I refer to as spanking.

[Liberal_in_LA]

6. correction: "I quick hit to a toddler's diapered behind" Call it what it is

not a spank, swat, tap. it's hitting. If you gave grandma a quick 'tap' to her Depends, you would be considered abusive.

[LiberalAndProud]

14. A hit causes pain.

When I swat a behind, it gets attention because it's rarely applied. And it isn't hitting in the sense that no pain is inflicted.

[Pithlet]

35. If it doesn't cause pain, then what is the point?

I don't think that every parent who spanks should automatically be thrown in jail. At the same time, I'm not getting that argument, sorry. It's rationalizing and nothing more. People spank because it hurts.

[pipi_k]

133. "People spank because it hurts..."

and really...there's nothing a parent wants to do more than inflict pain on a child s/he "loves".


"This (whack) hurts ME more (whack) than it (whack) hurts YOU (whack)!!!!"


Or maybe it's...(slap) "I spank you because I LOVE you!!!"


Or maybe the kid runs out into traffic but doesn't get hurt, and the parent pulls him back and out of tremendous "relief" that the kid didn't get injured, gives the kid a whack on the ass that hurts. "OMG...I was so scared!!!" (whack!)


right...

[The Doctor.]

67. I used to 'spank' my kids for going into their mother's purse.

My then wife used to get upset about it.

I had tried stern talkings, time-outs, corners, everything. I resorted to spanking for one of only two reasons;

1) Repeated destructive behavior (taking scissors to upholstery, breaking things deliberately, or physically harming another), if it was perpetrated more than three times; smack! Right on the tush.

2) Dangerous behavior (Getting into cleaning supplies, unscrewing electrical fixtures, playing with dangerous items such as lighters).

Now I know there are plenty of Debbie and Dudley-do-rights around here that have no clue what it's like to have a child who, by the age of 2 years, was capable of defeating every single 'child-proof' mechanism ever invented. I also know that the vast majority of people have not had the experience of having the door-knob for their child's room come clean off in their hand, and then after working the door open finding that same 2 year old sitting on the floor of his room with a pile of parts from various toys on his right, and a small pile of phillips screws on his left.

So please, if you feel like preaching to me, just shove it you-know-where.

Back to the purse;

I spanked them. I will NEVER apologize for doing so.

My then-wife yelled at me for 'hitting HER children'.

I told her; "When you stop bringing pills and cocaine home in your purse, I'll stop spanking OUR children for going into it."

That was the main reason she found a guy who promised her 'happily ever after'. She hated the idea that she was responsible for anything.

I was responsible for my children NOT dying. Anyone who doesn't get that has never had children that were so adept at getting into trouble and ignoring any other consequences than a swat to the butt.

I'm sure so many of you had perfect little angels upon whom 'time-outs' and whatever else worked like a charm, but don't vilify those of us who deliberately administered a remedy (while explaining what I was about to do and WHY I was about to do it) that may very well have saved their lives.

I've seen the flawed methodology on 'spanking' studies, and I can tell any of you self-righteous types that none of them made proper distinctions between 'disciplinary' and 'abusive' spankings.

My children are alive today. That might not be the case if I had not spanked them when it was appropriate.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pipi_k]

135. What's interesting about this account...

Is the number of repeated "spankings" that had to be administered.

Because the first one didn't work.

Nor the second.

Third. Fourth. Fifth.

Your own account gives people reason to believe that spankings were a fairly common thing around your house.

Yet the "bad behavior" still didn't stop. In fact, it appears to have escalated.

The ex wife had pills and cocaine in her purse. The kids went into her purse. OK, so out of the two "adults" there, ONE of them couldn't figure out that if the kids are into the purse, it needs to be hidden someplace so they CAN'T get into it? A locked closet with a key only you have?

And one disturbing thing I'd like to mention. I appears your ex wife was a drug abuser. I'm not sure if you realize how drug abuse/addiction in a family can affect the children, who often "act out" the family pain that they didn't ask for and had nothing to do with.

So the kids were no doubt in emotional pain themselves...acting out the family drama...and being punished for doing what people do when they're in a dysfunctional situation.

Nice.

[The Doctor.]

150. When in doubt, just make stuff up?

Really? How many times?

I'm amazed at how many around here create fantasy more than they bother investigating. It's also amazing how many people seem to have all the solutions without knowing any specifics of the circumstances.

This has been fascinating.

[pipi_k]

157. Really? What's "made up"?

Are you saying that your home life was just peachy dandy living with a wife who kept pills and cocaine in her purse?

And that things were all warm and fuzzy when you two argued over you hitting HER kids?

And that the kids never heard arguments or angry words? You think kids are too stupid to FEEL when something is wrong even if they can't specifically tell what's wrong?

That's not a normal home life, dear, having a wife who does cocaine. At the very least, it's dysfunctional. At the very worst, it could be abusive. Since I wasn't there, I can't say it was abusive, but I do know that it must have been dysfunctional as hell living that way. Dysfunction affects EVERYBODY in the family. Even the kids, who don't know how to deal with it any better than the "adults" do.


Anyway, here's the deal...

You said your ex wife left her purse with pills and cocaine in it lying around where the kids got into it.


If your ex was too selfish/stupid/drugged out to keep her drugs out of the reach of her kids, then it was up to YOU to do it. It was YOUR job to protect those kids. Not punish them for being kids.

I don't have to be there to know that much.

[The Doctor.]

164. It must be wonderful to know so much about a situation you've never been acquainted with.

What were the circumstances under which they got into her purse?

How many times?

Out of those times, how many did I spank them?

How many times did I stay up all night waiting for her to get home so I could try to clean the crap out of her purse?

How many times did she hide it from me but where the kids could get it?

I'm amazed you know all of this! You should totally take up the 'Amazing Randy' cash challenge to prove that psychics are real!

Or you could be merely assuming everything out of ignorance and bias.

I don't have to be psychic to know it's one of those.

I'm quite done with you.

[pipi_k]

184. OK then...

Answer your own questions.

Educate me.


Don't lay out half a story then blame the reader for not getting it.


Your ex wife did wrong by bringing drugs home.

I'm having a hard time believing she "hid it" where only the children could find it, but let's say she did.

Kids get into things.

And they got punished for being normal, curious kids.


I think the first time someone brought drugs into my home and left them around where my kids could have taken them and perhaps died, that would be the LAST time it would happen.

So you waited up in order to clean out her purse...I'll tell you what would have been more effective. Get a lock that only you have the key for and lock her ass out of the house. Then you get to sleep and don't have to worry about drugs coming into the house. If she raises a stink, then so be it. The cops come, they arrest her and MAYBE she gets help for what appears...from your account.. to be a drug problem.


Oh, and the other question that's not even being answered...if the kids weren't Devil Spawn and they weren't perfect angels, then they were most likely just like everyone else's kids.

Curious. Mischievous. Normal. Just like all other kids.

Many people have managed to raise kids who no doubt were the same way...without spanking them. And so, I ask again...why was normal kid behavior so unacceptable that they needed to be spanked?

[MouseFitzgerald]

206. Holy shit

You are mental.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

239. So, your wife was on drugs and you took it out on your children. Nice.

[DesMoinesDem]

132. That is what spanking is. Look it up in the dictionary.

You can't just pretend a word doesn't exist because you don't like it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. What's hard about this?

Don't hit your kids. Quick tap, beating, belt whipping, what the fuck ever. Don't hit your children.

WTF?

[The Doctor.]

75. Yes, it would seem that simple.

All it tells me is that you and so many others have never had to deal with extraordinary children who easily dismiss all other forms of direction.

Perhaps if I hadn't had to, I'd agree with you.

But I know better.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Luminous Animal]

96. Absolutely. Like it or not, two year olds need constant attention and stimulation...

most any two year old who has the leisure time to wreck havoc is a two year old that is being neglected. And then afflict physical abuse on that kid just means that you are a total failure as a parent.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Luminous Animal]

110. I have one child... my mother had three. She apologized for spanking me when

she saw how I raised my child. She witnessed diversion diversion diversion. And yes, I was a parent with an extraordinary high energy child. She slept with us until she was 5 and she was allowed to wake us up any time she wanted to. There were nights that we ran up and down the hall at 3 in the morning or had breakfast at 2. One of my distinct memories was when she was 5 years old and spent 20 minutes alone quietly by herself. That was the start of the breakthrough and facilitated her having her own room.

The thing is, I was the same way when I was I child and spanking did not help. I found so many other ways to act out even though I was afraid of my parent's anger. And physical violence, no matter how intellectually justified, is a product of anger. You need to reach into the best of your self to connect with the best of your child.

There was an painful episode in my parenting life when my daughter was 3 when my friends gathered together and told me that I was spoiling my girl. By age 6, each and every one of those friends apologized to me because by age 5, with constant attention and stimulation, my daughter was a delight. And coolest of all, now at age 21, my daughter is friends still close to them.

[The Doctor.]

141. You continue to assume too much.

I never spanked out of anger. It was always a well thought out last resort. I always explained to them why they were getting a spanking.

I understand that you were a perfect parent in every way, and that your little one was also perfect and never got up with out being thoughtful enough to wake you as well.

I'm sad we all can't be as perfect as you are. Chalk it up to parenting ability if you'd like, but most parents reading your self-congratulatory post would recognize that you were just extraordinarily lucky.

I'm very happy for you, but unless you've had my kids, your judgment is laughable.

[pipi_k]

144. Oh wow...

So a parent "doesn't spank in anger" but allegedly takes the time to explain why the spanking is being administered.


Really...why even bother explaining? If talking to the kid about bad behavior doesn't get through to him, then why would an explanation about why he's being hit get through either?


Why not just take away a beloved item or privilege instead, and explain why?

It would take as much time to do that as sitting down and going through the whole spanking-for-your-own-good spiel and probably have longer lasting impact.


Anyway, I call bullshit on the "I never spanked in anger" crap so many parents spew out. It sounds creepily like someone killing another in cold blood rather than in the heat of the moment.

I got hit a lot as a child, and I didn't like it, but at least when one parent or another hit me, it was an emotional reaction and they didn't give me a lot of bullshit about how rational they really were about the whole thing.

Kids understand anger. I don't know if they understand someone calmly whacking away on their asses with creepy detachment.

PS...also, I find it disturbing to the highest degree that you are trying to make yourself look like a victim of a bunch of Devil Spawn children and that there was nothing left in the world to do but hit them. Kids aren't born bad.

[The Doctor.]

148. I'm sorry you were abused as a child.

That explains much of your attitude here. And your relative incomprehension.

They were not 'devil children' as you seem to think, they were bright, beautiful, inquisitive, and incorrigible. The first one was spanked 4 times. That's all. I remember each and every incident. At the age of 4, he responded to all the other methods, so no more spanking.

The middle genius who figured out how to use phillips head screwdrivers by age 2 had many. In their mindless self-righteousness (yours too), everyone around here assumes any parent who spanks does it as a first resort. Like you, they assume some sort of monstrous act of aggression is behind it. I never said I wasn't angry about what they did, I said I never spanked out of anger. I always thought about everything else I had already tried, That includes talking sternly, time-outs, corners, room, taking away privileges, and so much more. Then I would explain why they were getting a spanking.

I'm also amazed at the number of perfect parents who somehow managed to run a household, get sleep, shower, and go potty without ever taking their eyes off their children.

At least what my kids have done is plausible. Their claims are simply not.

[pipi_k]

156. I'm not the one who claimed they were devil children

You made it seem that way when you stated something to the effect that if other people had the kids you did, they would have done the same thing.

Like there was somehow something unique about their behavior.

Now, they were either Devil Spawn, or they weren't. If they weren't, then that means they were perfectly normal kids doing what normal kids do.

And if they were NOT Devil Spawn children, but only normal healthy kids doing what other normal healthy kids do, I have to wonder whose problem it was that their behavior was so unacceptable that they needed to be hit. Because I'll bet there are other parents here who didn't have perfect kids, either. I'll bet some were real hellions. And I'll bet that some people who had hellion kids never felt the need to spank them to "teach them" how to behave.

So which was it...were they Devil Spawn Children from Hell that you couldn't control except by hitting them, or normal kids doing what kids do?

[The Doctor.]

163. What's with you?

What's with this 'black or white' mode?

They were neither 'normal' nor 'devil spawn'.

Seriously... what's your problem with comprehension?

[pipi_k]

171. Your words

You wrote:


I was responsible for my children NOT dying. Anyone who doesn't get that has never had children that were so adept at getting into trouble and ignoring any other consequences than a swat to the butt.

I'm sure so many of you had perfect little angels upon whom 'time-outs' and whatever else worked like a charm, but don't vilify those of us who deliberately administered a remedy...


You make it sound like YOU had the only kids in the world who got into things and nearly killed themselves in the process.

And really...how many time outs did you "try" before giving up and going for the spankings?


So you paint a picture for us of kids who are "so adept at getting into trouble" that one's first thought is...wow...Devil Spawn.

OK. So they weren't Devil Spawn. And they weren't angels, either.

That must mean that they were....

drumroll, please...

NORMAL CHILDREN!!!!!

And so, I ask again...if they were normal children, just like everyone else's normal children getting into normal children mischief, and others managed to raise that sort of child to adulthood without spanking them, whose problem is it that your normal children's behavior was SO unacceptable they had to be spanked?

They played with scissors...cleaning products...electrical outlets, lighters, etc. So it's a huge bother to put away what could be dangerous to a kid?

It's disturbing to think that a parent would not take a few minutes to think about what a kid might get into that could harm him. From birth to being able to walk around and get into stuff is at least 18 months. Eighteen months to THINK about how to make a home safe for children.

No. It's easier to leave the stuff there and then punish the kids for getting into it.

IMO, that's purposely setting the kid up to fail.

[The Doctor.]

154. I also find it very interesting...

That you turned out so well after being spanked as a child.

How do you explain that?

[The Doctor.]

140. Do you sleep?

If you have children, and you sleep, you have just excoriated yourself.

You either know nothing about parenting, or you have been lucky enough to have children that never woke up at 4am. Your claim that children can be watched 100% of the time is absolutely ridiculous.

Ever go to the bathroom? Take the kids in with you to do so? Hire a babysitter to do so?

Never let them play in their rooms while you clean?


I'm just amazed at how many people pretend to be so laughably perfect around here.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Doctor.]

139. And what that tells me about you

is that you haven't ever raised amazingly resourceful and incorrigible children or haven't the ability to imagine situations where spanking becomes necessary.

[Matariki]

36. I read the article and nowhere does it say the child was "badly bruised"

Are you reading a different article, or simply reading into it, making your own facts?

What it *did* say was the child's grandmother noticed red marks on her bottom - that is *not* the same as 'badly bruised'. In fact, there is no way to infer much of anything from that. It could have been right afterward or it could have be longer and thus more severe. The article doesn't give enough info to draw a conclusion.

That said, I'm in agreement with the Judge's ruling. I think hitting kids is assault.

[Pithlet]

42. The hospital inferred something

As did the judge. :shrug:

[Matariki]

45. Really? Will you be kind enough to quote that?

Because I've read the article TWICE and I see nothing of the kind.

[Pithlet]

51. Gladly.

Her daughter's paternal grandmother noticed red marks on the child's bottom and took her to a hospital to be checked out, according to KZTV-10, Corpus Christi.

[Matariki]

54. "Red marks" does not equal "badly bruised"

Nor does it equate to your claim that the hospital and the judge inferred bruising.

I really don't get this making up of 'facts', jumping to conclusions and creating scenarios in one's head and then treating those 'head movies' as reality :shrug:

Red marks can mean a lot of things - from a recent slap to something much more serious. Point is, there is NO WAY to come to a conclusion from the scant information in the article.

[Pithlet]

55. Yes. Red marks do not equal bruised. But that doesn't matter.

Because bruises aren't the only sign of abuse, see? Point to me where I claimed the judges inferred bruising? I didn't. The judge ruled the girl was abused.

[Matariki]

57. quoting you:

"The hospital inferred something As did the judge."

[Pithlet]

60. Yes. Inferred something.

You said: Not bruises. So then I said "Well, they inferred Something" My point was something happened. It doesn't matter if they were actually bruises. Something happened, there was evidence of it, and judge ruled. Not that hard, really.

[Matariki]

64. You are reading things into the article that aren't there.

Just as likely, if not more so, that the evidence was the word of the grandmother or even the mother herself (as in "yes I spanked my child, what's the big deal" - to which the Judge said "You don't spank children today").

In fact, if I were to jump to conclusions, I'd think that if there *were* bruises on the child the punishment would have been more severe than parenting classes and a $50 fine.

[Pithlet]

68. Why do you keep bringing up bruises? I never said bruises.

I'm also not reading anything that isn't there. It says red marks right in that article. It says she was taken to the hospital. And the judge ruled against her. All right there, in that article. She was indeed charged. And rightly so. What your beef against me is? I have no idea.

[Matariki]

69. You're funny.

I first was replying to LiberalAndProud's post who claimed the child was 'badly bruised' - I asked where that info came from and you jumped in saying the judge and hospital inferred it.

It's amusing to have to explain people's own posts to them ;-)

[Pithlet]

72. Yes. I jumped in because I thought it was funny

that someone was taking exception to someone calling it bruises instead of red marks. I thought it would be evident that's what I was doing. And you read me wrong. I never said the judge was inferring they were bruises. Go back and read that exchange again.

[Pithlet]

52. Oh, and for a bonus

There was also the school nurse that also noticed the red marks and reported it. I'm assuming you didn't miss that in the article, too, given you read it twice. Those red marks sure are long lasting, aren't they?

[Matariki]

59. That was a different child.

Here you go, from the article:

Gonzales is not the first to run afoul of Texas law regarding spanking.

WOAI reported in February 2010 that Shanna Hartman, of Elmendorf, TX, was arrested and charged with a felony after slapping her 10-year-old son for failure to clean his room.

The next day a school nurse noticed red marks on the child's face and neck.

[PoliticAverse]

7. I respectfully disagree. It's still called spanking when done to an adult. n/t

[NightWatcher]

11. And in the VIP room at D-lish it costs an extra fifty

[Obamanaut]

15. Helga's House of Pain sometimes has a special. nt

[AngryAmish]

123. you win the internet for today

[KittyWampus]

8. Intent and degree have a lot to do with the definitions.

[WatsonT]

9. Of course some people go overboard with it and should be punished

but spanking a child is not necessarily wrong.

At 2 you don't really understand why you shouldn't do things.

So coming up with an eloquent power point explanation as to why you shouldn't dart out in to traffic will likely fall on deaf ears.

But a quick swat on the rear usually does the trick.

[notadmblnd]

18. So, a child pays for the parent's inattention with a spanking?

If a child darts out into traffic, it's damn well the parents fault for not watching him/her or making sure the child is secure. It is not the two year old's fault. Remember, he's the child, not the "responsible adult" in your scenario.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Doctor.]

142. Oh my God another 'Ms. Perfect'

You take your kids to the bathroom with you. Sure.

I had gone to the bathroom many times while they were playing. No parent,no matter how diligent, can plan for any and every surprise from their child.

Any one who pretends they can is entirely fooling themselves. Including you.

[pipi_k]

118. Wow...from this story it would appear that

The three year old was sitting around half the morning planning in his head how to get that door unlocked so he could roam the neighborhood.

Playing with his toys, he bided his time...looked innocent while he silently plotted his escape...

At long last, it comes!!! Sixty seconds to freedom!! Since he had done all that planning beforehand, he already had the tools necessary to get a door unlocked and un-deadbolted. Didn't take him more than, oh...5 seconds.

And then, because he was so considerate and didn't want his 1 year old sibling to escape unprotected into the wild (or maybe he just didn't want any company in his escapades), he remembered to shut the door.

All that in the space of less than sixty seconds!!! The kid is a genius!


Or maybe that "less than one minute" was really ten or fifteen or twenty minutes.

I'm sorry...about the only people I would trust to have a fairly accurate idea of passing time are football quarterbacks.

[The Doctor.]

145. I'm really seeing self-righteousness bring out the ugly in people around here.

You've achieved a level of snide I haven't seen in some time.

Yes, it was less than a minute. It doesn't take 20 minutes to pee. Maybe for you, but not for me.
Yes, the boy figured out the deadbolt.
Yes, he closed the door behind him.
Yes, I searched the house.
Yes, the kid is a genius.

I'm amazed at how 'perfect' and 'ordinary' the children of so many around here were.

[pipi_k]

155. I'll tell you what...

brings out the snide in me.

It's people who INSIST that they were only doing something 'for a minute'.


They're the same as people who get stopped for driving drunk. "How much have you had to drink tonight, sir?" "Only two beers".

Uh...yeah. Just like every other drunk who gets pulled over claims. Only two beers. It's like a damned mantra.


Hey, do I think it's possible for a kid to open a locked door (deadbolted, no less)? Sure.

But I also know that people have a tendency to underestimate/understate the length of time they were doing something else.

I'm wondering if that was the very first time the kid got into some mischief after being left alone for "less than one minute". At three years old, I'm sort of doubting it, but you never know.

But if so, I do hope it taught you a lesson.

In any case, I hope after that episode you placed another lock on that door so high up it would have taken a kid at least 15 minutes and a whole pile of wooden crates to reach.

[The Doctor.]

167. I know you won't get this, but when someone like you, who knows nothing

about the particulars of a situation have themselves so convinced they know what 'really' happened, All I see is someone being smug, ignorant, and self-righteous. You're too certain you're right to know how ignorant you are being, and the light that puts you so clearly in to me.

I'm not 'most people', but even in my case, it doesn't take a whole minute to pee. Where, exactly, you get off telling me how long that takes makes you look foolish.

Where you get off assuming I did or didn't do a given thing also makes you look foolish.

Oh, it's you. I should have known. I'm done with you.

[pipi_k]

170. I don't think I'm assuming anything, dear...

I'm going by what you wrote.

You wrote that you used to spank your children for going into their mother's purse.

and the reason you did it...

"I told her; "When you stop bringing pills and cocaine home in your purse, I'll stop spanking OUR children for going into it."


that's a direct quote.

There is no way I'm going to believe that a home where one person does cocaine is NORMAL. And it's certainly not peaceful if the parents are fighting with each other over how the children are disciplined.

It's not June and Ward Cleaver. It's not The Brady Bunch. It's not Ozzie and Harriet.

No home really is. There are no perfect homes despite what people want to believe. And a home where one parent carries, or uses, cocaine and both parents are fighting over the kids is not a fun place to live for anybody. Especially not for the kids who don't have the power to say, "Screw you, I'm leaving".

I've made my mistakes as a parent, and I'll be the first to admit that. I've learned many things in the meantime. I'm also not too arrogant or stuck on my own agenda to sit here and try to justify the way I treated my kids. There is no way on earth I can ever find the audacity to justify some of the things I did.


Some people learn. Some never do.

[WatsonT]

120. Yeah that's exactly it. At no point should parents attempt to teach right/wrong behavior to their

progeny. Instead they should hover constantly and make all decisions for them.

[pipi_k]

130. Some people need parenting classes, I think...

Why is it OK for parents to "teach" their kids using corporal punishment when it's NOT OK to do the same to adults?

Or maybe it should be OK...maybe prisons should institute beatings to teach criminals right from wrong. After all, they're adults...they really should know better. They're just being willfully ignorant and need to have "goodness" beaten into them.


And employees who screw up at work. Let the boss kick their asses.


Someone who talks full voice on his cellphone in a movie theater or restaurant needs to be taught right from wrong. Hell...give him a slap in the face...that'll teach him!


Of course not!!! Adults will probably hit right back! And it could hurrrrrrt! Kids are too small to do much damage even if they do fight back.

I'm wondering how many here who think spanking kids is OK would consider hitting another adult.

Anyway...

News flash!!!

a parent doesn't have to hover or make decisions for the kid. Patience and consistency can do wonders. But consistency takes work, I guess. It's really much easier to be inconsistent and then punish the kid for the parent's lack of skills.

[WatsonT]

131. I think if you look in to it you'll find there are many things that are OK

for kids, but not for adults.

Do you really believe a 2 year old is just a short adult?

Adults can be told why they are wrong. They may listen or not but at least it is a possibility.

A child doesn't have the mental functions to understand objectively why something is wrong.

But they understand pain.

"Someone who talks full voice on his cellphone in a movie theater or restaurant needs to be taught right from wrong. Hell...give him a slap in the face...that'll teach him!"

Actually that should be a hanging.

"Of course not!!! Adults will probably hit right back! And it could hurrrrrrt! Kids are too small to do much damage even if they do fight back."

Right, that's it. That's why it's ok to hit Amish people. :eyes:

"a parent doesn't have to hover or make decisions for the kid. Patience and consistency can do wonders. But consistency takes work, I guess. It's really much easier to be inconsistent and then punish the kid for the parent's lack of skills."

Well I suppose your own opinions could be right and thousands of years of history wrong. But I wouldn't bet on that.

[pipi_k]

134. So what's the age limit?

If a two year old doesn't understand words, but he does understand pain, how about a one year old who gets into something?

Is a one year old too young to slap?

Let's go the other way...

An old person with dementia or Alzheimers does something dangerous let's say he walks out into traffic like a two year old. The person might not understand why that's not OK. Do you slap him to teach him a lesson?


Not sure what you mean about it being OK to hit Amish people. Is there some law I don't know about that makes it OK?

Or do you mean it's "OK" to hit them because they won't hit back?

If it's the second option, then that sort of proves my point, doesn't it? That people generally inflict pain on those they know...or suspect...will not return the favor.

Like kids.

[WatsonT]

136. Someone with dementia cannot learn

so it would simply be cruelty to hit them.

A child can learn.

The cutoff for spanking is that point at which other methods are more effective.

At one point in history this was known as "common sense" or even (gasp!) "parenting".

"Not sure what you mean about it being OK to hit Amish people. Is there some law I don't know about that makes it OK?"

Your theory was that people who support corporal punishment for children do so because it's ok to hit kids since they won't hit back. Amish won't hit back either but we don't think it's ok to hit them. Ergo your theory was wrong.

[pipi_k]

138. OK, first...

the Amish people...

One of my other arguments about why people don't hit adults is that an adult with all his faculties can take his attacker's ass to court.

That's just another reason why adults don't generally strike someone else but they will hit a kid. Kids can't report it to the police. The only way someone is going to know is if there are bruises. But then, any creative parent can claim (and sort of be believed) that the kid falls down a lot. Which small children do. As long as there are no broken bones or hand-prints, the parent can get away with it.

Try that with an adult.


As far as a dementia patient not being able to learn whereas a kid can...let me relate a story about what happened with one of my nieces. When she was a very small child, she had screaming and biting issues. My mother used to watch her while my sister worked. My niece bit my mother a couple of times. My mother bit her back. She admitted doing that. Probably also gave her a few slaps on the ass as well for good measure.

The behavior escalated. Everyone thought the kid was a spoiled little brat. Finally a doctor asked for some tests to be done on my niece's brain. Oh, surprise, surprise. They found something going on in her brain that caused these fits. She was put on medication and the fits stopped. She is now a very pleasant 11 year old.

I don't know about my mom, but if I had spanked and bitten a kid who couldn't HELP how she acted, I would feel like shit the rest of my life.

So many people claiming they "had no choice" in order to rationalize hitting their kids might never know if there might have been some REAL physiological problem causing the misbehavior.

But they're all proud of themselves anyway.

:puke:

[tularetom]

10. If it was done to some adults it might be called "foreplay"

For me it's pretty easy to understand the point at which spanking becomes child abuse. If the parent loses his or her temper and strikes the kid out of anger or frustration, with the hand or an object, on the butt or elsewhere, I'd consider that child abuse.

A smack on the butt to calm down an overxuberant child, or to warn him away from a dangerous situation, is not child abuse.

Before I judge whether Ms Gonzales' punishment was excessive, I'd have to know a bit more than this post tells me. Although the red marks on the ass are probably not a good sign. On the other hand, the grandmother had to know that taking the kid to the hospital was going to open a bag of worms, so maybe this is nothing more than a nosy mother in law.

[pipi_k]

12. Any kind of striking, actually...

it doesn't even have to be called spanking or swatting or whatever other cutsie little names parents give it for hitting their kid.

In this society, it's OK to hit/strike a kid. Slap it on the butt. Slap its hand.


Do it to an adult...you're either going to get sued for battery or punched in the face.


That's why people don't do it to adults.

But kids can't fight back. Until the kids get big enough to give the parent an ass-kicking. Then...surprise surprise...the hitting usually stops.

[juajen]

19. Time out is good. But, when a child runs out into the street, immediate action

is necessary. This is not done out of anger, but fear of death. Same with playing with an electric outlet or attempting to touch a hot stove.

If you put a child in time out for these serious offenses, they equate it with the seriousness of pulling little Ginny's hair. I don't know many people who have toddlers who haven't spanked their children for serious offenses. Common sense should prevail. What a society. Drug addicted mothers and fathers get custody of children in divorce battles all the time, but, for God's sake, don't spank a child. Ridiculous!

[pipi_k]

22. So by the same token...

If you had an aged parent who stepped off the curb into traffic, almost getting hit by a car, you would jerk him/her back and give him/her a swat on the ass out of fear?

Seriously...that would be your first reaction?


I'm thinking probably not...

[Liberal_in_LA]

27. good analogy.

[lapislzi]

146. In both cases, I have yanked, never spanked.

Striking a child or other "non competent" being (pets included) only teaches that individual what they'll get hit for. Fear as a means of control. Not for me.

[notadmblnd]

25. Again, blame the child for a parents neglect?

What the hell is wrong with people? Anyone that would leave a toddler unattended near a hot stove or an outlet not child proofed should have their ass beat!

[mcar]

31. My two children, now 24 and 14,

were never spanked. Punished, yes. Given appropriate consequences for misbehavior, yes. Spanked, never. How do you explain to a small child that it's OK for me, a large person, to hit him, but it's not OK for him to hit his friend? Hmmm. Ridiculous? I think not.

Example: My 14 YO, when he was 2, was an escape artist. Used to run out of the house and run laughing down the street all the time. Do you think spanking him would have solved the problem? I don't.

I changed the deadbolts on the house to keylocks on both sides so he couldn't turn it open. Solved the problem. No more escape artist.

Spanking teaches kids that hitting is OK.

[pipi_k]

32. Thank you...there's a ridiculousness about spanking

that defies logic.

I've actually seen parents whose kid hit some other kid yell at the kid and slap him while telling the kid it's not OK to hit other people.


WTF x 1,000

[Dappleganger]

41. Well said.

And running into the street doesn't require a spanking--simply express the sense of danger in a grave manner, show them how afraid you are for them. One of boys started to cry as soon as he figured out what could have happened after I scolded him for running into the street. He never ever did it again. None of his 3 sibs did it either, they all yelled to "watch out!" and they listened.

Mine have never been spanked but they could easily take me physically (they are all taller than their mom). However, I hold the keys to the internet, their data plans and dinner--thankfully, they still listen. :)

[Cid_B]

73. As a note... hitting is absolutely OK...

... under the right circumstances in both the adult and the children's world.

Also, a spanking may very well have solved the issue.

[Luminous Animal]

107. Yes. May have through fear of violence. So happy that I raised my child to behave without violence.

It may have taken a bit more effort and my time, but it was worth it.

[Cid_B]

112. That might be the smuggest (most smug??) post I've ever seen on DU

Seriously though, good for you.

Just remember that the ability for you and your monk-like children to make such a choice is dependent on folks like me and mine.

Cops and Soldiers and everyone else (not limited to a career field) who runs to the sound of a fight or gunfire so that you can run away.

[Luminous Animal]

147. How in the world do you correlate raising a child without violence TO INDUCE

THAT CHILD TO BEHAVE, with running away from a fight? Are you suggesting that abusing children by spanking them somehow teaches them to be brave?

[trumad]

125. Hitting another human being is never OK

unless you're defending yourself.

Would if the spanking didn't solve the issue... do you keep spanking? Maybe ramp it up a bit... a beating... when does it stop.

You spank your child you're a douchebag.

[Liberal_in_LA]

159. +1000

[Bill McBlueState]

61. "I don't know many people who ... haven't spanked their children"

Maybe you need to get to know some better parents.

In the families I know, parenting skills seem to be inversely correlated with willingness to spank. The parents who spank are complete spazzes who seem to have no idea what they're doing. The ones who don't spank are the together ones, and they have well-behaved kids that you can actually converse with.

[trumad]

126. Bingo.

[Devil_Fish]

92. My daughter is almost two and neither I or my wife have ever hit her.NT

[Luminous Animal]

106. Nice. Keep it up and you will find that you will never "have" to. It is so easy to

distract children from bad behavior with humor and games. The problems arise when we put our own interests above theirs. And yes, it can be tedious and inconvenient. But, in the end, you get a child (and her friends) who are not afraid of you. Who trust you not to hurt them or frighten them.
.

[Bill McBlueState]

129. yes!

I've never hit my daughter, who's four. By working hard at parenting and having way more patience than I thought I did, I've got a kid who respects me as the grown-up in the room and listens to me without being afraid of me.

[Luminous Animal]

100. I never once abused my child. That is I never once hit my child. That is, I never once spanked my

child.

Spanking is hitting. Hitting is abuse. And if your child runs out into the street, that means that YOU have lost control of the situation, and physically abusing a child for your loss of control is pathetic.

[The Doctor.]

109. Wow... it's almost like you're a parent.

Or have first-hand experience otherwise.

Well said.

[trumad]

127. Really---so the crew you hang with spank their kids..

nice bunch of people there.....

You hit your child you're a douche.

[snooper2]

211. sued, battery, or a good time

:evilgrin:

[aikoaiko]

16. When done to an adult, its called sexxy time.

But seriously, I think the criminal charge really speaks to the issue -- injury to a child. There is no reason to injure a child for the sake of punishment.

[gkhouston]

17. Wow, it's been a while since we wallowed in this topic.

Olive Garden next?

[Liberal_in_LA]

26. only if there is a new article regarding the OG

[Rex]

20. I got beat with a belt, they called it 'spanking'.

It was the norm back in my day. All it did was make me want to act more like an anarchist and less like a good kid.

[Matariki]

38. Yeah - same here.

I consider it an improvement that it's no longer acceptable to hit children.

[JonLP24]

21. I'm glad

I grew up with my mom who didn't spank. My uncle liked to spank and my dad liked to give me a whack upside the head.

[Kaleva]

24. Spanking a child in Texas is only illegal when there is injury to the child.

"A CPS spokesperson told KZTV-10 that spanking is only considered criminal when it injures the child. The Texas Attorney General's website has a similar message: "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.""

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfmoms/detail?entry_id=91595#ixzz1QbygOLOp

This isn't a case of simple spanking but one of where the child needed medical attention after being hit by the mother.

[awoke_in_2003]

28. I have never had to do this...

to any of my grandchildren (stepdaughters were to old to spank when I married). If they get out of control (infrequent), I have simply gotten on their level, and told them in a calm voice to chill out, or explain what they are doing is wrong. I have never had an issue doing this. I have also never made the mistake some parents have- they know when I say "No" it means "No", I won't give in to pleading and begging. Consistency and respect have always worked for me.

[Marrah_G]

30. If it involves only adults it could be called a good time :)

[kath]

34. THIS. CHILD. HAD. BRUISES.

A "little swat to the behind" doesn't leave bruises. This child was abused. PERIOD.

[Matariki]

37. WHERE does it say the child had bruises?

Are you reading a different article than the OP - or one of your own making?

There is NOTHING in the article about the child having bruises.

[kath]

74. The child had persistent red marks on her bottom - if it leaves persistent marks, it's abuse.

Superficial bruises (hematomas) are red; deeper ones are blue or purple initially, changing color as they age.

http://books.google.com/books?id=kjwOQzYbg88C&pg=PA306&lpg=PA306&dq=superficial+hematoma+red+purple&source=bl&ots=_yrqgaMKaF&sig=t27Xt4S8QV3PDfMWL6LZBoo-Nk0&hl=en&ei=CZsKTvXFH8jAgQe1j8GpAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://what-when-how.com/forensic-sciences/blunt-injury/ (see under "contusions")

http://www.botanical-online.com/english/hematoma.htm

[Pithlet]

79. Oh no! Don't say bruises.

:sarcasm:

[Matariki]

111. Where exactly does either article use the word "persistent"?

Or are you quoting a different article?

The articles posted by the OP read: "Her daughter's paternal grandmother noticed red marks on the child's bottom and took her to a hospital to be checked out."

Nothing there at all about the marks the grandmother noticed persisting or otherwise.

And that's what I'm talking about - people adding their own "facts" to support the conclusions they want to make.

[kelly1mm]

44. YOUR. 'FACTS'. ARE.NOT.IN.THE.OP. PERIOD. link????nt

[Pithlet]

47. OMG SHOUTING AHHHHH n/t

[kelly1mm]

48. Haha! I thought it was appropriate given the post I replied to. nt

[Pithlet]

49. Well, you're automatically wrong because

some people on the internet are calling you out for using incorrect terminology. Nevermind the child actually had marks that had to have lasted at least long enough for the hospital to take action that ultimately leading to a judge ruling against her! They WEREN'T BRUISES!! You're WRONG!!!!!!!111

[Matariki]

56. Look, I think the Judge did the right thing

but don't you think the news agency would have use the word 'bruise' if they meant bruise?

Threads like this are always full of people who kind of fabricate a story based more on their own opinions than on actual facts and it baffles me. Usually there isn't enough information in an article to draw a conclusion one way or the other, yet people manage to draw conclusions.

[Pithlet]

58. Bruise. Red mark. Bruise. Red mark. Who cares?

Semantics. And I happen to think there were plenty of details in this article to draw conclusions. But if someone forms an opinion based on an an article on the intnernet anyway? Again. Who cares.

[Matariki]

62. If you slap yourself somewhere fleshy it leaves a red mark.

Not the same as a bruise. You really can't know from the article what 'red mark' actually means because it doesn't say.

I believe we're in agreement that people shouldn't hit kids. Why don't we leave it at that?

[Pithlet]

63. Yes, you can know. SHe was taken to a hospital.

I really don't think taken to a hospital and judge ruling would stem from fleshy mark from slaping yourself kind of red mark. It's not an unreasonable conclusion from those facts at all.

[Matariki]

66. Not if the grandmother didn't know what caused the marks.

Or perhaps the child's paternal grandmother has an personal issue with her daughter-in-law and it was a way to get at her. Who knows? I don't know and neither do you.

The article doesn't give you enough information to jump to any conclusion. Funny how people do that anyway.

[Pithlet]

70. I know. Why does anyone go on a message board and dare form an opinion.

They shoudl wait for that second or third story that always comes out that has ALL the details! Or the one where the person will come out and actually confess! Otherwise they should never, ever have an opinion. Man, DU and every other messabe would be dead. How boring. Nope. Sorry. Think I'll have an opinion, if you don't mind. The odds that this mother spanked her child? Pretty high, I'm guessing. So I'll take the risk. Sorry if you don't like it.

[Matariki]

76. You don't see the difference between forming an opinion and embellishing facts?

For instance, you can form an opinion on whether it is okay or not to spank children - or whether it's appropriate for the state to legislate a parent's right to do so. What anyone thinks about that is their opinion. I'm certainly not saying anyone shouldn't 'dare' do that.

On the other hand - filling in the scant facts of an article with fabrications of one's own isn't 'forming an opinion' - it's fuzzy thinking.

FWIW I don't think there's any question about whether the woman in the article spanked her child.

[Pithlet]

77. But it wasn't filling in facts.

The child had marks on their body. It would be one thing if the article hadn't mentioned any sort of marks at all. Then you'd have a point. But one terminology was exchanged for another. That's all. Another thing I'm not getting is, scant facts? There are multiple paragraphs.

[Matariki]

80. Sigh.

The only thing the article says about marks on the child was that the grandmother saw them and took her to the hospital. That's it. There is no info as to whether they were still there when she got to the hospital, no info as to whether they were serious enough to cause bruising or whether they were slight and recent, nothing more than to state what the grandmother saw.

That's what I mean by scant facts. Anyone jumping to a conclusion other than what the article stated - which was that the grandmother saw red marks - is fabricating a story around stuff they are making up.

[Pithlet]

81. So we're just imagining that the judge ruled against her?

Yes, the fact that those red marks are mentioned, and the fact that there is an actual judgment (not to mention she already lost custody, which means it's likely this isn't even the first incident) makes the likelyhood that those marks were significant pretty likely. I don't think it's a wild jump to conclusions that there was actual evidence that led to a judgment against her. You're free to disagree. But it's a little nutty to think it's a wild jump to conclusions.

[Matariki]

82. The ruling was for spanking her child - which isn't in question.

Again you are making connections without reference or proof. Where does it say what was used as evidence for the Judge's ruling?


If you read this exchange, you could as easily come to the conclusion that the mother never denied spanking her kid in the first place:

"You don't spank children today," said Longoria, "in the old days, maybe we got spanked, but there was a different quarrel. You don't spank children. You understand?"

Gonzales answered, "Yes, sir."

[Pithlet]

84. Yes, which is why this discussion ridiculous to begin with.

I don't get why the poster was jumped on about the bruises comment anyway.

[Matariki]

83. BTW - here's another article:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/06/20/137303137/mom-punished-for-spanking-child-sparks-debate-on-discipline

On Friday, a Texas judge sentenced Rosalina Gonzales to five years probation and ordered her to take parenting classes, after she admitted that she spanked her child. Corpus Christi's KZTV reports that Gonzales pleaded guilty to causing injury to a child, but prosecutors said the woman used her hand and did not leave bruises on the 2-year-old.

[Pithlet]

86. What is your point?

What are you arguing?????

[Matariki]

87. People's reading comprehension, if you'd like to know.

You and I are both going at it. But I guess if I keep answering your posts then I'm "arguing"? What do you call your part in our exchange?

[Pithlet]

89. Argument as in case. What are you saying?

So you're making the argument that people don't know how to read. Okay... I don't think that's it. It says right in the article that there are red marks and she took herto the hospoital. Because you choose to disregard their significance and or don't believe them doesn't mean others have to do that. I choose to give them more weight. That, I think is the crux of our disagreement.

[Matariki]

95. Failure to communicate.

I am NOT disregarding their significance. I'm saying that the article doesn't give any info about their significance and therefore I can't draw a fact based conclusion.

All the article says is that the *reason* the grandmother said she took the child to the hospital was because she saw red marks. There is nothing in that sentence to indicate whether those marks were there, whether anyone at the hospital saw them, or whether they caused bruises. Is that really difficult to understand?

Also, did you read this article? The "prosecutors said the woman used her hand and did not leave bruises on the 2-year-old"

See - that is a fact from which you can draw a conclusion. That and you can safely say what the grandmother says she saw.

[Pithlet]

97. I'm sorry. It's just that this is a pet peeve of mine.

It's fine if you don't feel comfortable drawing your own conclusions from given facts from a story. THat's fine. But.. ugh... I do hate it when people come in and admonish everyone else who does. It grates. People are going to discuss stories posted on the internet, particularly the juicy and controversial ones and they're going to form opinions. I hate being told that my opinion is knee jerk or formed without enough facts to back it up on the internet of all places. I get titchy. It's not as if most stories are just so fact filled, and that other stories come along with more, where people will confess. IT isn't going to happen.

Difficult to understand? I'm sorry, but woman who already lost custody involved in a story that states someone observed marks? I'm confident in my opinion.

[Matariki]

103. Okay, well how about this -

The post I originally replied to - the one that started our exchange - WRONGLY jumped to the conclusion that the child was "badly bruised". That's the problem with jumping to conclusions without having all the facts.

I've cited this other article enough times, but what the heck, you've yet to acknowledge it:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/06/20/137303137/mom-punished-for-spanking-child-sparks-debate-on-discipline
Corpus Christi's KZTV reports that Gonzales pleaded guilty to causing injury to a child, but prosecutors said the woman used her hand and did not leave bruises on the 2-year-old.

[Pithlet]

105. Yes, but number one, that wasn't the article the other poster responded to

and number two, it wasn't a correction, like Well, they were red marks, not bruises. It was THERE WERE NO BRUISES! as if there had been no marks at all. I think the fact that there were marks mentioned in the story, whether or not one chooses to regard that fact, is significant.

[Matariki]

108. See, again with the reading thing.

I asked *where* the article stated there were bruises - because it patently didn't. I did not shout "THERE WERE NO BRUISES!"

[kath]

85. See my post #74, also "Corporal punishment that injures or leaves marks is excessive and considered

abuse by child protection agencies in the United States", per the Mayo Clinic (and probably every pediatric training program in the US).
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/child-abuse/DS01099/DSECTION=symptoms

I've had professional training in the recognition of child abuse, so I know of what I speak. (and I know that a superficial hematoma, aka a bruise, can be red in color, not purple, at least initially.)

[Matariki]

90. Again, I applaud the Judge's ruling. People shouldn't hit or spank kids, imo.

I'm addressing the habit folks have of reading an article and elaborating on what they read. There's no indication either way if the red marks the grandmother saw were even still there at the hospital. The article only says that's why she took her grandchild there.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/06/20/137303137/mom-punished-for-spanking-child-sparks-debate-on-discipline

On Friday, a Texas judge sentenced Rosalina Gonzales to five years probation and ordered her to take parenting classes, after she admitted that she spanked her child. Corpus Christi's KZTV reports that Gonzales pleaded guilty to causing injury to a child, but prosecutors said the woman used her hand and did not leave bruises on the 2-year-old.

[Pithlet]

93. People elaborate on what they read? Say it isn't so.

No, the article doesn't say. Yes, people made a guess based on what they feel more likely. Stop the internet.

[Matariki]

99. People often make "guesses" based on their own prejudices and preconceptions

It's a bad, sloppy habit.

We could probably go on like this all night :P

[Pithlet]

102. IT's the internet. It's meant to be fun.

It's not meant to be a jury room.

[Dappleganger]

40. The only thing a spanking does is make a parent feel superior.

[MelungeonWoman]

53. Don't forget stress relief

[Liberal_in_LA]

158. yup.

[True Earthling]

43. Every study done on corporal punishment has shown that it leads to aggression..

and violent behavior in the child.

Meta-Analysis in 2002

In 2002, researcher Elizabeth Thompson Gershoff published a comprehensive meta-analysis of the studies on corporal punishment over the last sixty-two years. She found a consistency in the research indicating harmful effects from spanking that is rare in social science research. She reviewed eighty-eight studies, including 117 tests of the hypothesis that corporal punishment is associated with harmful effects such as aggression, delinquency in childhood, crime, antisocial behavior as an adult, low empathy or conscience, poor parent-child relations, and mental health problems such as depression. Of the tests, 103 found results suggesting such negative effects of spanking. Despite the fact that there were some methodological weaknesses of many pre-1997 studies, and while they are not conclusive evidence, these statistics, based on decades of research, do seem to clarify that the harmful effects of corporal punishment are serious; indeed, they appear to produce the same harmful effects of physical abuse, albeit to a lesser degree.They support and complement more recent research that provides greater evidence of causation. Some researchers believe the result of this meta-analysis reveals an “unprecedented degree of consistency in research findings.” While no study has controlled for every confounding factor that could contribute to the adverse effects associated with spanking, the research as a whole allows for the conclusion that the associations between spanking and the various problems discussed herein are not coincidental. “Triangulation” is a well-recognized scientific principle holding that valid conclusions may be based on cumulative evidence from studies, which, taken one by one, are not conclusive. This basically means that weaknesses in some studies have been dealt with in other studies. When the results of the studies converge, this clarifies the causal link between spanking and the harmful associations. In sum, the vast majority of studies on corporal punishment demonstrate harmful long-term effects: the scientific data has reached the point of triangulation when it comes to the harmful consequences of spanking children.
http://www.deanapollardsacks.com/Banning-Child-Corporal-Punishment.pdf

[Liquorice]

65. Spanking is also linked to lower IQ. I wonder whether that is because parents

with lower IQ's tend to spank more than higher IQ parents, or whether spanking actually lowers the IQ. I actually think it's the former. The more intelligent and educated the parent, the less likely they are to spank. And smart parents tend to pass on the intelligence genes to their kids. So kids who aren't spanked tend to come from smarter families. IMO


"The relationship between spanking and intelligence is found in children around the world, said the lead author of the study, University of New Hampshire professor Murray Straus. Children in the United States who were spanked had lower IQs -- by 2.8 to 5 points -- than those who were not spanked, Straus found."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/09/spanking-iq.html

[hobbit709]

113. I wonder what my IQ would have been without the beatings in that case.

since my IQ is 135. I grew up with an alcoholic stepfather whose idea of quality family time was to take his belt off and use it on us with the buckle end.

[WinkyDink]

117. OFGS. There is no correlation.

[True Earthling]

124. OFGS? Is that a gut reaction or can you cite a study to back that up?

Here's a study which claims there is a correlation...

In the U.S., Straus and his colleague Mallie Paschall of the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation looked at 1,510 children — 806 kids ages 2 to 4, and 704 ages 5 to 9 — and found that roughly three-quarters had endured some kind of corporal punishment in the previous two weeks, according to interviews with the mothers. Researchers measured the children's IQ initially, then again four years later. Those kids who hadn't been spanked in the initial survey period scored significantly better on intelligence and achievement tests than those who had been hit. Among the 2-to-4-year-olds, the difference in IQ was five points; among the older kids, there was a 2.8-point gap. That association held after taking into account parental education, income and other environmental factors, says Straus.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1926222,00.html

[Liquorice]

151. There's a clear correlation. That was the whole point of the study. People get so irate

when science proves them wrong. Even democrats can hate science when it doesn't back them up, I guess. :shrug:

[The Doctor.]

209. Unfortunately, it's not 'science'.

None of those studies distinguished between proper spanking and abuse. Also, there is the factor that less intelligent children might also incur discipline more often or to a greater degree than more intelligent ones.

That 'study' is about as valid as the 'racial intelligence' studies which are also very easily taken apart.


If I'm wrong, go get the methodology and we'll see.

[tpsbmam]

160. Hitting a child, no matter what you call it,

teaches a child that lashing out physically is the way to control other people's behavior. It teaches them that, rather than communication, hitting is the way to interact with others when you disapprove of or dislike what they say and/or do, or when you want to be the powerful one in a relationship with others. Modeling is the strongest form of teaching and by hitting, the parents model physical aggression and violence as being an acceptable means to an end.

[The Doctor.]

172. And every one of those studies is flawed. Heavily.

Mainly, they never distinguished between abusive and disciplinary spanking.

Which is the main reason we are here today with hoards of people convinced that spanking is 'evil'. They are convinced that those who spank do so out of pure anger and aggression because of these flawed studies.

There are other issues with the methodology failing to distinguish between causation and correlation, which is the great big boogeyman of study research. The bottom line is that there is no proof, and very little real evidence, that spanking is the cause of problems later in life. Just looking at the number of 'perfect' parents in this thread who were spanked as children is significant evidence of that.

I don't for one second care about those studies either way. I have more than enough reason to believe that my children are all alive today because spanking was in the parental toolbox. It was the last tool, even after psychological tactics that would seem even more evil to the Mr. and Mrs. 'Perfects' around here.

As of now, I'm very happy with the results as all three of them have not incurred a spanking after the age of 5, and not one of them are at all 'aggressive', and they certainly don't have 'low IQs' (To hell with the SB-5). No one can tell me I was 'wrong' about something that worked quite well when it became necessary. I'm sure that there are plenty of people (as proven here) that cannot imagine circumstances in which spanking is a proper solution, and I envy their good fortune. I'm sure life would have been easier for me if I had such perfect children, but I far prefer not only the challenge I have met, but the devastatingly brilliant, imaginative, and competent kids I've raised.

Hell, I've yet to hear about a 2 year old that figured out a phillps-head screwdriver and took his entire room apart.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125548136491383915.html

[True Earthling]

194. There are MANY, MANY studies which shows a correlation between corporal punishment

and aggressive, antisocial behavior...

Meta-Analysis in 2002

In 2002, researcher Elizabeth Thompson Gershoff published a comprehensive meta-analysis of the studies on corporal punishment over the last sixty-two years. She found a consistency in the research indicating harmful effects from spanking that is rare in social science research. She reviewed eighty-eight studies, including 117 tests of the hypothesis that corporal punishment is associated with harmful effects such as aggression, delinquency in childhood, crime, antisocial behavior as an adult, low empathy or conscience, poor parent-child relations, and mental health problems such as depression. Of the tests, 103 found results suggesting such negative effects of spanking. Despite the fact that there were some methodological weaknesses of many pre-1997 studies, and while they are not conclusive evidence, these statistics, based on decades of research, do seem to clarify that the harmful effects of corporal punishment are serious; indeed, they appear to produce the same harmful effects of physical abuse, albeit to a lesser degree.They support and complement more recent research that provides greater evidence of causation. Some researchers believe the result of this meta-analysis reveals an “unprecedented degree of consistency in research findings.” While no study has controlled for every confounding factor that could contribute to the adverse effects associated with spanking, the research as a whole allows for the conclusion that the associations between spanking and the various problems discussed herein are not coincidental. “Triangulation” is a well-recognized scientific principle holding that valid conclusions may be based on cumulative evidence from studies, which, taken one by one, are not conclusive. This basically means that weaknesses in some studies have been dealt with in other studies. When the results of the studies converge, this clarifies the causal link between spanking and the harmful associations. In sum, the vast majority of studies on corporal punishment demonstrate harmful long-term effects: the scientific data has reached the point of triangulation when it comes to the harmful consequences of spanking children.

http://www.deanapollardsacks.com/Banning-Child-Corporal-Punishment.pdf

[The Doctor.]

199. Methodology... Bring It.

A meta-analysis is worthless unless both it and the cited studies' methodology is well laid-out, contiguous, and confluent.

Let's see the methodology of just one of the cited studies (your pick) and of the meta-analysis.

I already know the size, shape, and cut of the hole in them, but I don't mind being surprised.

It's nuts and bolts time.

[struggle4progress]

50. "... grandmother, who has custody ... took the girl to the local hospital ..."

Mom Gets Probation For Spanking Daughter
Margaret Hartmann
http://jezebel.com/5813452/mom-gets-probation-for-spanking-daughter

"You can't whop a kid if you aren't the guardian" sounds like a reasonable start to me

[stevenleser]

98. I never hit my child and she is turning into a really great young lady.

17 years old, both academic and sports scholarships, sweet as can be, never was a surly teenager, just on all around great person.

And she was never hit/spanked/etc.

[cali]

114. never hit my now 24 year old son either and he was a really rambunctious

all over the place kid. He's just fine.

[WinkyDink]

116. Adults do get "spanked," some by paying.

[Le Taz Hot]

122. Spanking a child means you don't have the

knowledge, creativity, love or compassion to be a parent. I still remember my beati . . , er, "spankings." I walked out of Mummy Dearest's house at 17 and never looked back.

[The Doctor.]

153. I'm sorry you were abused as a child.

That does not make other parents who use spanking the same as your mother.

I'm seeing a pattern here of 'perfect people' who were spanked as children and now view spanking as horrendous. If it turns kids into such bad people, why are there so many victims of spanking who are such wonderful parents around here?

[Liquorice]

165. How do you know those people are wonderful parents? Because they bill themselves as such? nt

[pipi_k]

169. And there ya go...

People hawk themselves as "good parents" all the time. I've seen it from people who never gave two shits about their kids. They honestly thought they were good...no...great parents.

If someone were to ask me today what kind of parent I was, I would have to truthfully say that I wasn't as good as I could have been. I did my best with what I knew at the time. I was very young. Knowing what I do now, I would give so much to be able to go back and change many things. Getting older means you should be able to learn from your mistakes.


I have apologized to my kids, and because they're parents themselves, they understand.

So. I was not what I would call a great mom. But I did my best.

[NeedleCast]

128. Spaking Thread - Awesome

I like it when, at 9:33 AM, I've already locked in an hour long diversion from work where I can watch self righteous people tell other self righteous people how to parent.

and...FIGHT!

[pipi_k]

143. Meanwhile...

there are those who wander in to self-righteously shame everyone else for fighting over the issue of spanking.

:+

[ceile]

137. Extra butter on mine please.

:popcorn:

[One_Life_To_Give]

149. Used to get Spanked by the CEO

Most of the guys weren't too thrilled about it but were not sure how to react either. As apparently this was more common years ago. Besides it seemed only a question of time before he would of done it to a female and that we were sure was out of bounds.

Although that and other times in my life never left a mark behind. If the kid had marks still visible when seen at the emergency room then Mom got off too easy. I am not anti-Spanking. But leaving a mark I think has long been considered abuse.

[The Doctor.]

152. Never have I seen a thread so brimming with smug self-righteousness.

It's really brought out the 'smugliness' of some people.

[Matariki]

162. You know, not that long ago it was acceptable for a man to 'physically punish' his wife.

But fortunately that isn't the case any more. Hopefully we will evolve in this matter of hitting children as well and it will seem absurd that anyone ever called those against such practices 'smug'.

[The Doctor.]

166. Pfft... Of all the false equivalencies, this is up there.

This may come as a shock to you, but adults are generally equipped with this thing called 'reason'. It is for this 'reason' that using 'physical punishment' against adults is generally seen as unnecessary as adults can 'explain' things and use 'reason' with each-other.

Children cannot.

The 'reason' one might spank a child is to create immediate and situationally relevant negative reinforcement because explanations and 'reason' will not as effectively convince the child not to light the drapes on fire. You could try to explain flames and death to a 2 year old, but those things are 'abstract' to them. If the last several times they lit the drapes on fire, you tried time outs, explanations, taking toys/privileges, and other non-physical actions, then perhaps you have a clue that those things are not working.

When my oldest was barely a year old, he saw a lit candle on the coffee table. It fascinated him. He walked over to it and started to reach for the flame. I told him in a warning tone, "No... that's HOT". He kept reaching. I let him. I let him touch the flame for a fraction of a second. I pulled his hand away as his eyes went wide, then pulled him into the bathroom as he began to cry so I could run cold water on his finger. He wasn't burned, but he felt it alright. He knew never to play with fire, or anything I called 'hot', for the rest of his toddler-hood.

There is a 'reason' physical negative reinforcement works with children, and a reason it is uncalled for with adults.

[Matariki]

179. I disagree. Both are/were based on the idea of ownership and physical dominance.

You don't own your children. And just because you are bigger than they are doesn't mean hitting them is an acceptable thing to do.

[The Doctor.]

186. So... somehow you think that totally ignoring the point is somehow effective?

Yes, the idea of hitting women was about 'ownership'. No shit. We got that from the last post.

Then, somehow, you managed to respond to my post without reading or comprehending this point;

The REASON we don't use physical correction on adults is because adults can understand *REASON*. You can tell an adult not to walk into traffic because they could be injured or killed. A child does not understand those consequences. In order to teach the child not to go into the street, they must be subjected to consequences that are under the parent's control... whatever those would be.

If one spanks children to 'establish physical dominance', that is certainly abuse. Doing it to prevent dangerous behaviors has not one little bitty thing to do with dominance, it has to do with protecting one's children.

All I've seen throughout this entire thread are people deliberately conflating, assuming, accusing, and failing to allow for any distinctions of any kind, and this deliberate ignorance (like ignoring points so as not to have to deal with them) is entirely driven by emotion.

Just like the anti-choice people that are 100% emotionally convinced that pro-choice people are nothing but murderers, the anti-spanking crowd here are totally incapable of seeing how spanking can be used properly and with good results.

I can't get through so much deliberate unreasoning, so I guess this is just pointless.

[Odin2005]

175. Yes, being against CHILD ABUSE is so horrible!

:sarcasm:

[The Doctor.]

176. No, it's not. Child abuse should not be tolerated.

Spanking, otoh, can be an effective diciplinary technique that corrects behavior without causing harm.

If you look at the number of people in this thread who became 'perfect' parents after being spanked as children, that's all the proof one needs.

[Odin2005]

192. 50 years ago beating schoolkids with paddles was considered an...

..."effective disciplinary technique". If an abusive behavior is engrained in a society few realize that they are doing harm. That's why, for example, spousal rape was considered an oxymoron until 40 years ago, it was accepted that men had a right to make their wives have sex with them.

[The Doctor.]

197. Yes, and kids in high school are so much more well-behaved these days.

:eyes:

No, I'm not advocating 'paddling' in school. Why? Because discipline should be up to the parents. If a teacher calls me and tells me that my kid did something so out of line, I will handle it.

But look where we are now. Schools now are atrocious. Parents these days sue schools, rather than investigate what their kid might have done wrong. Parents don't act like parents at all. I guarantee you that the kids who were afraid of disciplinary action by their parents are the ones more likely to behave in school than the ones who were just plain beaten or left daily to their own devices.

Naturally, attention is the key. That's attention to behavior and corrective measures where necessary, that doesn't always mean 'spanking'.

[Darkhawk32]

168. Wow. So many "Super Parents" in this thread!!

There is a huge difference between a spanking and physical abuse!

You don't spank children. Bullshit. I don't spank my children every day, nor every week, nor every month. I usually give them the stare or the booming voice, but still I, myself and ONLY myself, reserve the right to spank my child if it is warranted. It has to be a pretty bad incident to even consider. But to make a blanket statement that spanking is strictly forbidden is irresponsible, naive and unrealistic.

I am my children's FATHER. I am NOT their friend. Parents that want to be "friends" with their kids while they're growing up quite frankly is doing my harm than good.

[Odin2005]

174. You are just teaching your kids that violence is the answer to problems.

[The Doctor.]

177. Which is entirely bullshit.

What you teach them is that there are consequences for their actions.

A child does not see their parent 'solving a problem', They see themselves suffering a consequence. If that isn't how they see it, then no other disciplinary action would work either.

Taking toys away? Well then stealing must be the 'answer to problems'.

Right?

One has to twist things in order to justify their emotional responses to a given issue. This issue is very similar to others in that respect.

Just look at the ugly accusations and assumptions the chronically self-righteous resort to on this thread. It's almost as bad as dealing with anti-choice people who scream 'murderer!' at anyone who's pro-choice.

[pipi_k]

181. Yeah, and what they learn about the consequences of their actions

is that if they don't behave as others want them to, they'll be hit.

It's what I grew up expecting. If I don't do what others want. If I don't behave the way others think I should. If I do anything wrong....

someone is going to hit me.

Not only that, but it nearly caused me to accept physical violence in my personal relationships. I very nearly accepted that being hit by a man was "normal".

There are other ways to show someone that there are consequences for their actions that don't involve spanking, hitting, or otherwise striking a child.

And no...taking away a child's toys isn't going to equate to stealing. If you take away the kid's toys, they're still his. But the PARENT is holding them until the child adjusts his behavior in order to earn them back.

But it requires commitment. Probably something many parents who just want to spank and get it over with don't want to do. Too much trouble...

[Matariki]

178. Right. Along with the idea that whoever is bigger and stronger gets to do what they want.

[The Doctor.]

183. Right! Precisely!

Just like your teaching them that 'whoever's bigger and stronger' gets to steal (taking toys away), gets to hold people against their will (go to your room.), gets to take away freedoms (reduce privileges), and all the other disciplinary or corrective actions that prove to a child that 'bigger and stronger' means 'unfair'.

:eyes:

I'm just amazed at how easily the emotionally-motivated abandon reason.

By your above logic, a child only ever sees consequences as 'unfair actions' perpetrated by the adult. That's really something considering that children develop egocentrically, and are virtually incapable of seeing it as anything but 'happening to them', much less as 'someone else's solution'.

[Darkhawk32]

189. I'm very much left-leaning, but this is where a lot of left-leaners go overboard....

Like... if you eat a hamburger, you support the slaughter of innocent bovine! If you drive a car, you support the oil companies so walk 50 miles to work each day!

This is where liberal kooks and conservative kooks meet.

[Odin2005]

191. BINGO! You get a cookie!

[The Doctor.]

182. I'm amazed at how well they turned out after being spanked as children.

There's no getting through to them. They are going to believe that anyone who spanks their kids is just an aggressive monster that hasn't bothered to try any dozen other approaches to guide their innocent little children who could never have done anything to require such discipline.

They have not had the experience, the imagination, or the children to know that it really is sometimes necessary to resort to spanking in order to deter dangerous or destructive behavior. My kids may well be alive because a few times a year, they crossed a very clearly designated and well-explained line that put themselves or others in danger, and I let them know that there were unpleasant consequences to crossing that line. It worked where everything else failed. So anyone that tells me it doesn't may as well be trying to convince me that water isn't wet or the Sun revolves around the Earth.

[pipi_k]

185. So, was it the same line each time?

You wrote:

"My kids may well be alive because a few times a year, they crossed a very clearly designated and well-explained line that put themselves or others in danger, and I let them know that there were unpleasant consequences to crossing that line."


If they crossed the same line a few times a year, then that sounds like it was a chronic problem.

Which means that each spanking they got for crossing that line didn't work.

Oh, and just so nobody gets into assuming stuff, what exactly was that "line" the kids kept crossing a few times a year?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

251. He couldn't lock up the purse in a file cabinet or closet?

The one with the wife's dangerous drugs in it? So that's why he had to spank them.

I am not getting this. :wtf:

[laundry_queen]

207. And in comes the 'if you don't spank then there is no discipline' brigade

You understand there are plenty of ways to discipline and be the parent (not a friend) and STILL not spank? If not, you are doing your kids a huge disservice.

[Darkhawk32]

236. I spank my kids every hour on the hour. /sigh

Spanking is only for EXTREME cases and nothing else.

I usually give them the "Stare". Or is that child abuse too?

[Odin2005]

173. Spanking is CHILD ABUSE, period!

[Romulox]

180. A swat on the bum is NOT child abuse; beating a two year black and blue IS. nt

[Philippine expat]

187. Have to disagree with the judge on this one

Yes, parents have the right to spank their children.

[Fire1]

188. Agree. n/t

[JoePhilly]

190. Sure .... but you should know this ...

When you as a parent find it necessary to spank a child, you have failed as a parent.

You definitely should be allowed to spank you own kids, in your home, in private.

But, when you reach that point ... it is you who have failed ... and you need to know that.

Hitting a child is one of the fastest ways to stop a behavior you want to stop, this is true. But, it is the worst way to teach them how they should behave.

What they learn is how to avoid a spanking. And its not by "being good".

And of course the more you spank them, the more they learn that the way to get some one else to do what you want is to "hit them". And this is an accurate conclusion for them to draw.

Here is an approach I would suggest. If you find yourself needing to spank you child. Try to figure out what signals you missed. After all, you are the parent who should be able to identify conflict situations before they happen. Small children can't do it.

Then, keep track of when you child "acts up". What time of day. The circumstances. What you will often find is that stress in your daily activity negatively impacts the child. You get tense, frustrated ... they do too. And they act up.

If you are doing your job as a parent well, you really don't have to hit them. And if you find yourself needing to hit them, you need to start with the assumption that YOU as a parent missed something. And figure out what it was.

Or ... take the easy path ... hitting them will work very quickly.

[pipi_k]

195. And that's about the size of it right there...

Spanking/hitting a kid might get the desired behavior/effect, but, like you said, the kid doesn't learn how to act based on internal controls, but fear of pain.

I see it as being similar to religious people who only do "right" because they fear the pits of hell or punishment from God.

Not because doing "right" is ultimately the right thing to do.

We want to raise our kids to do "right" even when nobody is looking.

[The Doctor.]

196. Your reasoning applies to nearly all forms of discipline.

What they learn is how to avoid spanking/time out/going to their room/losing privileges/being yelled at. And it's not by "being good".

At least be honest when employing reason.

On the other hand, by constantly deflecting a child into other behaviors without ever letting them face consequences, they will never learn that a certain behavior is in any way consequential. They will only ever learn that you like to deflect them from that behavior, not that it's 'wrong'.

As so many 'perfect' parents on this thread have volunteered; they believe the solution is to helicopter around their children 24 hours a day, every day, and 'guide' or 'prevent' them from getting into trouble or danger. I can think of few things as irresponsible as keeping one's children from ever learning about consequences or danger. I don't care what they claim, no parent has eyes on their child every minute of ever day, and any one saying so is lying. What no parent wants is an unattended child with no sense of personal danger at all. By never letting them learn consequences, the parent that fails to helicopter over their child even briefly puts that child at greater risk than a parent who has bothered to instill a sense of caution in their child.

[Luminous Animal]

198. I don't know how other people deal with time out but it is not isolation.

Time out is supposed to remove a child from a situation... to calm them down. It is not a punishment. It is an opportunity for the parent to remove the child from a stressful situation and calm them down gently, lovingly and often with humor and engage them even if they are too young to understand. Personally, I've never been a fan of taking a kid's things away from them if they misbehave. It puts too much emphasis on possessions. Yelling is as idiotic as spanking. A good joke is way better than yelling. Privileges are never lost but gained and closely monitored if abused. And grounding is flat out of the question.

I didn't helicopter my kid. She was going to punk rock shows without a parental unit when she was 13 and she fights her way through any mosh pit. On her own on mass transit when she was nine. I taught her about danger because I talked to her about danger. I didn't need to subject her to abuse in order for her to understand abuse. What I did was instill a sense of caution and the tools for defense absent fear.

[The Doctor.]

200. Yes, you and your parenting and your daughter were perfect. I get that.

I'm happy for you that everything worked out. I'm sure that you will always continue to assume that parents who use spanking have not engaged their children in the same ways you have, because you cannot imagine having had different (or no) results.

That's great for you, and your daughter.

So... you let your nine year-old daughter travel on mass transit, alone and unaccompanied?

Hell, you are certainly not a 'helicopter' parent.

No... you're just very lucky. And so is she.

[Luminous Animal]

201. Stranger danger is way overblown. The greatest danger to children is their own

relatives and adult acquaintances. The fact that so few children are abducted by strangers means that 99.99999999999999999% of children are lucky. At age five, in the summertime, in rural America, I was left to my own devices all day every day until my mother called me home for dinner. All of us kids were.

Children are more likely to be killed in a car accident... a danger that we willingly expose them to regularly, than be abducted by a stranger.

[The Doctor.]

203. Right. There's nothing at all wrong with putting a 9 year old girl on a bus or subway alone.

Nothing http://www.thecatsite.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-184773.html">bad ever happens.

Got it.

I'll try to keep that in mind when it comes to perfect parenting.

[Luminous Animal]

204. Less danger than putting a 9 year old in a car.

[The Doctor.]

208. Seriously?

The reason that more kids die in cars than are kidnapped from subways is because most parents aren't foolish enough to risk putting their kids on a subway or bus unattended.

I can't believe I've been getting a lecture on spanking from someone who put an unattended 9 y/o on mass transit.

[Luminous Animal]

216. Kids in the city ride mass transit all the time. There are very few school buses

and many parents work. They don't have the luxury of driving their children back & forth to school.

[The Doctor.]

219. Where?

Set aside that if they did, they would do so together. But school buses are mandatory in the absence of other free transportation.

Seriously, this is really something. How can someone pretend to be such a great parent after leaving their child unattended on mass transit? I'd post a story or poll about it on DU if I didn't know you'd run screaming to the mods that it was about you.

[Luminous Animal]

221. Schoool buses are not mandatory in San Francisco.

And I let my kid ride mass transit when she was ready for it. We are talking about a kid who started college at age 13.

[The Doctor.]

226. New York? Los Angeles? Seriously here.

You want people to believe that your child was 'so special' (forgetting for a moment that kids who start college at 13 make the news) that she could safely navigate mass transit, a setting that provides plenty of contact with potential kidnappers, yet you refuse to believe that children exist for whom spanking is a more effective corrective action than others.

You believe you did everything perfectly, and refuse to believe that your techniques may not be effective on every child, but then you claim to have an exceptional child.

I'm not sure which category of 'smug', 'hypocrisy', or 'ignorant' that falls into, but it falls pretty hard.


I can believe that you're a good parent who has done enough right that your child could safely ride mass transit alone. That doesn't mean there aren't still risks, but whatever.

But you simply refuse to believe that spanking can be properly administered to excellent effect, despite the fact that your child obviously never required it.

Does this really go so far over your head?

[Luminous Animal]

231. San Francisco. It is right in the title. And yes, she did start community college when she was 13.

She's bright but she is no genius and her 1st classes were Spanish, algebra, & composition.

[The Doctor.]

232. I didn't say otherwise. In fact, it was part of the point I made that you ignored.

[pipi_k]

212. Exactly, and that was one of the mistakes I made

when my kids were small. Not knowing any better, I warned them about strangers.

Well it wasn't a stranger who sexually molested my daughter. It was a brother-in-law.

A fine, upstanding, church-going family man. :sarcasm:


Anyway, about abductions...from this site...

http://kidsfightingchance.com/stats.php

82% of abductions are by family members.

So you are correct

[Drahthaardogs]

228. You put a kid on a subway ALONE at age 9?

Seriously? You realize that had social services known that they would have been on you like white on rice don't you?

[The Doctor.]

234. Well, whe was a student a Xavier's school for the gifted.

;)

[Drahthaardogs]

235. Xavier's eh? So we found Jubilee's mom?

Incredible. Talk about spanking kids in one breath then speak of sending a nine year old alone a subway and a 13 year old to mosh pits. I have a headache now.

[MouseFitzgerald]

205. Why?

Why should parents legally be allowed to beat their children?

[pipi_k]

214. Just wanted to make sure before I answered this

that the word "beat" could be used in place of "hit" or "spank".

Apparently, it can, so...

I don't know why the law allows parents to beat/spank their kids.


But I do have an opinion of people who think it's the only way to raise a kid.

There must be some kind of satisfaction from hitting something smaller than themselves. Either in anger, or, as one person claimed, with detachment.

Would many of these people dare to hit someone their own size? Probably not.

[The Doctor.]

220. They aren't.

But conflating spanking with 'beating' is very popular these days. There are also many people who are genuinely ignorant of the difference.

[U4ikLefty]

202. If your name is Deborah Lafave, you can spank 14 year old boys & they like it.

The power-dynamic be damned...she's hot!!!

[snooper2]

210. I've been spanked - and have spanked another adult before..

Right before things got really hot and heavy :P

[pipi_k]

213. Well at least...

1. It was someone close to your own size

2. It was a consenting spanking


:7





Anybody who spanks someone way smaller or weaker than him/herself, without consent, is a bully. Pure and simple.

[ecstatic]

215. There was a saying... "If parents don't spank, the police will"

I'm not sure how true that statement is. I don't plan to spank my kids (I feel that most kids can be reasoned with), but everyone I know including myself was spanked as a child.

[pipi_k]

217. That statement most likely coined

by someone who spanked his kid(s) and was proud of it.

Anyway, I don't think it's true at all.

I've known people who were spanked as kids who got into trouble with the law all the time.

I've also known people who never were spanked as kids who grew up to be decent, law-abiding citizens.


Usually the problem isn't with the kids, but the parents. I see it all the time with my daughter and her son, who is 7.

He mouths off to her. Hits her. Disrespects her. She and her husband (his father) allow it. They yell a lot, and he knows just how much he can get away with.

When my son goes over to visit, either alone or with his two girls, my grandson will hurriedly do whatever it is he was supposed to do. My son has NEVER hit his nephew. Has never yelled at him.

When my grandson comes over here, he does what I ask him to do. He is not disrespectful.

I have NEVER spanked him. I've never even yelled at him.

As is usually the case, it's not the kid who's the problem. It's the parent(s)...who spank the kid for doing exactly what the parent lets them get away with because there are no clear, consistent boundaries and no consequences more effective than a swat on the ass. Like denying privileges.

Even an adult gets that...slap my hand or my ass and it might hurt for five minutes. Take away my cellphone or computer for a week...now that would HURT!

[lumberjack_jeff]

218. I have three kids

For some kids, spanking is never appropriate. For other kids, spanking is generally avoidable in lieu of other disciplinary measures. For still other kids, some safety issues require immediate obedience and the only thing that works is fear of corporal punishment.

I'm not quite 50. I was probably a category two person. I was spanked, and given hacks by teachers. I survived.

There is a distinction between spanking/corporal punishment and abuse. The judge is engaging in a little social engineering. The relationship between parent and child is different than the dynamic between two adults. The parent is ultimately responsible for raising the child to successful adulthood. If you get run over by the bus even after I've told you to look both ways before crossing the street, I'm not criminally liable.

[pipi_k]

222. Just wondering...

what safety issues would necessitate corporal punishment that would put fear into play and trigger immediate obedience...

Unless we're talking here about slapping a kid before, say, getting to a busy street so he doesn't run out into traffic. Anticipating the behavior, so to speak, and slapping the kid to prevent it.

Which, if it happened on a fairly consistent basis, could easily be solved by putting a harness on the kid.


How many incidents of slapping/hitting/spanking did it typically take before a kid would understand that it's not OK to do "X"?

[lumberjack_jeff]

223. "Stop!"

If it's just another noise that the big people make sometimes, I'll just keep chasing that ball.

It's not about anticipating the behavior, but creating the expectation of authority, at least get them to freeze long enough to consider the consequences of disobedience - and perhaps look around a bit while doing it.

A leash is a suboptimal solution, if for no other reason that you have to take it off some day.

Your last sentence suggests you didn't understand what I posted. There's no such thing as "a kid". Every one is different.

[pipi_k]

224. No, I understood exactly what you said

and even one kid can be different depending on the circumstances and which people he's with, as I pointed out someplace above.

My 7 year old grandson is a different kid with his parents than he is with his uncle...or me.

But I'm wondering how the threat of a spanking will cause a kid to stop and think about the consequences of his behavior before he does it...


Isn't that the whole issue behind opposition to the death penalty? Some people believe it's a deterrent. We all know it clearly isn't. People still commit capital crimes. If the threat of execution isn't enough to deter an adult from doing something, how can the threat of a spanking deter a kid from misbehaving...especially since most kids are not even aware of the consequences of their own behavior. And most of them tend to just act on impulse.


And yes...at some point a harness would have to come off. But it wouldn't come off until the kid could demonstrate that he is not going to run out in traffic. If, each time it's put on, the parent explains why it's there and when it will no longer be used, eventually the kid will get it and stop running out into traffic.

In the time it would take to administer a spanking at home, a parent could make use of role-playing with their kid.

[lumberjack_jeff]

225. The same way that a hot stove teaches "don't touch me"

Some people (some kids especially) don't learn through anything other than stimulus response. Their impulses are regulated only through physical memory. I'd prefer that kids moderate the impulse to ignore the shouts and run into the street by the memory of getting disciplined than the memory of getting hit by a car.

Discipline will stay with you for a lifetime. Restraint only works until the restraints are removed.

a) Capital punishment is abstract because it hasn't happened to you yet. b) Every child has the impulse to do risky things (to varying degrees), but few people have the impulse to commit capital crimes.

[pipi_k]

237. OK, but...

a hot stove is just a hot stove. It's not a big person hitting a little person.

Also...it's a direct consequence. Kid learns if he touches stove, it hurts.

Whereas spanking is sort of indirect.

Of course, a parent can't allow a car to hit the kid in order to teach a lesson. But if the kid is old enough to understand why he can't run out in traffic, then words should be enough.

If he's not old enough to understand an explanation, then I seriously doubt he's going to be able to make a connection between the spanking and what caused it.

As far as restraints only working until they're removed, I don't agree. Dogs, for example. They can be taught to walk on a leash. And they can be trained not to run away when the leash is removed.

People who train their dogs using positive reinforcement...not punishment...get the best companions they could ever ask for.

Since most kids are at least as smart as a dog, I would expect that they, too, can be trained with patience and lots of positive reinforcement.


In any case, I'm not so much disturbed by a fear-induced spanking given in haste by a frightened parent (although I still don't agree with it)...it's the so-called "rational" spanking administered perhaps hours after the offense by a parent who calmly lays out his reason for the spanking and then dispassionately does it. Which is what someone else in this thread claimed to have done. I'm sorry, but that's just creepy.

[Pithlet]

243. Yes. This is exactly why that argument never made sense to me.

And also why I have a hard time believing parents who say "I only hit when when they're doing something dangerous" I think they spank, but know they're talking to someone who's against it and deep down know it's wrong or they'd defend it, so they're using a specious rationalization. There may be a small few out there who only use it for the hot stoves or road sides. But I just really doubt it. It just really makes no sense.

[pipi_k]

244. The more I think about it all, the more disturbing I find it...

I mean, there are only three (as far as I know) reasons for children to "misbehave".

One, they are too young to know what the boundaries are yet.

Two, they are acting out the family dysfunction.

Three, they have some sort of physical or psychological problem that makes them "misbehave".


In the first case, if the kid runs out in traffic or touches electrical outlets or gets into something he's not supposed to because he doesn't know any better, then it's the parent's job to foresee what might happen, or, if it's already happened, to make sure it doesn't happen again.

In the second case, it's not the kid's fault if he's acting out because the family dynamics suck.

In the third case, if he has something he can't help, which isn't going to respond to anything but therapy or medication, then spanking won't help.


So, basically, people spank their kids for things they (the kids) often can't help, and where the slap or swat or beating on the ass will have no effect at all.

Because nowhere have I seen here where a parent said, it only took ONE spanking and the kid never did (the undesired act) again.


I don't get it either...

[Pithlet]

245. Right. If spanking made the most sense in these danger scenarios

Then it would follow that the rise of non-spanking would mean a rise in kids being run over or burning themselves, and countries that outlawed spanking would have higher incidences of fatal accidents. But of course this isn't the case. The whole I have to spank! It's to save their life! is just the most ridiculous nonsensical argument there is. It's just as you say. If they're at the level of development where they aren't making that connection, then it really isn't going to make any sense when they're smacked after they run out into traffic/make a reach toward the stove/electrical outlet. When they're that little, the only thing you can do is protect them from the danger to begin with. If they're old enough to make that connection, then non-spanking methods of teaching will also work.

[Pithlet]

246. Right. If spanking made the most sense in these danger scenarios

Then it would follow that the rise of non-spanking would mean a rise in kids being run over or burning themselves, and countries that outlawed spanking would have higher incidences of fatal accidents. But of course this isn't the case. The whole I have to spank! It's to save their life! is just the most ridiculous nonsensical argument there is. It's just as you say. If they're at the level of development where they aren't making that connection, then it really isn't going to make any sense when they're smacked after they run out into traffic/make a reach toward the stove/electrical outlet. When they're that little, the only thing you can do is protect them from the danger to begin with. If they're old enough to make that connection, then non-spanking methods of teaching will also work.

[The Doctor.]

238. You aren't dealing with a parent .

You're dealing with an ideal.

[lumberjack_jeff]

240. And Mommy Theresa and Father Knowsbest upthread aren't idealizing?

If I've learned anything in this life it's that generalizations always suck. Generally.

Spanking isn't always abuse. Spanking isn't always irrational. There's a few thousand years of human history which suggests that it's sometimes a useful way of setting boundaries.

[pipi_k]

247. Setting boundaries...

for whom?

For people smaller than we are, naturally.


Nowhere in this thread have I seen where someone who spanks/spanked their kids did the same with an adult who overstepped their boundaries.

[lumberjack_jeff]

249. Respecting boundaries is something adults are expected to do under penalty of law.

There's a lot of evidence that adults are losing skill in this regard.

Respect for boundaries is what keeps well adjusted adults out of fistfights/court.

[pipi_k]

250. Not always.

For example, it's not a legal matter for someone to swear in your presence or use a racial epithet.

If you have boundaries, you may not want someone to do that. But it's not illegal. So if someone refuses to respect your boundaries, do you slap the person?


Anyway, I'm not talking about the legality or illegality of boundaries.

I'm talking about how a kid can cross a boundary without even knowing it and say a swear word and get his mouth slapped or washed out with soap, and an adult can cross a boundary and say something really foul (and know he's doing it) and nobody slaps him.


So I often wonder...how long do people who spank their kids keep doing it? At what age do they stop? When the kid starts to "behave"? What if the kid is 16 and 6 feet tall and 200 lbs and is still "misbehaving"? Crossing boundaries. Refusing to learn good behavior.

Do parents still take a kid that size over their knee and give him a spanking?

At what age do parents stop spanking?

[frogmarch]

227. I was never spanked , nor were any of my 3 kids,

and we all turned out fine.

When I was in grade school in the 50s, I had teachers who were physically and verbally abusive to certain students. I still hate those teachers, though they're all long dead. None of them laid a hand on me, but they hurt some of my friends.

[Liberal_in_LA]

229. My exact same experience. Wasn't spanked, went to school where teachers spanked

The boys seem to take the brunt of the school spankings

[lumberjack_jeff]

242. And yet boys school performance has declined in the last 30 years.

You would think that if school spanking was unambiguously bad, that wouldn't be the case.

[Liberal_in_LA]

248. omg.

[zinnisking]

233. ...unless the adult receiving it was wearing tight leather pants with a whole cut out in the butt.

I think the term 'spanking' is apropos.

[Name removed]

241. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.