The Spank Poll

[dazzleman]

I don't think there's anything wrong with spanking in a limited way.

There's a line between spanking and beating.  Spanking is controlled and not intended to hurt severely.

And since most of the UN is comprised of nutcases, I really wouldn't put much weight into what they think.

Kids need discipline, and it can be through spanking or through some other means.  It depends a lot on the individual child.

[dazzleman]

Dude, the message that violence in cold blood is totally acceptable is exactly what's wrong with it.
I certainly wasn't spanked, ever. I did get the occasional slap (never very hard) in emotional moments. And by occasional, I mean rather less than once a year.

A light spanking is not violence in cold blood.  It's not violence at all.  Beatings are violence, but controlled spanking is not.

The problem with many of the anti-spanking and anti-discipline people is that (1) they cannot distinguish between levels of discipline -- to these people, a firecracker is the same as a nuclear bomb, because they're both explosives; and (2) they have no concept of the negative results of lack of discipline.  Disciplining kids in whatever way works best -- which may or may not include occasional light spanking -- is a much greater kindness than allowing them to run wild, and develop all the wrong ideas about how the world is going to react to them.

[dazzleman]

Spanking isn't a Republican or a Democratic idea, nini.  Progress actually has a very well developed handle on this, and has gone much further than most people bother to do -- actually talking about measures of punishment and when such actions are appropriate.  I applaud him for it.

I was spanked (around 5 times my entire childhood); I hated it when I got spanked; I will spank my children, when and if necessary.  The reason is having worked and been around lots of children myself, I understand that "reasoning" with them or some slap-on-the-wrist punishment doesn't have the same effect as a swat on the behind.

As Progress said, there are degrees of offenses and should be degrees of punishment.  Making a mess might need a verbal reprimand; hurting another child (thus, in the wider sense, violating that child's sovereignty) may require a more startling punishment, such as spanking.

Spanking never really hurt me, that I can recall.  It was just so startling that and terrifying that I never repeat the offenses that led to it.

Slapping, on the other hand, is totally unacceptable.  I was slapped a few times, and that is a horrible way to punish a child.

Jess, I'm curious about what you perceive to be the difference between spanking and smacking, or slapping, that you find spanking to be OK, but not smacking.

[dazzleman]

My state is the highest with "okay to wash a child's mouth with soap" among Kerry states.

That's just disgusting! I know my aunt and uncle did it to my cousins. Go figure, they're the only Republicans in the family.

...Poisoning their own children. I suppose I should be used to seeing this sick behavior within the Republican Party, because after all, they are insane...but it never fails to amaze me!

A little biased, Jesus?

I don't think using soap is poison in any case, at the low amount of soap involved.  I doubt it's very effective, though.  I know a guy whose mother washed his mouth out with soap as a kid, and he drops the f-bomb at every available opportunity.

I got in a lot of trouble for cursing as a kid, and today I am a regular curser.  I think cursing is a form of rebellion, and also a generational issue, with the younger generations cursing more than the older ones, especially among women.

[dazzleman]

Jess, I'm curious about what you perceive to be the difference between spanking and smacking, or slapping, that you find spanking to be OK, but not smacking.

This is in regards to slapping in the face.  My mother did it a few times, mostly out of anger, and it hurt, left red marks, brought tears to my eyes, etc.  Maybe no different from spanking in terms of those symptoms, but ... I don't know ... you just don't hit a kid in the face.  A butt has so much more padding that spanking can be startling and sting for a bit, but if done in a measured way, it's ultimately harmless.  It's hard for me to ever justify an open-hand slap to the face.

Slapping on the hands -- that's fine.

I think a smack in the face is somehow more humiliating than a whack on the behind -- it seems to be more of a violation of personal sovereignty somehow, if that makes sense.

Also, I think the face is more sensitive to being hit, since unlike the behind, it was not designed for contact with other surfaces.

Still, you seem to have turned out OK in spite of a few smacks across the face.  There was a woman in my neighborhood when I was growing up who used smacks across the face as her primary means of discipline.  It was invariably accompanied, of course, by extremely loud, high-pitched screaming of an extended duration.  She also grabbed her son by the hair and jerked his head back and forth, sometimes smashing it into the car window, or something like that.  Truthfully, her son deserved it; his behavior was monstrous, but it probably wasn't the most effective means of discipline, judging by his behavior.

[dazzleman]

I think a smack in the face is somehow more humiliating than a whack on the behind -- it seems to be more of a violation of personal sovereignty somehow, if that makes sense.

That is precisely the point of all this parental violence, dazzleman - the physical pain is negligable compared to the message being sent: 1) that the child has no personal sovereignty, 2) that the parents have total power, and  3) that they might at any moment use their power to harm the child.  This is a terrifying message to send, and is ridiculous overkill for the minor offense of saying forbidden words. 

Actually, with small children parents should have total power, but they should use it judiciously.  As the kids get older, the power of the parents should gradually wane, but never be totally gone until the kids are out of the house.

In your case, your parents still have the power, because you've chosen not to support yourself.  There are ways other than just physical to take away a person's 'sovereignty,' and it appears that you never had yours to begin with.

[dazzleman]

I used to think spanking your kid was wrong, then I had one.

Funny how that works.  Most people who are most vocal against spanking have never had any children.  Clearly, there's a reason for that.

[dazzleman]

I used to think spanking your kid was wrong, then I had one.

Funny how that works.  Most people who are most vocal against spanking have never had any children.  Clearly, there's a reason for that.

Of course: smart people don't bother to have kids; smart people take the right side of this issue. 

Boss, have you ever been spanked or slapped around?

I was only spanked or slapped to a very small degree as a kid.  I was actually reasonably well behaved until I hit around 12 or so.  Then my behavior took a sharp nosedive, and I think my parents were bewildered.  My dad did hit me a few times during that period, but I never got what I would call a beating (and that is much different from a spanking).

After a couple of years of that, I changed tactics.  I realized that the emotional toll of these awful confrontations with my parents just wasn't worth it.  Of course, I wanted to continue to do things they didn't want me to do, so I adopted a non-confrontational, but deceptive, approach.  I basically told them what they wanted to hear, and switched some of my misbehavior from home to school and when I was unsupervised.

I came to enjoy leading this double life as a teenager, doing what I wanted and deceiving my parents about it.  I remember telling my mom, one of the times that I got in trouble at school and assigned to a week detention or something like that, that I'd be coming home late the next week because I was staying after school to tutor a kid for the national honor society.  She was so pleased and proud...

One thing that hasn't been discussed is the effect of inappropriate treatment of kids other than hitting.  I have experienced and witness certain types of verbal abuse that probably is more traumatic and does more lasting damage than a properly administered spanking, or even a series of slaps across the face.  I think it's better to look at the whole picture than just focus on some narrow area like hitting, and then define all forms of hitting to be the same.

[dazzleman]

Knowing how some kids are today, they do need the fear of spanking for major offenses and some of these kids are violent.  I'm not saying abuse, but like dazzleman or J-Mann eluded to earlier is sufficient.  For school purposes, I oppose, BUT there are times that my mom and brother have been threatened and even hit by a kid in my mom's case.  Though I oppose corporal punishment, I feel that such a violent kid should be dealt with as non-violently as possible being that a larger teacher or school police should try to bring the unruly kid to the ground.

Interesting point Flyers.  We hear so much about how wrong it is for teachers to hit kids.  But now we have the kids hitting teachers, and of course, the rights of these kids are paramount.  The teachers often have to deal with those kids being back in their class after a couple of days suspension, which is a total joke and a total affront to the teachers.

Why do the 'students' have all the rights, and the teachers none, in these cases?  I read stories about a couple of teachers who have 'abused' kids in a neighboring, out-of-control urban school district, but nothing about the behavior of the kids.  Rest assured it is not the teachers who are causing all the problems in these schools.

I think the problem with our society is that we only examine a small part of every issue.  Instead of looking at the entire issue of parent and student discipline, and how to best achieve it in the long-term best interests of society and the children, we narrow the focus to a single inane point -- such as 'should we hit?'  We do no analysis of whether or not hitting actually works, or if it does, what will be the cost of discontinuing it, in the form of deteriorating discipline.  We don't ask why a teacher may find it necessary to exert some form of discipline, and we don't honestly look at whether controlled hitting, or the bad effects of the discipline that is lacking when we do nothing but limit disciplinary methods, do more harm.  We simply ask the schools to do more of the parents' jobs for delinquent, lazy and unsupportive parents, and then remove the tools that they have traditionally used to do the job.  It seems that we reduce every issue to some inane small part of the equation that doesn't take the big picture into account, and this is a perfect example of that.

[dazzleman]

dazzleman, I haven't heard any stories of teachers being hit by kids, although I'm sure it has happened, but it certainly isn't commonplace.  Also, when this does occur, there is no doubt that the kids are being punished by the school and/or certainly by the law.  It's not like students are just allowed to slap their teachers silly left and right, which is the image you gave in their post.

The punishment for a teacher assaulting a student and a student assaulting a teacher should be pretty much the same, other than of course that students are minors and teachers aren't.  Nobody's claiming that it's a student's right to hit a teacher.

Boss, I would not be so sanguine as you are about the way cases of teacher assault are being handled.  Liberal judges have ruled against districts that have tried to take meaningful disciplinary action against these kids, on the grounds that such action would violate the 'rights' of the 'students.'  And in certain types of school districts, generally urban ones with large minority populations, teachers live in daily fear of assault by the students they are charged with teaching, students who in a healthy environment would actually respect their authority.

Let's not forget also that when a teacher hits a kid, it is generally not meant to send the kid to the hospital.  But that is sometimes the results of beatings that thuggish students give to teachers.  To say these are the same thing is like saying a firecracker is the same as a hydrogen bomb, an analogy I've been using a lot in this debate.  A controlled paddling is in no way the same as an all-out beating/assault.

BTW, I don't think hitting violent kids like this is the answer.  I am simply using this example to make my point about how debates such as these focus on inane points while ignoring the larger issue.

The reality is that some kids should never be hit, some should be hit lightly and occasionally, and there are some who need to have the daylights beaten out of them on a regular basis.  I'm exaggerating a bit with the last statement, but the point I'm trying to make is that different kids react in different ways to various forms of discipline, so I don't think we should get fixated on a debate over one type.

Maybe this problem of teacher assaults would be reduced if the powerful NEA put a little more effort into working for better student discipline, and a little less effort into protecting incompetent tenured teachers from getting fired.

[dazzleman]

Dazzleman, where do you draw the line between punishment and abuse?  I don't mean this to be rhetorical at all, but I'm curious to know what you think.

Punishment is controlled, and appropriate to the infraction committed.   In most cases involving physical punishment, the person administering the punishment does not hit as hard or as long as he/she could.  Hence the controlled issue, in which the severity and duration of the punishment is determined by the infraction rather than the physical limits of the punisher.  Of course this is subjective, as is all punishment.  Why did I get a day detention for certain things, and a week for others?  Why not two days, or a month?  Why is ten years in jail the right sentence for, say, assault, rather than 5 years, or 30 years?  All this is subjective.

Abuse is not controlled, and in cases of abuse the punisher generally uses his/her maximum physical means, regardless of the actual infraction.  Abuse is also inappropriate to the actual infraction.  Example: if a father beats an 8-year-old to a pulp because he got caught chewing gum in school (or really for any reason).  We all know the famous cases of the welfare mothers whose boyfriends scald their kids with irons because they spilled their milk, or some such thing.

The short answer is that the difference is subjective, as with many things, but that a sane person knows the difference when he sees it.

[dazzleman]

My mother has been hit and quite badly I might add.  Of coruse, I'm not qualified to make an opinion on this, but the student was amply punished and rightfully so.

Adult jail time?

No, explusion.

I don't know how badly he hit her, but for an assault, expulsion is not nearly enough.  It's only the beginning, in my opinion.  And 'expulsion' often doesn't mean what it says.  It often simply means a longer term suspension, during which the taxpayers have to pay for a private tutor, and after which the 'student's' 'rights' are reinstated.  Or it can simply mean transfer to a different school.

[dazzleman]

We do not generally punish criminals with violence, by the way. 

That's because long-term incarceration is worse than short-term violence.  That's even why a friend of mine who went to a school that sometimes offered a choice between a paddling and hours of detention chose the paddling when he could -- he said it was over with quickly, and he preferred that to a punishment that dragged on.

I'm not a big advocate of hitting, and I can't remember the last time I hit somebody.  But inflicting a measured amount of physical pain is not necessarily the worst form of punishment.  All punishment involves the infliction of some type of pain, whether it be physical pain, mental pain, financial pain, or the pain of lost time and long term boredom.  The point is -- for punishment to be effective, it has to cost the receiver something.  It has to hurt.  Physical pain is only one way of making a person hurt, and not necessarily the worst one, either, depending upon the circumstances.

[dazzleman]

My mother has been hit and quite badly I might add.  Of coruse, I'm not qualified to make an opinion on this, but the student was amply punished and rightfully so.

Adult jail time?

No, explusion.

I don't know how badly he hit her, but for an assault, expulsion is not nearly enough.  It's only the beginning, in my opinion.  And 'expulsion' often doesn't mean what it says.  It often simply means a longer term suspension, during which the taxpayers have to pay for a private tutor, and after which the 'student's' 'rights' are reinstated.  Or it can simply mean transfer to a different school.

An assault charge isn't the school's decision.

I realize that, but the police should be involved in an actual assault, and the 'student' should be dealt with severely by the law in a case like that.

[dazzleman]

Oftentimes, it is easier not to pursue an assault charge, especially if the injury is minor.  I can understand why the teacher wouldn't want to occupy their life with a trial just to make an example of one student.

By the way, I fully agree you.  What's worse to the average kid - a quick slap or a month without the phone or electronics?

I guess it depends on the severity of the assault.  But the very idea of a teacher being assaulted is very disturbing.  And I don't think that many schools, particularly urban ones, deal with this effectively for political reasons, especially if the assaulting student is black or Puerto Rican, and the teacher is white.  They don't want to be seen as 'persecuting' minority students, so they let a lot of these things slide.  This happens a huge amount in schools that are multi-racial, or heavily minority.

Aside from physical assaults, teachers in these schools are subjected to verbal assaults, threats, and intimidation on a regular basis.  That's why schools like this can't hold on to good teachers, not because of money.

I was not necessarily the best behaved student in school, but I would never have talked back directly to a teacher or administrator, much less even dreamed of physically assaulting one.  There is something seriously wrong when teachers walk around a school afraid of students.

As far as the last point is concerned, definitely, a quick slap in the mouth is a lot better than a month without electronics.  Just as in the case of my friend, he found a quick paddling to be a lot better than extended periods of detention, which was the alternative.  (Of course, he was a wiseass who got lots of both, but that's a different issue..)  That's the whole point I was trying to make -- that physical punishment is not necessarily the worst form, if the punisher doesn't go overboard, and that point is often lost in debates about physical punishment.

[dazzleman]

I guess that's how some conservatives think, but the whole attitude that "a child needs a good bout of discipline" seems like such a negative attitude.  It's like they're focusing on the negative aspects of being a kid,  not the positive.  I don't understand that way of thinking.

You need to focus on both the positive and negative.  Encourage the positive, but place limits on regular behavior.  Carrot and stick.  Neither one works well without the other.