Spanking kids can cause long-term harm

[DrumNFeather]

So says a Canadian study...

http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/nm/spanking-kids-can-cause-long-term-harm-canada-study

[wuapinmon]

So can not spanking them.

[oxcoug]

Mistook this for a thread abt what Santorum did to Romney last night.

[smokymountainrain]

At least now I have an excuse.

[Indy Coug]

All sorts of things can do things to others.

[jay santos]

My take as a parent of kids ranging from little to almost adult: spanking is not a good thing.

[Clark Addison]

I have never spanked my kids. If they turn out a lot better than your kids (likely), you now know why.

[DrumNFeather]

I have never spanked my kids. If they turn out a lot better than your kids (likely), you now know why.

But maybe only in Canada

[Slim]

Spankers are lazy parents. My parents frequently smacked the shit out of me. I take a different approach with my kids.

[Eddie]

Without actually reading the study - I am doubtful that an occasional spank on the butt with an open hand is going to cause long-term damage to children.

That said, spankings are awfully rare at my house. If spanking is your only means of discipline - then you've got problems.

[Indy Coug]

Different forms of discipline work better than others, depending on the child. I have kids that only need a stern glance and others that require firm verbal reprimands and timeouts.

Once in a blue moon, spanking may be appropriate, but not as a first resort and certainly not hard enough to be more than mildly painful.

I've probably spanked my 4 kids an average of less than 2 spanks per kid during their lifetimes. Giving fair warning of impending punishments and consistently enforcing the rules (i.e. doing what you say you're going to do) results in rarely having to ascend the punishment tree high enough to get to Spank Level.

[Pelado]

I've probably spanked my 4 kids an average of less than 2 spanks per kid during their lifetimes.

Call the cops. Indy's an abusive parent.

[RobinFinderson]

Without actually reading the study - I am doubtful that an occasional spank on the butt with an open hand is going to cause long-term damage to children.

That said, spankings are awfully rare at my house. If spanking is your only means of discipline - then you've got problems.

As Slim says, spanking is the approach of lazy parents. Period. Spanking works according the principles explored by the behaviorist school of psychology. It works to alter behavior, but does nothing to teach conceptual understanding. Even very young children can begin to understand concepts, so it is the lazy parent that won't do the work to teach at the conceptual level.

Some people argue that behaviorist approaches are appropriate for young children who can't understand the concepts. A classic example is the issue of young children running out into the streets. We hear about parents who spank these children to curb the undesirable behavior, and then the kids stop running out into the streets. My question is this -- why the hell is the kid in a position to run out into the street in the first place? Lazy parents.

I don't mind some behaviorist approaches to parenting, but you you have to be careful. Physical punishments ultimately harm children in terrible ways. Ask yourself this question -- outside of self-defense, it is illegal to hit anyone... except for you own childern. Why is it okay to hit your children when they are at their most weak and vulnerable stage of life? Parents who spank their children are teaching them violence. Period. It is an act of violence used to replace good parenting. If you can't think of a better approach, take a parenting class, because you need it.

[Eddie]

As Slim says, spanking is the approach of lazy parents. Period. Spanking works according the principles explored by the behaviorist school of psychology. It works to alter behavior, but does nothing to teach conceptual understanding. Even very young children can begin to understand concepts, so it is the lazy parent that won't do the work to teach at the conceptual level.

Some people argue that behaviorist approaches are appropriate for young children who can't understand the concepts. A classic example is the issue of young children running out into the streets. We hear about parents who spank these children to curb the undesirable behavior, and then the kids stop running out into the streets. My question is this -- why the hell is the kid in a position to run out into the street in the first place? Lazy parents.

I don't mind some behaviorist approaches to parenting, but you you have to be careful. Physical punishments ultimately harm children in terrible ways. Ask yourself this question -- outside of self-defense, it is illegal to hit anyone... except for you own childern. Why is it okay to hit your children when they are at their most weak and vulnerable stage of life? Parents who spank their children are teaching them violence. Period. It is an act of violence used to replace good parenting. If you can't think of a better approach, take a parenting class, because you need it.

I understand what you're saying, I just disagree. I think some parents who are very involved and active and who's actions would qualify them as anything but lazy have resorted to a spank now and then. And I don't think it is simply because of lazy parenting.

I understand that once a parent spanks because they are frustrated or angry and doing so as an outburst, there is a problem. And I understand what you are saying about a multitude of other methods being more effective 99.9% of the time. I understand that teaching concepts, etc, etc, will have a more lasting effect. I get all that. I also think there are some things worse than spanking.

I think I'm coming from a place that kids are pretty resilient. I did CPS for a while - so when I think of what folks talk about as far as what is spanking and what is abuse - trust me, I've seen it all.

And, as you seem to be implying, I agree that some folks don't understand the damage that can be done to a child when they think they are providing discipline.

But I also believe that the negative effects of an occasional "appropriate" non-abusive spanking have been at times overblown.

Just to be clear - I don't think that every parent who has ever spanked their kid is a lazy parent. I equally don't think that every parent who has never spanked their kid is an involved and caring parent. I certainly don't recommend spanking. But I don't judge those who have used it on occasion as part of an overall method of discipline that is primarily made up of non-spanking techniques as bad or lazy parents.

[Viking]

As Slim says, spanking is the approach of lazy parents. Period. Spanking works according the principles explored by the behaviorist school of psychology. It works to alter behavior, but does nothing to teach conceptual understanding. Even very young children can begin to understand concepts, so it is the lazy parent that won't do the work to teach at the conceptual level.

Some people argue that behaviorist approaches are appropriate for young children who can't understand the concepts. A classic example is the issue of young children running out into the streets. We hear about parents who spank these children to curb the undesirable behavior, and then the kids stop running out into the streets. My question is this -- why the hell is the kid in a position to run out into the street in the first place? Lazy parents.

I don't mind some behaviorist approaches to parenting, but you you have to be careful. Physical punishments ultimately harm children in terrible ways. Ask yourself this question -- outside of self-defense, it is illegal to hit anyone... except for you own childern. Why is it okay to hit your children when they are at their most weak and vulnerable stage of life? Parents who spank their children are teaching them violence. Period. It is an act of violence used to replace good parenting. If you can't think of a better approach, take a parenting class, because you need it.

Good thing you don't consider monkeys children.