Spanking in class - yeah or nay?

[Leoreth]

I'm even more confused by the fact that you can choose between corporal punishment and detention.

 

[Yeekim]

EDIT: The following is a general observation, not necessarily a reply to Leoreth.

Have you heard the saying "if a guy only has a hammer, everything will look like a nail to him"?
It is meant to mean that if your problem-solving skills are limited to a single approach, you are likely both stupid and in serious trouble.

It does not mean that hammer is a worthless tool.

Human personalities are different. Obviously that includes kids, which really should not come as surprise to anyone. Accordingly, they require different approaches. Using corporal punishment as a first choice is definitely (and downright bizarre in high school setting). I can agree that this is terribly often overdone or done wrong. That does not mean that it is always wrong, nor can this be proven with any number of personal anecdotes.

Also, one of the gravest disservice one can do to their kids is making them think that they are untouchable. This can backfire horribly later in life.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

I'm even more confused by the fact that you can choose between corporal punishment and detention.

It's actually pretty crass. A number of us were caught smoking and all happened to be in the footy team. If we all received the standard Saturday detention which always meant you couldn't play school sport, it would have decimated the team.

The school sought a way out and by offering us the choice of the cane, a solution was found that could be lived with.

 

[Leoreth]

But I don't understand what the point is. The school seems to be more concerned to do something, no matter if it actually serves an educational purpose.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

But I don't understand what the point is. They school seems to be more concerned to do something, no matter if it actually serves an educational purpose.

Well they had to do something so as not to be seen as hypocrites since it was common knowledge that a number of us had been busted. In theory the cane was a bigger punishment than detention, but in this case it wasn't. Many of us lived for weekend footy. The point was to win a football game. At the time it seemed awesome but in retrospect it's pretty awful.

I mean there I was happily getting belted by a guy who was really only doing it to hopefully win bragging rights from the other headmaster from the school down the road.

 

[Angst]

Also, one of the gravest disservice one can do to their kids is making them think that they are untouchable. This can backfire horribly later in life.

Most studies of corporeal punishment show that they're from less effective to detrimental in regards to developing a small human being. Even if humans are different, all of them suffer more from corporeal punishment than other forms of raising.

I'm not sure what you mean with untouchable. If you're thinking that children never learn to take care of themselves in regards to pain, you're wrong. Children still cut themselves, step on broken glass, break bones. If you're thinking that children never learn about actual consequences from their actions, you're wrong. There are plenty of ways to correct a child forcefully beyond violence. (In addition, the aforemented studies show that corporeal punishment actually doesn't quite work. I even have personal anecdotes from when I worked in paedagogics if you're curious.) If you're thinking that the adult will be more traumatized from, say, being assaulted, if that adult wasn't hit as a child, it's a seriously bizarre situation you're putting out, and you're wrong. If humans are different (using your distinction here, slightly) some 'strong' humans have the capacity of handling the trauma of violence. That includes humans when they're adults. However the 'weak' humans will become traumatized regardless of their age, and the younger they are and the more receptive their learning centers are, the more they'll actually suffer from these actions.

Children's bodies do not belong to their parents and parents should have no rights to hurt their children. It's not like I'm allowed to punch one of the other university students when they're acting up in class, or spank my secretary if she's not doing the job properly. The whole ordeal is horrendous and nobody with a right mind or the heart in the right place should hurt their children so.

Also, untouchable, well. What about when children become uncomfortable about being touched? Did you read my last post? Do you have any idea how unhealthy such behavior is?

 

[Leoreth]

Well they had to do something so as not to be seen as hypocrites since it was common knowledge that a number of us had been busted. In theory the cane was a bigger punishment than detention, but in this case it wasn't. Many of us lived for weekend footy. The point was to win a football game. At the time it seemed awesome but in retrospect it's pretty awful.

I mean there I was happily getting belted by a guy who was really only doing it to hopefully win bragging rights from the other headmaster from the school down the road.

Yeah, I don't really want to convince you that you suffered some horrible fate there. But in my eyes, these teachers were still wrong, because the driving force behind their actions was not to be seen as hypocrites, instead of having the best for their students in mind.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Yeah, I don't really want to convince you that you suffered some horrible fate there. But in my eyes, these teachers were still wrong, because the driving force behind their actions was not to be seen as hypocrites, instead of having the best for their students in mind.

Oh I was totally aware of this with each whack, and in many ways complicit. In retrospect it would have been quite awesome if we all accepted the detention, missed the game and exposed them for their hypocrisy. But hell, if I only knew then what I knew now about what's important (hint.....it's not making tackles and scoring tries)

 

[Yeekim]

Most studies of corporeal punishment show that they're from less effective to detrimental in regards to developing a small human being.

I wouldn't want to debate "studies" on an abstract level, but yeah, as I said, it is easy to overdo or do wrong.

I'm not sure what you mean with untouchable.

I am thinking people who assume that no matter how they act or what they do, they can get away with it and not suffer some sort of (often physical) retribution.

There are plenty of ways to correct a child forcefully beyond violence.

I am not sure I understand the difference between "forcefully" and "violently"...

Children's bodies do not belong to their parents and parents should have no rights to hurt their children.

Their time doesn't belong to parents either. Should parents be unable to give them detention?

Also, untouchable, well. What about when children become uncomfortable about being touched? Did you read my last post? Do you have any idea how unhealthy such behavior is?

As I said, any amount of anecdotes about how something was done horribly wrong can not prove that something is always wrong. Sorry, if that sounds callous.

 

[Angst]

Disclaimer for this post: ofc i'm not a moralist idiot, fx if the kid is lollygagging handfirst into a piranha pond, you're free to slap it over its hands. there are situations where ideals have to bend for the sake of practicality. however, slapping someone over his or her hands over such a thing has nothing to do with parenting and is not the issue we're discussing here

I am thinking people who assume that no matter how they act or what they do, they can get away with it and not suffer some sort of (often physical) retribution.

That has never been the case. People aren't that dumb. Actually, it works the other way; children that a beat by their parents in any way have a much higher tendency to act unruly or unadjusted. It's always the wrong thing to do when correcting behavior.

I am not sure I understand the difference between "forcefully" and "violently"...

Hm, that was a bit misphrased yes. Just remove the word "forcefully". I don't recall why I wrote it.

Their time doesn't belong to parents either. Should parents be unable to give them detention?

I think you misunderstood my point, again, most possibly because of my own bad phrasing. Children aren't projects or possessions of their parents. The parent exists for the sake of the child. The parent should not exercise anything upon the child that easens the parent's situation, but worsens the child's. I know it's a "duh" statement, but people forget that. Violence, for example, can only solve short-term issues, but doesn't actually correct the child very much - you have to do it repeatingly in order to have the kid stay disciplined if that's your tool for straightening things up.

I know it's akin to your "hammer as the only tool" metaphor, but violence should not even be a last resort when raising kids. It's a tool either hurtful or ineffecient.

As I said, any amount of anecdotes about how something was done horribly wrong can not prove that something is always wrong. Sorry, if that sounds callous.

Nono, it doesn't. I've seen your posts in here, I know you're a smart guy. I understand the distinction between sympathy and an abstract ideal.

But the studies - the data - that showcase quantitative reasons why parental violence is a bad do not care for exact anecdotes. They merely showcase that this violence is a bad thing. If you want to argue for how something is sometimes right, you have to include these "any amount of anecdotes".

 

[Farm Boy]

Disclaimer for this post: ofc i'm not a moralist idiot, fx if the kid is lollygagging handfirst into a piranha pond, you're free to slap it over its hands. there are situations where ideals have to bend for the sake of practicality. however, slapping someone over his or her hands over such a thing has nothing to do with parenting and is not the issue we're discussing here

I get the feeling there are differing definitions of "parenting" floating around here outside of common usage. I would definitely qualify this as parenting. Life is pretty chaotic and as much as you try to watch your larval human 100% of the time, you can't. 5 seconds of distraction is enough sometimes. Occasionally putting a hardline stop with an earflick or handrap is not a pleasant endeavor for a caring parent either. But doing things you don't want to do seems part and parcel of being anything resembling a responsible parent, be it perhaps this or perhaps something else. Could you clarify how you are using "parenting" so I can tease out this conceptual divide?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Parents should be allowed to do it to their own kids but schools should not be allowed to do it. This is because in general a parent would have much greater concern for the welfare of the child being spanked than the school would, though, as always, abuse of that privledge should NOT be tolerated in any case.

 

[Yeekim]

there are situations where ideals have to bend for the sake of practicality.

Good, that was the greater part of my point.

That has never been the case. People aren't that dumb.

You know that Einstein quote?

Violence, for example, can only solve short-term issues, but doesn't actually correct the child very much - you have to do it repeatingly in order to have the kid stay disciplined if that's your tool for straightening things up.

I agree, I don't think it is a good tool for "disciplining" someone per se.

However, my soon-to-be-4-year-old son at one time decided it was great fun "stalking" people (me and his mother, mostly) and biting them. Pretty hard, I might add. No idea where he got that. Anyway, no amount of explaining that it ain't nice or fun and hurts others had any effect. Denying privileges didn't work either, because while he was "playing" like that he didn't care about them - and I didn't care about punishment, just wanted to protect my calves. So finally I left him with nice bite marks myself. This stopped it.

I suppose I could've tied him to bed in another room instead, but I doubt it would have been better or more "humane" solution in any way.

As small children discover the world and search their boundaries, they at one point usually want to know "what happens if I willfully and repeatedly disobey my parents". I don't think letting them get an answer "nothing, really", is good parenting. Reason doesn't quite work yet at that age.

But I agree that physical punishments in high school have little to do with parenting and more with retributive justice.

 

[warpus]

However, my soon-to-be-4-year-old son at one time decided it was great fun "stalking" people (me and his mother, mostly) and biting them. Pretty hard, I might add. No idea where he got that. Anyway, no amount of explaining that it ain't nice or fun and hurts others had any effect. Denying privileges didn't work either, because while he was "playing" like that he didn't care about them - and I didn't care about punishment, just wanted to protect my calves. So finally I left him with nice bite marks myself. This stopped it.

Dude.. you bit your kid?

WTH

 

[Farm Boy]

Dude.. you bit your kid?

WTH

And what would you recommend? Handcuffs? Duct tape? Drugs?

Edit: actually - drugs seems to be a pretty common crutch in young boys in the states. Unruly child? Drug that right outta 'em.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I get the feeling there are differing definitions of "parenting" floating around here outside of common usage. I would definitely qualify this as parenting. Life is pretty chaotic and as much as you try to watch your larval human 100% of the time, you can't. 5 seconds of distraction is enough sometimes. Occasionally putting a hardline stop with an earflick or handrap is not a pleasant endeavor for a caring parent either. But doing things you don't want to do seems part and parcel of being anything resembling a responsible parent, be it perhaps this or perhaps something else. Could you clarify how you are using "

parenting" so I can tease out this conceptual divide?

Earflick & handrap =/= spanking in common usage.

So you're not an abuser!

Also, how did biting your kid get read into that statement?

 

[Farm Boy]

Earflick & handrap =/= spanking in common usage.

So you're not an abuser!

Also, how did biting your kid get read into that statement?

Doesn't matter, kid is only 7 months old. It's moot right now anyhow. I would try not to toss abuser around in a thread where people are going to possibly misconstrue or personalize the statement. Unless you think calling people murderers in abortion threads is productive, since it's roughly equivalent for the purposes of intrawebs discussion.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Doesn't matter, kid is only 7 months old. It's moot right now anyhow. I would try not to toss abuser around in a thread where people are going to possibly misconstrue or personalize the statement. Unless you think calling people murderers in abortion threads is productive, since it's roughly equivalent for the purposes of intrawebs discussion.

I was defending you from the the ppl who are going to call you an abuser. Next time I'll GFM instead

 

[warpus]

And what would you recommend? Handcuffs? Duct tape? Drugs?

Biting a 4 year old so hard that it leaves marks is definitely not anywhere near the top of my list of accepted parenting methods.

 

[AlpsStranger]

So we agree that spanking is pretty bad most of the time, but we all want to spank Maggie Gyllenhaal?

This is the most rational consensus we've ever reached