Comments on Americans Love Spanking Their Children

We have the "pro-smoking ban urban liberals" to thank for opening up the door to this kind of legislation. Just as the government has no place regulating smoking in a private business establishment, it has no place legislating how we should raise our children in our private homes.

It's a slippery slope...

The best parenting is a mix of messages - thank god my mom gave me good spanking to convince me not to stand in the road to stop cars when I was eight or nine.

I lived to enjoy life. No other persuasion would have been as effective. At that stage of my life I was very cocky and sassy and thought I was immortal.

I am sure Angela has never raised kids. You comment about the only tool needed is reason is stupid.

Beatings as a twisted expression of psycho-violence is not the same as a well needed and well intended spanking from a good parent.

I've done better than raising children: I've been a live-in nanny. I know well the need for a firm censure of a wild three year old and the temptation to give him a whack.

As for your comment about my stupidity, I have no clue what that sentence means.

I agree with #1 - the government has a right to protect children from harm, but *not* to legislate how parents raise their children. Spanking falls under the second category; hitting a child harder than nesecary to get them to shut up and listen to you is already covered in other laws, ie. child abuse.

#1 and #4, exactly. I didn't get #2's "Agela is stupid" comment either. This bill is a waste of everyone's time. If a parent is behaving abusively, there is already laws in place. Although, I would chuckle at hearing "next year you'll be old enough for me to spank you!" enter our lexicon.

I am supportive of the occasional rare but at times neccessay spanking. But not beating of a child. And there is a difference.

I don't consider spanking child-abuse, however it's also a patently ineffective method of teaching your child anything other than obedience & fear.

All I know is that the only times I was spanked as a child, I really, REALLY, deserved it.

Why limit spanking to kids? Retarded people can't understand reasoned arguments... why not just spank them when they do something out of line? What about immigrants? Sometimes they don't understand our culture... I saw a lady from England try to drive on the left side of the road once. A good punch in the jaw would have made sure she never did that again. Drunk people are the least reasonable people of all. We should be able to walk through bars paddling dudes who spill their drinks!

Oh wait, all those people can fight back. It's no fun beating someone who can defend themselves.

dougsf: It's legal to beat you kid all your want, as long as you don't do lasting physical damage, or a judge finds you use "excessive force," which is almost impossible to prove.

"Even though the law is totally reasonable"
Assuming you totally agree with me. And the law is also totally enforceable, will never be used incorrectly or inconsistently, will never be used by divorcing parents to harm the other in custody disputes, or police to justify an arrest or search for someone SWB (spanking while black), and all the other possible reasons to distrust this law are just excuses by nasty child-beaters.

um, my four year old didn't need to be spanked to understand that cars could kill him. EIGHT OR NINE? Are we all really defending the right to whack babies?

jamier: thank you for adopting the same sloppy discussion habits of the government in discussing drug use/abuse. Just as any drug use must be abuse, because It's Bad, and therefore any drug use ever is Bad, so do you point out that spanking or swatting a child is totally the exact same thing as *beating* a person or child. Cause fists to the face and a kick in the ribs is identical to a swat to the butt.

Darwin: maybe we're pointing out that a) not all corporal punishment is whacking babies, b) that the government has no business tracking shit like this; abuse is already illegal and this ain't abuse, c) this is unenforceable and will result in biased and discriminatory enforcement, and d) since the government already does such a bang-up job protecting and constructing American families for us, do we really want to mess with such a good thing?

The pilgrims used to beat the devil out of their kids when they misbehaved. That's one end of the spectrum. I believe our present-day society is too far on the other side of the spectrum when it comes to disciplining children. We're creating a generation of lazy and spoiled kids, who later become weak adults, who cry when their employers give them poor performance appraisals.

"I know well the need for a firm censure of a wild three year old and the temptation to give him a whack."

My dear, if you're tempted to do it, it's almost certainly abuse. If you struggle with whether or not it's the right disciplinary choice, it probably isn't abuse.

Unfortunately, whether or not some things are wrong is entirely dependent on why you're doing them. And if we allow the government to judge our intent, then we fall into the abyss of prosecuting thought crime.

This is not a debate over whether or not spanking is effective child rearing. I don't think it is, neither do most experts (disclosure: I have no kids). The issue is the ridiculousness of this bill. And jamier, beating you're kids "as long as there's no lasting marks" isn't legal. People often get away with horrible acts, they are not all legal.

Looks like some of you have fallen into the "if you're against the war you must hate our troops!" mentality.

And please, rebut me my correcting any typos or misspellings you find.

Sammy: I'm still amazed that a 9 year old would respond to spanking at all. One of our sons would have given you a look like a young bull being branded, "Just you fucking wait." And the other would have silently added it to his alienating and oh too accurate mental compendium of injustices rampant upon the planet and on his street. Just not a good tool for either of these boys at 9. More subtle methods were necessary with them from day one.

Pain and humiliation are an iffy tool for behavior control in kids as in adults. For each individual one must ask whether the psychological damage from application of pain and humiliation to that individual is outweighed by the resulting submission to will of the authority (assuming such submission is actually achieved).

Angela-

Is being a live-in-nanny really "better" than parents raising their children? Live-in-nannies really have more experience with children then their parents? That really makes you MORE qualified to speak about this?

I guess I really didn't understand your comment. You are totally gross.

Cochise
(live in daddy)

PS: Still waiting for the racist power outage story.

It is completely unAmerican to not spank your kids. If my kids get out of line, I'm not doing my job as their father if I don't give them a slap across the fanny or face. Next thing you know they'll make it illegal to train your dogs and they'll be running in packs and attacking people. I don't care what your parenting studies show; if my kids piss me off, then they get the belt. No matter what the law says, you'll have to pry the switch from my cold, dead hands.

Fuck yeh, Traditional American! You got to the root of it. Without corporal punishment "they'll be running in packs and attacking people." No one will be safe in their bed at night.

No one is more intolerant or judgmental than those that preach tolerance and acceptance.

"Pain and humiliation"? When a 4-year old throws a screaming tantrum and his/her parents pull him/her up short and spank the butt it's pain and humiliation?
If anything, this thread has shown EXACTLY why this law is a bad idea. Different people have completely different ideas about what spanking even is, let along what is too hard or too old or too often. All of you "less-spankier-than-thou" people answer this: Do you really want beat cops making these decisions? Men and women who deal with drug dealers and gang bangers and rape and murder cases should now keep an eye out for butt spanking? Do you want social services called and a file opened on parents over an incident like this?
Not one of the anti-spanking people on this thread has explained, even once, why they think this law could be enforced fairly or evenly. "But it's a great idea!" is right up there with "It's for the children!" and "We'll be welcomed as liberators."

I am sure Angela has never raised kids. You (sic) comment about the only tool needed is reason is stupid.

She doesn't say that parents should use reason to keep their kids in line. Here are the only times she uses the words "reason" or "reasonable:"

"Even though the law is totally reasonable..."

"And for some strange reason, I think we take pride in whacking our children."

Learn to read, Sammy.

Live in daddy sounds like an answer a pimp would give when questioned by five-0 about his profession.

Cop: so what do you do for a living ‘chise?

Cochise: Man, I’m a live in daddy.

torrentprime:

Spanking is by definition designed to cause pain and humiliation (a feeling of weakness in the face of power) in order to cause the spankee to think in the future about the possible repeat consequences of the same action and as a reminder of the loss of approval from the spanker symbolized by the pain and humiliation.

Are you saying spanking in say a court as punishment for shoplifting would cause pain and humiliation, but a spanked 6 year old isn't susceptible to pain and humiliation.

There are other ways to instill obedience and respect for authority than through physical pain and painful consciousness of weakness.

I'm not advocating the law in question, but I think spanking is a losing proposition. The more apparently intractable the kid, the more spanking is likely to cause psychological problems that outweigh the benefit of choosing spanking as a method of teaching and discipline over other methods. Spanking does however offer immediate gratification to the angry parent or care giver (nod to Nanny).

IMHO

"The best parenting is a mix of messages - thank god my mom gave me good spanking to convince me not to stand in the road to stop cars when I was eight or nine.

I lived to enjoy life. No other persuasion would have been as effective. At that stage of my life I was very cocky and sassy and thought I was immortal.

Beatings as a twisted expression of psycho-violence is not the same as a well needed and well intended spanking from a good parent."

Just reiterating #2 because thats the best post on here. Theres a big difference between psycho spanking and trying to save your kids ass. No pun intended folks but he's right. sometimes my Drill Sergeant hit us on the head when we were pointing the gun in the wrong direction. Sometimes a kid(which they usually think they are immortal, need a wake up call once in a while). Talking them to death sometimes doesn't get through their thick skulls, and no fat nannys gonna change that. Its gonna be Poppa Bear and Momma Bear picking them up by their Teath and bringing them back home safely. Thank you and good night.

Someone needed to spank Mr. Bush and his cabinet. For getting us into a quagmire overseas, while all our military gets fragged for someone elses
war. We dont want to even stay in the country or live their. Its all pointless.

To the person who corrects spelling on a blog conversation - thank god you were not one of my parents.

The form of irrational elitism and mindless compulsion, as well as a lack of respect toward other people shows a lack of good values instilled in youth and poor parenting.

Not much to do with spanking, but sure shows a lack of manners which are also taught by good parents, in lecture and example.

How about the total dominance of kids by over possessive middle class parents who control every piece of their kids lives from birth until late twenties?

Very common I think for some modern moms to meet a lot of their needs through their kids. Can't let them do anything without mom and mom makes all the decisions, and sets all the goals.

The mommy govt. is a reflection of upper midddle class America where kids are dominated by educated and seemingly rational parents like mindless robots.

The point is, kids three and younger are almost entirely incapable of contacting physical punishment with whatever they may have done to incur it. I think this point is pretty widely accepted. Kids can be terrorized into behaving, of course, but that's only because they come to see the universe as a violent and capricious place, where it's better not to act on impulse at all. Obviously, this is damaging to them.

I've done better than raising children: I've been a live-in nanny.
This sentence is patently ridiculous.

@26
So how does the spankee KNOW it's not a "psycho-spanking?" Because you are smiling? Or because you tell them how much you love them while you whack?

Also, there is the odd message: one good way to get people to do what you want (or what's "right," or what god wants) is to make them suffer.

Of course, other aversion methods are more long term and take thought and planing. One CAN punish without wacking and make more regular and judicious use of approval and rewards. But over the short term it cant be as satisfying as whacking away right when the little bastard has almost ruined your day by killing himself getting run over.

PS I'm not saying that the answer is always to reason with children. Very often they dont want reasoning even when they argue from "reason." Most kids like boundaries. Wacking is one way to tell them they have reached the edge. There are other ways.

I would like permission to spank other people's kids, in the store and other places. And the parents, too, with a nice hard school paddle from the bad old days. Sonsa bitches don't know how to act.

jlvxitard etyuzaxb hanzvkx tckd mkfgtonqr aeknjr gbxtew

jlvxitard etyuzaxb hanzvkx tckd mkfgtonqr aeknjr gbxtew