Printer-friendly version
Author:
Yesterday a blog gathered opinions about corporal punishment.
This site spends a great deal of time discussing bullies. There doesn't seem to be any argument that bullies are awful human beings. Yet, it appears the majority of those who responded to the survey support corporal punishment.
bul·ly1
ˈbo͝olē/
noun
noun: bully; plural noun: bullies
a person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker.
synonyms: persecutor, oppressor, tyrant, tormentor, intimidator, tough guy, thug, ruffian, strong-arm; cyberbully "the school bully"
Corporal punishment is using strength to intimidate a much weaker person. It is unnecessary and contributes to a "might equals right" society.
Comments
Uhhh...
I hate to even attempt to add to such a well written opinion however... You've forgotten one synonym...at least in my very humble opinion. The word bully is synonymous to coward. And I've seen the proof.
May We All Know Peace...
Kelly
corporal punishment and General Principles - both Army ranks?
Wow,
So, corporal punishment is what I was enduring at school all those many years ago? Or was what I did to him the last time he attacked me corporal punishment inflicted upon him, since I was finally trained in the art of self-preservation?
I didn’t realise I was contributing to a might-makes-right world. I thought by learning to defend myself and then applying that to the person who had over time broken one of my ribs, two of my fingers (one each on separate occasions), given me a black eye (and a permanent change in vision), and daily stolen my school lunch money for two years was simply self-preservation on my part.
I thought I was simply trying not to be hurt any more by teaching him that he would be harmed at least as much as he had been harming me if he continued to attack me without provocation.
Some people do not understand anything but the use of force to prevent them from inflicting harm on others.
Anesidora
They both serve
in the British Thermal Unit.
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Self Defense
Self-defense is fine. Fighting back against a bully is fine. Was your bully an authority figure, twice as tall and six times as heavy as you? Corporal punishment for hitting others, or doing something dangerous is reasonable. I can't think, for the moment, of anything else that satisfies simple fairness.
Thank you, Angela Rasch, for your post.
-- Daphne Xu
Wow. So, when my daughter
Wow. So, when my daughter deliberately hurt our cat, and I swatted her on the butt to make HER yowl - and pointed out that's what she just did to a much smaller animal, I didn't realize that I was being a bully. Here I thought I was teaching her empathy and understanding, as well as to think about consequences.
I think someone has a strange idea of the difference between bullying and punishment.
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
Yes . . .
I'm a fairly large person. Let's just say that I'm bigger than you and could physically dominate you. If I saw you "swat" your child in a store, and decided that behavior wasn't acceptable, would it be okay for me to bend you over my knee and "swat" your butt to teach you empathy?
Okay - let's take it to an extreme. You see a child in a store slapped so hard the child's nose begins to bleed. Acceptable? What if the child was seven and had stolen a piece of candy? Did the child need to be taught a lesson through corporal punishment? Would you step in?
Parenting is not an exact science.
More to my point -- most bullies justify their behavior by stating, "He needed a good lesson!"
In my opinion, behavior modification is ineffective and unethical when corporal punishment is used.
I coached dozens of football, tennis, basketball, and soccer teams, from six year olds to high school varsity. I never once used corporal punishment to modify behavior. Yet I changed those players attitudes and had some extremely thorny disciplinary problems to solve. Had I hit any of the children I coached I would have expected I would have been discharged - and rightly so.
Why is it okay for a parent to hit a child and a coach not? It isn't. Not in my opinion. Corporal punishment is unnecessary and unethical.
Look . . . I wrote a nationally published blog in SUPPORT of Adrian Peterson. He was parenting just like he had been taught. I wouldn't do what he did, but I can understand why he did it.
I don't condemn people for using corporal punishment, I condemn the practice.
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Not so simple
My parents pretty much used the smack on the bottom only on pre-verbal infants, more as an attention getting device than anything else. Once we were old enough to reason with, spankings became rare to non-existent; I can remember less than a dozen instances. Nearly all the spankings I can remember were about learning to avoid danger. The two exceptions were, yes, failures of parenting; my parents were only human after all and lost their tempers on only two occasions with me over an 18 year period. Genuine apologies were immediately forthcoming; I was twelve and fifteen and probably insolent and also apologized.
But I disagree with your thesis that it is never okay to spank a child; it just isn't that simple.
That said, when classmates used to tell me about beatings they had received from their parents, I had trouble processing that. It was outside my experience and belonged to fiction as far as I knew. And both of my parents had experienced beatings as children, I later found out.
Here's another datapoint: We raised chihuahua dogs. None of them ever had to be spanked to teach them not to poop indoors, chihuahuas generally understand that, as soon as they can navigate well enough to find a door and ask to be let out. But more than once, a dog trapped indoors and forced to defecate would be unable to relax, eat or sleep well until they had been symbolically spanked and scolded in the locale where they had transgressed. It relieved their minds to know that the scales had been balanced. :)
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
I agree
I believe it is human to stumble and that an absolute is a goal. I remember distinctly smacking my second son on his very surprised bottom when I caught him precipitously leaning against a second story screen window when he was two. I was scared stiff. I also grant you the need for children to feel properly punished when they misbehave. If your culture includes corporal punishment you might need to include this, as Adrian Peterson did.
I set a hard standard for myself because I didn't want to be like my parents.
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Like Adrian Peterson, I too
Like Adrian Peterson, I too have set some hard standards for myself. Both of my grandfathers were alcoholics and abusive to my grandmothers and parents. When I was 12 I decided I never wanted to be like them. And to this day (I turn 59 in 2 weeks) I have never gotten drunk and only drink a glass or two of beer or wine in an evening and then only rarely.
I am glad that I was able to eliminate that cause of abuse. But as human being, we sometimes make mistakes. So my late wife and I taught our children that we love them, no matter what, and we can only do what we believe is best for them, at the time; even though we sometimes fail in the reality of trying.
I also must say that a proper spanking is NOT hitting. Hitting is a violent act intended to cause damage. A proper spanking is only intended to get their attention and TEACH proper behavior and that there are consequences for our actions. There is a world of difference between the two. Does a spanking hurt - yes. But a proper spanking does not cause any real damage.
Have a great day.
Thanks for posting,
Hugs,
Erin of Wis
Simple answer, NO!``
You wrote:
"I'm a fairly large person. Let's just say that I'm bigger than you and could physically dominate you. If I saw you "swat" your child in a store, and decided that behavior wasn't acceptable, would it be okay for me to bend you over my knee and 'swat' your butt to teach you empathy?"
As I said, NO! The reason being you don't have the authority make the judgement, nor to mete out punishment. A bully likewise has no authority to do what they do. However, a parent has authority over their children and to mete out punishment for infractions of the rules.
I stand by my statement that there is a big difference between a whipping (harming or intimidating and I'll add abusing) a child and a simple spanking as I described in my post yesterday.
Properly administered without anger or excess, a spanking (corporal punishment) is acceptable. Just because some people don't know how to do it justly and properly doesn't rule it out.
Being cruel, losing ones temper and striking in anger is always wrong regardless of who is struck.
As far as intimating goes, a policeman turns on the flashing light of his patrol care intimidates the car in front of him into pulling over. He then intimidates the driver into producing the cars registration and proof of insurance. Then, at his discretion he can intimidate the driver into sending money to the jurisdiction he's representing, or appearing in court at his own cost to show cause why he shouldn't have to send, or give, the money.
All of that sounds an awful lot like a bully crowding another, smaller student into an alcove and demanding his lunch money. This is wrong in anybodies books but what the policeman did was right. The difference is authority. The police have it, bullies don't.
The difference between proper punishment and improper is that proper punishment doesn't leave any marks that show the next day. If it leaves a bruise, draws blood, of fractures a bone, it's way over the line.
Abuse is abuse, but a judicious swat in restraint, is not.
Hugs
Patricia
Happiness is being all dressed up and HAVING some place to go.
Semper in femineo gerunt
Big NO to you!
"The difference between proper punishment and improper is that proper punishment doesn't leave any marks that show the next day." Since there are tactics of torture or inflicting severe pain that don't leave any such marks, that can't be the proper line.
Don't you dare tell me that bare-bottom hair-brushing (bristle-side down) of a very young child for using a mild profanity like "butt" is acceptable.
Don't you dare tell me that grabbing and twisting a child's ear is perfectly fine, or that pressing on a narrow sensitive tissue in the ear is perfectly fine.
Neither leaves long-term marks.
The authority of police officer in stopping someone is limited. Likewise, the authority of a parent is limited. Furthermore, there's always the right of self-defense and defense of another person. So there are situations where a parent would cite parental authority to defend a prosecution against him, and an intervener would cite defense of another in a prosecution against him, and the law would mandate acquittal of both.
The real reason many corporal punishment advocates limit the age is that the older the child gets, the more likely it is that he'll be able to fight back effectively. The nice thing about certain types of stories here is that it allows one to fantasize about what one wishes one had done. Alternatively, it allows one to portray it as the evil it really is.
We'll see if this provokes another angry story (as happened with "Vengeance and Beyond" earlier).
-- Daphne Xu
I dare to disagree on some points
Most children pass, usually at about 2, a period of establishing their self-determination. Being far too young to have any judgement other than what their whim is, often the only way to pass them the message that they are wrong is the physical one.
You are right that any excess in the punishment is wrong, not even speaking of causing pain out of vengeance or temper. Also, children are different. Some need spanking often, others rarely or not at all. Some need a lot of spanking to get the message, and don't get any trauma out of this; others might be hurt or broken by even a single light slap. There is no common rule - except that one should carefully judge the need and amount, and must show the kid that it is punished for the mistake, but loved as a child and human being.
Most children do need some spanking in some cases, or at least benefit from it. I was raised by my grandparents and despite being relatively nice child, got plenty of corporal punishment. Some of it was far beyond spanking. They were nice people, just very conservative even by the standards of their time and society, believing that the stronger the punishment, the better for the child... Later I noticed that my being very compassionate for suffering people is rooted in the knowledge of suffering that came with these punishments.
An unruly kid with egotistic tendencies (there are such kids) who was not spanked even when this would be the only way to deliver the message, can grow into a person who does not really know what suffering is, and thus is more inclined to cause it to the others. The trick is, I think, to do it to deliver a loving lesson, not a negative emotion. My grandparents badly overdid the dose, but otherwise delivered the right message, and I do not consider myself damaged by them.
I disagree, strongly. My
I disagree, strongly. My daughter is 6, headstrong, a bit too intelligent for her own good, and often has a short attention span. My wife insists on lecturing her for up to an hour at a time. By the time she's done talking, my daughter hasn't a clue as to what's going on. In contrast, I give two to three quick swats on the butt, and a one minute lecture. Personally, I'm pretty sure I'm getting across to her better than my wife, and we don't have to do it that much. Why? Because she's _just like I was_. It's like a dog or cat. If you punish at the time and the place of the error, then it works. Going back an hour later and punishing the cat or dog is stupid - then it's abuse, because the animal has no idea what's going on. (That's my main objection with our justice system. 99% of people arrested need to see the judge the next day, be tried, and sentenced. Bang, done. The evidence was collected immediately, there's often a confession, and the only thing that needs to be confirmed is that a grand jury needs to do a quick review of that evidence before the judge see it. )
As for your argument above? It's specious. If you see me backhand my kid and make her fall to the floor and bleed, you'd be justified in intervening. I've just performed assault in a public location. If you see me grab the kid, turn her around, and swat her twice, then you don't have grounds for that. What's the difference? BODILY HARM. Broken bones, blood, obvious bruising. The exact same thing that if I did it to another adult, you could perform the same intervention. If you jumped on me for disciplining my child in public, then you would be committing assault. If you laid hands on me, it would jump to battery.
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
Mens rea
I understand your thinking but, with respect, I feel you are missing an important point. In law, there is the Actus Reus (the actually act), and the Mens Rea (the guilty mind). I would argue that you defining anyone who uses Corporal Punishment as a Bully is ignoring the guilty mind, which IMHO is very important here. When I disciplined my children, it was to correct unsatisfactory behavior. It was done with love, not with the intention of only hurting them. If my child runs out on the road without looking, and I smack him on the bottom, it is not my intent to belittle or hurt them; it is with the intent to prevent greater harm in the future! Further, I feel that Psychological pressure can be far more harmful than a smack on the bottom. If I had to chose, I would prefer the smack. I am a firm believer that the punishment should fit the crime, but excessive force is not acceptable.
dougstaxi
Mens Rea
In this case, you're the one misunderstanding "mens rea". Mens rea involves things such as intention to do the act and cause the result, or knowing that one is causing the result, or not knowing. Not motive such as "discipline" vs. "punishment" vs. "bullying" vs. "sadistic bullying". Intentionally hurting a child -- the mens rea is the "intentionally" part here.
-- Daphne Xu
A soft flogging and snogging?
I would personally like a few... or many soft tappings on my bottom followed by a bit of snogging. No severe bruising mind you.
A professional opinion
If any of you have read books by Dr. Spock (the Psychologist/Psychiatrist, not Leonard Nimoy) on raising children and corporal punishment; in the 1960s he claimed the same things about corporal punishment,saying it was never justified and you will scar them for life; that was before he had any children. Then some 20 years later (after he raised several children) he published another book refuting everything from his first book. He now says that most children need a spanking for some misbehaviors and if as a parent you don't spank them for those offenses, then you are creating a delinquent who will ultimately become a bully, an abuser and worse.
As a parent who has raised 3 girls (all head strong), I can tell you we only spanked them when other methods failed. (note: after they reached the age 10(or reached puberty) I no longer spanked them as we deemed it inapropriate for a male to spank an older girl). Most of the times, some time spent on the steps thinking about what they did and what they could have done differently, was all it took. But you can't do that with a bully at school, or work, or elsewhere who is not under your authority. Remember you have the Divine Right to self defense, no person, group, law or government has the right/authority to take that away, nor infringe upon it. It is important that we teach our children, and others, not only HOW to defend themselves, but also under what circumstances they should use what methods.
Thanks for the post, it is thought provoking and discussing alternatives is important to gaining wisdom.
Hugs,
Erin of Wis
Dr. Benjamin Spock
I think you completely misrepresent what he actually wrote. For one thing, he was a grandparent in the sixties. His statements about corporal punishment were definitely not "never do it". He said something akin to "it clears the air". He preferred spanking done in anger, because it's a grim parent who would deliberately hurt a child. He also said things about being firm. I recall that in the nineties (his nineties as well) he did speak out in favor of abolishing corporal punishment.
By the way, I shouldn't have to point out that this entire site is corporal-punishment bait for a huge group of people.
-- Daphne Xu
i have been restraining
i have been restraining myself to not post because i imagine i'm at the extreme spectrum of my experiences. However, with so many advocates for spanking i do feel the need to step in a bit.
I see a lot of people saying that they only used a few smacks, but I never got that. The least I got was probably closer to ten, and it only went up from there. THe record was 100 in roughly a minute, maybe a little over, and always with a stick of some kind. Usually the stakes that were used to mark property lines.
I also recall once one of those stakes was broken over my backside and left an agonizing bruise all along my hip for weeks.
Then after every spanking, i was left to sob on my own as the person who did it walked away.
As a result, I am very strongly against spanking and I feel that people who deliver them are not truly understanding the fear and sadness it inflicts.
What you just described
was not spanking. It was clear cut abuse. You need to understand the difference between the two.
Perhaps
but it's still my personal history with spanking and corporal discipline. So why would I not be against it?
Bullying?
Bullying? pft... it's call diciplinary action... there's a differance.
If you love that child then your *not* going to "bully" them... but they've gotta learn that their actions come with consequences, and they have to be unpleasent or else they will shrug it off. Standing in a corner doesnt work for most kids... they'll stand there.. and daydream, laugh, smile and have a grand ole time, especially if they have siblings thier own age.
You see kids in wal-mart or anywhere else in town acting like monkey's on an acid trip and being disrespectful to thier own parents! Thier methods have failed and they need to reconsider how they treat their children, you are *NOT* thier best friend or school buddy... your thier *Parent*
different methods work for different childern, there is no absolute 1 way of doing it. Avoid corporal punishment if you can, but dont be afraid to use it if you have to.
Spankings
There is a huge difference between beating a child and spanking them.
In my experience as a kid a spanking -- which I'll say right now I am fine with -- was typically 1-3 mild smacks with an open hand to a child's bottom through the material of their clothes, with the intent of the action being to show consequence for the child's actions in a way that guarantees their attention and recognition of the results of said actions without causing long-term physical or emotional discomfort. It is NEVER intended to cause actual pain or bruising. Likewise, a smack to the face for a child is never acceptable, nor to the arms, legs, back, head, anywhere OTHER than the typically well-padded bum.
The secret, in my mind, is to understand the difference between a child who benefits from said punishment, and one where it isn't needed.
As a child, I got spankings on occasion, but that was always at the end of a discussion with my parents about what I did wrong. I had good language skills early on, and I've always been quite empathetic, so typically hearing the worry and disappointment in my parents' voices as they explained to me what I had done wrong and WHY it was wrong was enough to have me crying in shame. A spanking was always something that, as it was explained to me, my mom and dad never WANTED to give, and was never meted out until I understood why. The buildup was always worse than the result, too. Heck, as a preteen/teenager we had a belt hanging on the wall with the word "reality" carved into it, my parents' warning to me to keep my head and thoughts on what I was doing rather than up in the clouds after one too many close calls because of my absent mindedness. I don't clearly recall it being used on me but maybe once, its purpose primarily symbolic in nature, with both of my parents letting me know -- usually with tears of their own -- that they hoped I'd never do something asinine enough for them to actually feel they had to use it.
My sister, however, was different. My parents tried to teach her in the same way they did me, but it didn't work out quite so cleanly. She figured out early on -- around the age of 5 -- that if she just yelled back at them enough they would forego trying to make her understand the reason behind her getting spanked and get the spanks out of the way, and what did those matter? It says a lot that, when she was in kindergarten, her teacher called our parents laughing. They'd had a lesson earlier in the day about letting people know when an adult hurt you, and she'd told her teacher that my dad had hit her. Concerned, the teacher had pulled her away from class at break to ask about it. My sister told her that she had hit our dog (which she had,) so dad had spanked her -- and it almost hurt too! That right there should tell you exactly where the emphasis was with spanking in my household.
NEvertheless, it was typically one of the only punishments she could be given that would do any good at all, what little it did. Putting her in time out in the corner she would start beating her head against the wall until she either had bruises and welts or you let her out -- even the doctor recommended getting her a helmet because she did that so much -- and my parents weren't about to send a child away without supper, having had too many short-handed nights themselves as kids.Tantrums, likewise, weren't a "lay in the floor and mope" thing, but a "break other peoples' property" thing with her.
In that kind of situation, where "corporal punishment" is the only method found to get through at all, is it not justified? My sister has matured a lot over the years, and with kids of her own now she's told our parents on more than one occasion she can't believe they were as lenient with her as they were. Is that the sign of someone who was abused and bullied into falling into line, or someone that recognizes what their punisher was trying to accomplish -- even if only long after the event -- and respects what they were trying to teach?
If you look at the back of my mom's legs and her lower back, you can still see the broken veins and scars from years of abuse with an unrestrained belt, switch, or broom handle, not to mention the horror stories she and her siblings have of fists and open hands. She made a vow before I was ever born never to hit one of her children in anger, and other than a yelling match with my sister at 17 that left both of them in tears for hours and a palm mark on my sister's cheek for about the same amount of time she has kept that promise. That isn't the sign of a bully, or someone who wants to intimidate their children into behavior, but someone who loves their children very much.
It always bothered my parents just as much to have to spank us as it bothered us to be spanked, and I think that really spells the difference right there.
Melanie E.