Hi all,
I'm new to the boards here. This is my first post. I'm going to try to be nice with what I'm saying, by not using any off color language, making accusations, or resorting to the other ugliness people resort to when they can't form a meritable argument. So please, I would appreciate it if any responses extend the same courtesy in return. I'm interested in debate, not mudslinging. Thanks in advance for understanding. :)
So, as this argument goes, I'm not in favor of spanking. I am someone who was spanked as a child, and I remember well not only how it felt but what the immediate emotional consequences were as well as the longer term ones. I know people who were, and also some who weren't, spanked as kids. Those who turned out well (spanked or not) turned out well not because they were hit (in those cases) as much as because they had caring parents who tried to teach them.
That said, though, I have a rough time with relating to those who claim that spanking is "loving discipline." I've heard that phrase used a lot. I've even read it on some advice boards written by people who do research in the field. And it just doesn't make logical sense. Here's why:
In the debates I've gotten into with friends and other parents on this topic, regardless of whatever reasons they gave for spanking (like for example, 'My parents did it, and I'm ok,' or, 'I've done it to my kid and I don't see a problem in him, he's a good kid,' or, 'There's a difference between a spanking and abuse,' or whatever else they have to say) ... and regardless on where any of us stand on the interpretation of the Bible, or (what I believe is) the misrepresentation of it to imply that Christlike love doesn't extend to kids and/or that God believes in hitting people (in direct contrast to 'Love thy neighbor'?) ... they haven't disproven the following points:
- Discipline (which is different from spanking) does not require spanking to be effective
- Children can be taught without being hit
- Spanking is a selfish avoidable act on the part of the parent
Now with that last one, bear in mind that I'm saying this because in several years of debating this topic with people, nobody has been able to (a) produce a scenario for discussion in which spanking is the only or right way to handle a problem, above nonphysical methods, or (b) prove that spanking 'benefits' a child in any way, whereas the benefits to the parent (easy conflict resolution, no need to think of alternatives beyond that point, no need to listen to the child's objections or feelings past that point, asserting authority, release of frustration or anger, release of tension, perhaps stopping the escalation of conflict or immediately stopping the child's actions) are obvious.
In fairness, I know most people who spank, don't do so with conscious intent to hurt their children. I do believe most people who spank their kids do so meaning to correct them, and perhaps also either because (1) their parents hit them, so at some level its' reactionary, (2) they weren't taught better/different or perhaps they aren't well equipped with alternatives to use in place of it, and/or (3) its validation for what happened to them in their own homes ... in other words, at some subconscious level, if they hurt another person in the name of discipline, then it is ok that someone did the same thing to them when they were children. I'm sure that there are many other reasons/justifications too, but those seem to be the 'big ones' I've run into even when they weren't stated as such.
But I have not seen anyone disprove those three statements yet. IF any of you can, please do. I would be interested in what you have to say. Just please be aware that if you are going to direct a reply with the intent of 'proving' the position of spanking correct in direct conflict to those three statements, then please think ahead of time about whether or not a nonphysical alternative could be offered to any scenario you present, because if it can, then your statement doesn't actually disprove mine but rather just gives an example of when YOU think it is ok to hit, with which none of us are obligated in any way to agree if hitting in those circumstances is still avoidable.
And all of THAT said (lol) ... as a mother, I can not fathom ever laying a harmful hand on my children even in the name of correcting them. I love them. I respect them. I know how to reason with them without having to hurt them. I don't think that basic human rights are earned with age, but rather should be a birthright and entitlement to ALL children in this country, in ALL of their homes, immediately upon their arrival into this world.
I also think, on a side note, that it's pretty damned hypocritical that our country will send our brave men and women overseas to fight for other countries' basic human rights and neglect to pass legislation offering safety from all harm to our children here at home.
/soapbox. :P
Thanks for reading, I look forward to hearing from you. :)
