Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Doug Giles :: Townhall.com Columnist
In Praise of Spanking
by Doug Giles
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


This week in the uber-liberal state of Massachusetts (y’know . . . the one Romney used to govern) another dense liberal has come up with one more dumb idea to potentially add to their states’ stack of stupidity.

The brain fart the libs pulled out of their booty this time was the proposal to make it illegal for parents to spank their unruly kids’ backsides. The culprit: Democratic Representative Jay Kaufman. The proposal: House Bill 3922 which would make it unlawful for parents to use corporal discipline on their children within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

It would also create a presumption that any spanking is child abuse and neglect. And this Kaufman critter is pro-abortion. Let’s see, according to Jay, it’s wrong to spank an eight year old who drowns puppies in the toilet, but it’s okay to crush the skull of a pesky unborn child. Okay, Jay.

Now, for the record, I am against child abuse and neglect (duh) and feel sorry for kids who have been the recipient of Mommie Dearest’s coat hanger. That said, I have no problemo with cool and modulated tough-loving parents wearing their kid’s butt out, if necessary, for bad behavior. To me and my admittedly warped worldview it’s child neglect and abuse for the parent not to apply the paddle when the little punk—I’m sorry, precious darling—needs it.

Question: How many of you have had the displeasure of being exposed to the kids whose parents didn’t spank them? If you haven’t seen one of these little hellions or you’re unsure if you have, just go to church, the mall, or Barnes and Noble and simply stop, look and listen for a moment. The kid who’s wailing like a siren or stamping his feet and holding his breath with his arms crossed, telling his grandmother to F--- off because she won’t buy him a seven pound chocolate chip cookie, a bucket of coke, a $900 cell phone and the new Wii . . . FYI . . . that’s the kid who has not been spanked.

Kids who do not get spanked when they need it turn out to be nightmares on Elm Street, and we all know it. That’s why the Massachusetts moron and his house bill (and all others like it) should be shouted down and booed and hissed by the good parents of the USA like Donald Trump would be if he stumbled into a plus sized lesbian Tupperware soirée hosted by Rosie O’Donnell.

Generally speaking, undisciplined (read unspanked) kids ruin every atmosphere they enter. Whether it’s in school, or a family reunion, or at the pool, or during church, or just a quiet evening of simply trying to suck down some spaghetti at Macaroni Grill, the kid who hasn’t had his clock regularly cleaned by mom and dad, when needed, is a disaster we can count on to regularly pee on the public’s peace. Speaking of restaurants, why can’t we have a “Non-Screaming Kid” section? These little fiends and their coddling parents bug me way more than a thick cloud of second hand smoke ever could.

Now, not only should we have a Non-Screaming Kid section in restaurants, but we should also make it illegal for parents to refrain from smacking their children when they behave badly. I’m a thinkin’ that most of the crap the Left comes up with is bass akwards in regard to common sense and traditional values anyway so . . . ipso facto . . . we should, as good conservatives, volley into the legislative court the proposal that if your kid acts up in public and you don’t spank them then we fine or imprison you. We could call it House Bill 666: The Anti-Little-Damien-Act.

If after this law goes into place and some parents are a wee bit squeamish to spank their children or have been cowed into obedience to their toddler, the private sector could provide spanking stations throughout the city by every Starbucks, shopping mall, Toys R Us, Blockbuster and McDonald’s, where with parents’ permission, their Johnny could be yanked into line.

Inside the spanking station we’d employ only big black mamas who have no problem whatsoever beating the white, black, yellow or brown off the backsides of rebel children. The parents would bring their child to the station, tell big mama what the kid did, and big mama would spank the child with the weapon of the parents’ choosing for, say, three minutes for fifty bucks. What do you think?

Hey Kaufman, kids today are out of control. They cuss, spit, hit, scream, brandish weapons and throw fits, and parents don’t do squat. Consequently, we have a generation of entitled 13-year-old miscreants who have no problem killing their parents in their sleep for not letting them get their genitals pierced or their face tattooed with a Maori warrior tribal sign.

Look folks, nothing works like a loving rap on the butt of a stubborn kid. Time outs don’t work. You might think they do, but we all know while the little angel is in the corner for thirty minutes with the TV off he’s not thinking about what he did wrong but rather how he can get a lawyer to sue you or which set of drapes he’s going to light on fire when you go out for your afternoon jog.

In addition, reasoning with a kid doesn’t work either. Attempting to convince a four-year-old who eats his boogers that he really shouldn’t pull his 14-month-old sister’s eyelashes out is an exercise in futility.

Also, bribing your sweetie with gifts gets both old and expensive and yields no fruit except an obese, gadget glutted, entitled 12 year old who has a BMW he’s too young to drive.

Parent . . . just spank ‘em. They won’t die. They’ll get the message and respect you for it in the long run. Or if you don’t want to spank your kid, you can get a leash and walk them around like a dog—and if it gets really bad you can put them on drugs.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Doug Giles’ new book “If You're Going Through Hell, Keep Going!" is now available. Ann Coulter says "Doug Giles is a substantive and funny tour de force for traditional values.” Doug’s talk show and video blog can be seen and heard at www.ClashRadio.com.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Doug likes spanking
I find it masochistic. Keep it in your bedroom.

More interesting Massachusetts is voting to rescind their income tax. Now that's revolutionary. It will, I hear, decimate the state budget from about $28 billion to $17 billion.

Why doesn't Dougie talk about that? Could he be a social con?


Gee, Doug
You really do like spanking, don't you?
e-e-e-ew.

As for children, I never once hit or beat any of my kids and they were among the most well-behaved children in any group.

Spanking children is the recourse for adults who are failing as parents.

Let's hope Doug is sterile.


Spanking/child Abuse
It's child abuse when brain dead (aren't my evil children enduring} parents don't spank and their children grow up to be worthless, winy, snot nosed moveon.pukesters.

It's child abuse
When parents grab their children for every infraction or sign of relestness, whack them repeatedly, and then can't figure out why they torture animals and beat up the kid next door.

Never, never, never, hit a child.

Maybe, Maybe not
Once agin Mr. Giles makes overly broad generalizations. The administration of corporal punishment, like everything else about rearing children, is a judgement call. One child may need to get spanked frequently while his sibling may never be touched except by hugs. It all comes down to the individual child. My mother never laid a hand on me in punishment, she had only to give me The Look. I knew that if I pushed the envelope that little extra, she would lower the boom. I might add that The Look also worked well on all the other little imps in the neighborhood.

My family.
My late wife and I raised four children into fine, outstanding, productive adults. Never once did my wife or I raise a hand in anger to any of our children.

I would rather cut my arm off then hit a child.

Shame on anyone who does otherwise.

hey lonestarblues...
time to push the tangent button...

i think i see some red herrings...

Ditto on How Kids Differ
I agree on how different kids, even in the same family, respond to different disciplinary methods.

Of my 4 one needed an occasional bought of physical discipline once in a while, another was a defiant rules tester who pushed every limit set on her desires multiple times each day and thus required more frequent application of the wooden spoon, another can usually be disciplined with a firm look, and the last is a non-talking toddler.

The teens, one of whom is the rules tester (she can now grasp the rational behind the rules and is mainly compliant based on her reasoned understanding that we have her best interest in mind -- something that a 3yo, a 7yo, or even a 10yo is developmentally incapable of), are old enough to grasp that their peers whose parents didn't discipline them are real jerks. The most scathing comment I've ever heard the oldest make about a person was, "His parents never said no to him."

Physical discipline, applied in a carefully measured fashion while making sure to explain exactly what the specific offense was, is a very useful tool in controlling a defiantly disobedient child or in emphasizing the seriousness of major offenses. Other tools, such as time outs, revoking of privileges, putting toys into time out, fines from the allowance, the guilt-inducing lecture (personally, I recall that I strongly preferred taking my 3 swats over getting the 10 minute lecture), are also useful tools to be applied when most appropriate.

It should, of course, go without saying that good behavior should be rewarded. But if I don't say it people will accuse me of being a cruel dictator who rules by force (well, certain people will say that anyway but no cruel, dictatorial parent has a 16yo who has ever uttered the words "Mom, I'd like your opinion on something" so I know better).

The combination of positive and negative reinforcement produces effective results.


Spanking is not necessarily abusive
Spanking *can* be abuse, but then again so can verbal reprimands (you're an idiot and will never amount to anything) or simply withholding privileges (go stand in the corner...for 18 hours).

The huge problem that I have with the anti-spanking crowd is that they refuse to see that corporal punishment can be administered to children below about the age of 10 in a manner that is entirely appropriate and indeed loving. Contrary to their simplistic notions, it does not teach children to be "violent" any more than sending a child to bed without dinner teaches them to be anorexic.

The problem with spanking is not the act, but the context in which it is administered. If it is done in anger, it is wrong. If it uses excessive force, it is wrong. If it is used to break the child's spirit rather than willful disobedience, it is wrong. When it is administered because the parent is too lazy to offer proper correction and training and instead always resorts to physical punishment, it is wrong.

But just because there are many ways to get it wrong and their are many idiotic parents doesn't mean that there isn't a way to administer spanking in an appropriate manner.

Personally, I did not need many spankings as a child because my parents' displeasure was enough to reduce me to tears. My sister was completely opposite. She defied every boundary and at certain times the only message she understood was one of physical discomfort.

I would like to see even one child that has permanent psychological or physical scars from *properly* administered corporal punishment by loving parents. But I could show you thousands that are walking train wrecks due to verbal abuse. So what's next? Invite the government to start differentiating between verbal correction that is acceptable and that which is not? Can we not see the slipperly slope we embark on with legislation such as this?

Touj+ 2d Clown Named Christian Manfred
It's YOUR little brats we despise. YOU allow them to tell adults to **ck off, simply because you don't have the balls to discipline them.

Your little monsters may have YOU terrorized (and I have no doubt they do), but the rest of us are NOT going to allow your thoroughly spoiled, whining progeny to intimidate us.

DISCIPLINE your children....That's been going on in the animal kingdom for hundreds of thousands of years. Neither you, NOR your brats are 'special'. Deal with it, PLEASE.

NevadaDad
Excellent post. You make the right distinctions. My parents' standard was to never, EVER spank in anger -- and we knew that.

I doubt I was spanked more than two or three times, and I only remember one specifically. I, as the oldest child, had led my younger brothers into a dangerous situation that we had been directly and specifically warned against, not 15 minutes earlier. The whole family was 100 miles from home, and the spanking was not administered until we had driven back that distance, and both parents had had time to cool down. (I really could have gotten all three of the children killed through my disobedience.)

The drive home in silence was far worse than the actual spanking, which was over in less than a minute.

My parents would never have spanked us for the small things you see people smacking their kids' backsides for. Not one of us was ever hit. I can appreciate that other people see no need to spank their kids, and I have no doubt that good kids can be raised without spanking, as well as with the occasional spanking.

But it's erroneous to insist that corporal punishment is inherently abuse, and can't be used judiciously. It's equally erroneous to suggest that legislatures, populated by politicians under the influence of interest groups, know better than parents what parents can handle, and what's best for every situation between parents and their own children.

The People's Republic of New Zealand ...
banned spanking last year, led by the Labour-Green loony left, aided by a sellout by the ostensibly conservative opposition Nationals. Already parents have been arrested thanks to their kids dobbing them in to leftist teachers.

The Witch Hunt Returns...

Can you hear it now...

I don't like my neighbor.... Oh, I'll just dial 911 and say she spanked her kid. That'll get her locked up for the night.

Now I know why all the witches burned in Salem...



Never wanted to be a yeller or a spanker
Yet as a parent I've done both. I've found a new way, and it's better than yelling or spanking. I want to hear them tell me how mean and abusive I was when I took away their video game.
I'll still spank them, but only if they score a touchdown, hit a grand slam, or do a hat trick.

social-fascist brain washing
The social-fascist (communists/nazis AKA Democrats) who've infiltrated our government want to deny 'Constitutional Republic' parents the ability to raise their children as 'they' see fit - rather wanting the children to be raised by the social-fascists who've infiltrated & taken over the educational system for the sole purpose of converting kids to social-fascism (communism/nazism).

(These social-fascists have no problem butchering babies inside the womb (or in many cases outside the womb), but they do have a problem with 'parents' diciplining 'their' children for behaving like communists/nazis.)

Why do the Dems think
That it's their right to tell us how to raise our children?

I see nothing wrong with spanking your kids as long as it's not done in anger. I know I got spanked many times as a child. Thinking back about it I have to admit that I deserved it every time.

Yet here I am today a well adjusted and mature adult. As long as you don't count that I turned out to be an "EVIL" Conservative.

Muahahahahahahaha

It's not "Spanking" vs "Not spanking"

The point IS, the government is, yet again, trying to tell us how to raise our children!

Kaufman thinks spanking is child abuse and neglect, and he's pro-abortion.

Excellent call, Giles, "... according to Jay, it’s wrong to spank an eight year old who drowns puppies in the toilet, but it’s okay to crush the skull of a pesky unborn child."

alwyr: EXCELLENT points re: Touj+ 2d Clown Named Christian Manfred.

I was very lucky. I did not have to spank my children, and they turned out to be well behaved, respectful, polite young adults. But that's totally different from the state telling me I couldn't spank my children if I saw the need!

No one is saying child abuse is okay (get it you two clowns?) but Kaufman has obviously gone over the line from "protecting children" to telling parents how to raise their children.


Unacceptable!!!






Racism! Lovely.
I don't disagree with the prospect of corporal punishment, although there is much conflicting evidence on its long-term implications.

But what on earth is this bull about "big black mamas"? Is that supposed to be FUNNY? It sounds more racist than funny. Unless you're a racist, that is.

When you take your moral talking points from a cartoon, this is what you get. Nice work, Pastor.

Indeed
It is possible to raise children without spanking them. It just requires being willing to make the effort to use other methods to dicipline them. Those methods are not always convenient. I used to take my kids when I went grocery shopping. The very first time they asked for something that was not on the list or that I felt they didn't need (candy or other junk) and they showed signs of making a scene, I just took them home and informed them that as they had interrupted the shopping trip by behaving badly in public, we would finishing what was left in the house until they felt they could behave themselves. After two days of cereal and eggs they decided that they could and would behave. No spanking was neccessary, but it did involve a rearranged schedule for Mom.
Some kids do need spanking, but, then, so do some parents, and more that few legislators. It is not the job of any legislature to decide that issue.

Because, Afrika,
It is simply a legal fact in affirmative action America that "protected groups" are not held to the same standards as everyone else. Certainly, if I or anyone I know were to stage a looting / vandalism spree like we've all seen on TV my pale b*tt would be in jail. Giles is simply proposing that we use that to society's benefit for a change.

no values
it is the latest in the feel good antics. Spanking a young child to keep them from touching a stove or running into the street, that's bad. When the boy got lashes for graffiti in Singapore, libs were weeping against it. I can attest that in a Leftist town, when I informed them of the possibility of 40 lashes for a 54 year old teacher for calling a teddy bear Mohammed, their answer was "well the actions of the teacher certainly sounds culturally insensitive."






I refuse...and PurpleGimp
To go along with the fact that the government should tell me how to raise mh children. As with everything, there are limits. I have found with four children and the age gaps, that I have never had to spank the youngest two children. They learned by watching what would not work. It was as simple as that.
My kids used to beg me to walk in the grocery store as toddlers. The minute one of them complained, the rule was they had to get in the cart. One day, #2 refused and laid down on the floor of the store, instead. I simply walked away with the cart and his sister. It took him about 30 seconds of screaming to get up and walk to "get me". We finished shopping and left the store just in time for another 'I can't walk attack.' When he wouldn't walk, I literally picked him up by the coat pockets and we air-skated all the way to the car. Needless to say, he was put to bed the minute we walked in the door. There are times when I knew I could have blisterd his little hiny and that was one-- but like most sensible parents, I knew my limits and voila--NO "child abuse"! Imagaine that? ;0

Agnostic Apocalypse?
Liberals support the death penalty for babies in the womb but absolutely deny the right of a parent to discipline his/her child? It's a bizarro world we live in ministered by atheists and agnostics who are "winging it," oblivious of centuries of cultural and religious lessons.

ONE THING LEADS TO ANOTHER . . . .
Time was when standards of right and wrong were taken for granted. Schools reinforced standards of right and wrong. Parents did not observe the "double jeopardy" clause of the Constitution.

After World War II, along came Dr. Benjamin Spock, a leftist, with his "Baby and Child Care". He promoted permissiveness and had no conservative competition. Many Americans assumed the doctor was right and did not view him with suspicion. It has been said that his only son committed suicide.

In 1963, the Supreme Court, in "Murray v. Curlett", banned prayer and Bible reading in government schools.

Sweden banned spanking in the 1970s, I recall.

Don't be surprised if the day comes when ALL children, by law, will be herded into x-rated atheist government boarding schools by age 4 and kept there until age 18, with no unsupervised family visits allowed. In the meantime, government will further limit parental authority so that parents will become so exasperated at being unable to deal with their children that they will voluntarily hand their children over to the state.

ONE THING LEADS TO ANOTHER . . . .
Time was when standards of right and wrong were taken for granted. Schools reinforced standards of right and wrong. Parents did not observe the "double jeopardy" clause of the Constitution.

After World War II, along came Dr. Benjamin Spock, a leftist, with his "Baby and Child Care". He promoted permissiveness and had no conservative competition. Many Americans assumed the doctor was right and did not view him with suspicion. It has been said that his only son committed suicide.

In 1963, the Supreme Court, in "Murray v. Curlett", banned prayer and Bible reading in government schools.

Sweden banned spanking in the 1970s, I recall.

Don't be surprised if the day comes when ALL children, by law, will be herded into x-rated atheist government boarding schools by age 4 and kept there until age 18, with no unsupervised family visits allowed. In the meantime, government will further limit parental authority so that parents will become so exasperated at being unable to deal with their children that they will voluntarily hand their children over to the state.

Spanking!

My grandma and my school principal wore my butt out when I was a kid.
Best thing that ever happened to me.

Dr. Spock

"It was Spock that told an entire generation of parents to take it easy, don't
discipline your children and allow them to express themselves. Discipline,
he told us, would warp a child's fragile ego. ... However, before his death Dr. Spock made an amazing discovery: he was wrong. In fact, he said:

"We have reared a generation of brats. Parents aren't firm enough with their children for fear of losing their love or incurring their resentment. This is a cruel deprivation that we professionals have imposed on mothers and fathers. Of course, we did it with the best of intentions. We didn't realize until it was too late how our know-it-all attitude was undermining the self assurance of parents."

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=19617



Dr Spock, the preeminent child psychologist, warned the baby boomer generation of parents that they couldn't discipline their children, because such action would warp the fragile ego and harm the generation to come.

Dr. Spock, before his death, realized that his 'non-competitive, special' model of child-rearing had created something so opposite of what he had intended. "We have reared a generation of brats. Parents aren't firm enough with their children for fear of losing their love or incurring their resentment." Spock came to realize that the God-given self assurance of parents was deprived through the 'best intentions' of professional experts.

http://www.culturedefense.org/2007/11/the_millenial_christi an.html



And the road to Hell is paved with the best intentions.



If you find spanking to be masochistic then stop looking.

Rampant Nannyism
This is like the adult version of schools' zero tolerance policies. It's too much work, takes too much thought to be able to distinguish between actual child abuse and appropriate parental discipline. So let's just ban it all.

I'm glad my kids are grown, frankly. This new world the liberals seem determined to create for us isn't one I'd want to raise a family in.

discipline
I remember when my oldest son came home from school and said his teacher told him that if he didn't want to do some thing at home he shouldn't do it.I said son remember this when you disobey me it won't be the teacher that gets spanked,itwill be you.I never had to spank him after that.This is just another example of people sticking their noses where they don't belong.

blue

Do you find abortion to be masochistic?

How about the Terri Schiavo starvation plan?

What else do you find to be masochistic in America?

Remember

According to the Left it takes a village to raise a child. It does not take a family or father or mother or God. We must rely on the Dr. Spocks of the world.

"Spare the rod and spoil the child" has been tested and shown to be correct.

Do you think

That Dr Giles pulled a satire and sucked a bunch of folks in?

Double standards
Amazing how the social-fascists complain about members of the Constitutional Republic spanking children, when those social-fascists had no problem with Janet Reno murdering children, their mothers and fathers at Waco by "frying them" much like her fellow homosexual Adolph Hitler did to Jews in Auschwitz. Were those complaining about “children being spanked” truly concerned with children, they'd have executed Reno for imitating Hitler.

afriKa
I guess you never had any of the "senior Sisters" AKA The Church ladies from Hell around you.

They all had extremely high standards for childrens' behavior. You didn't want to cross them!

My favorite,Mizz Essie, would have made a suberb Duchess.

Not only would she wallop one of us for bad behavior,but also rat us out to our parents.

Belive me, one's color had nothing to do with the consequences.

"Spare the rod and spoil the child!"

The origin, from the Bible, (Proverbs 13-24 (King James Version):

"He that spareth his rod hateth his son."

However, in that time, the "rod" was used by shepherds, tending goats and sheep, not to beat them with but to rescue them when they strayed, and keep them close by.

I do believe that Prov. was telling us that if we love our children we are to keep them close to us and protect them from that which would do them harm.

Now, how one disciplines one's children is another story....







Fine Line
I believe in the biblical adage of "spare the rod, spoil the child" but there is a fine line between spanking for discipline and abuse. Parents that cross that line deserve to be disciplined themselves. No one should abuse, or allow to be abused, a child.

katy: Yes, good point!

And, of course, that brings us to the "It Takes A Village" liberal theme... Ugh!

Well, maybe not a “village” but certainly “neighborhoods.” I’m old enough to remember real neighborhoods where all the mothers would keep an eye out on all the neighborhood children.

And the “eyes” that mothers’ always seemed to have in the back of their head? It was all the neighborhood mothers who would, in a heart beat, rat you out if they saw you do something you shouldn’t be doing!

I recall as a college freshman, swimming, with my boyfriend, out to a rock at the end of the bluff, which was just shy of a mile swim. (We were both excellent swimmers.)

By the time we arrived back at my parents’ home, my mother KNEW! And to this day, I have no idea who made THAT call! :-)




I Agree With NevadaDad
I have a two-year-old and a six-year-old both are spanked. Goal-oriented discipline lovingly breaks the rebellious will, but not the spirit. My husband and I have several non-negotiable rules when it comes to spanking. First, we never ever spank in anger even if the child deserves a spanking at that time. Second, we only spank for willful disobedience, not childish irresponsibility. We do not spank the child just because he is 'bugging us," with his noise. Now if we tell him to stop making the noise and he blatantly refuses then he is spanked for disobedience. Needless to say we are careful to make our demands reasonable. Third, he understands exactly why he is being spanked (this takes patience with the two-year-old but it can be done). Fourth, when the spanking is over we make sure the fellowship is restored, usually this means that the child crawls up in our lap and is cuddled. Lastly, when one parent spanks, the other parent is not allowed to console until the parent who has administered the discipline has restored that fellowship. We are very careful to present a unified front. I should add that we do not 'beat or hit' we usually apply a ping-pong paddle to the backside 2-3 times.

We love our children enough to discipline them. We would move from any state that made it illegal for us to do so.

As far as the spanking booths go. Another suggestion I have heard is to pile a bunch of southern grannies into a car and have "drive-by whoopins." ;)

alwyrd said,
"It's YOUR little brats we despise. YOU allow them to tell adults to **ck off, simply because you don't have the balls to discipline them. "

ou are a total idiot, and you represent what I dislike about most of the conservatives posting here. You are angry, stupid, and mean-spirited.

My "little brats", who were never beaten, hit, spanked, or however you want to define hit, were wonderful,c aring children who have grown up to live successful lives with wonderful children of their own, that they have never hit, beat, or spanked.

If you are too young to have children, you should be sterilized.





You are a total idiot.


ElizabethBennet
Love the name!

The drive-by whuppin thing sounds like a money maker.

I could raise enough of us to cover 2 shifts 7days a week.

Picture a stretch Hummer packed with mean ole grannies! Maybe a skull and crossbones logo?

After about a week, we could just cruise a neighborhood and not have to even get out.

also
My kids grew up learning that bashing others is not the way to solve problems. You could learn alot from them.

Purplegimp
Why should your children's misbehavior be permitted to control your life that way? You let their misbehavior achieve their goal -- getting them out of that boring grocery store.

I've generally found that "The Look" or "The Mom Finger" was adequate to deter incipient public scenes in most circumstances after toddlerhood. Once or twice my rules tester was carried through the store yelling as I shopped (if you hold a tantruming toddler/preschooler on your hip face out they can't kick you hard enough to hurt), to emphasize that her behavior wasn't going to gain anything.

Politely worded requests for special items are considered on their merits. Impolitely worded requests are first coached to become politely worded and then considered. Sometimes requests are granted, sometimes not. Rude demands are summarily denied.

When a child is being especially well-behaved (as opposed to merely meeting minimum standards), he/she is always praised. Occasionally, when circumstances are appropriate, I initiate the purchase of something special as a reward.

BTW -- its been proven that irregular, unpredictable material rewards are more effective than constant rewards, which become viewed as entitlements rather than rewards. BUT punishment must always be consistent to be effective.

So, in the grocery store context, if grabbing things off the shelf is always met with a firm "NO!" (and smacked fingers after the first or second "NO!" has been defied), while good behavior earns a soda, a portion of a candy bar, or a coloring book once in 6-10 trips the kids learn quickly that bad behavior gains them nothing and good behavior earns praise and, occasionally, material reward.

This column
has revealed Giles for who he truly is, and has definitely brought out the neanderthals.

Anybody who can't figure out how to discipline a child without violence should either take a parenting class or get their hardware put out of action.

katy the mean old lady
LOL I love it!

as for people
who say it's ok to hit children if it isn't in anger, I personally think that hitting a child when you're calm and happy is even more bizarre.

my last comment
If Gile's kids are drowning pubbies in the toilet, I would say that his parenting methods are a failure, and that his kids have problems that need professional help, not another whipping.

calm.Touj writes: "My kids grew up

learning that bashing others is not the way to solve problems."

And exactly where did they learn THAT? Based on your posts on TH, they didn't learn it from YOU!

"You [alwyrd] could learn alot from them." Really?

Actually, it's obvious that YOU, calm.touj, need to learn some things from your own kids then.





Dr. Spock
is deader than his message was found to be. Giles is not an advocate of spanking your children he was merely being fasicious to get a rise-it worked I guess.

I used corporal punishment with my kids "when needed" as giles discribes, but I do not think any of my 3 kids was spanked more than 5 times their entire childhood.

It is fearing the consequences that is the lesson that keeps them in line. It also helps them apply that consequences exist in all our lives for good, and poor behavior.

Get a grip and get off the PC band wagon. By the way the death penalty should never be abolished either.

11h

Different strokes
Whacking the little weasel in Wal-Mart will just get an audience. Letting them know that hell is waiting at home..Priceless.

Each child is different, but take the time to find out what works.


Legislating behavior again...
How much interference are people going to tolerate, giving government an open invitation to come into our homes and tell us what we can and cannot do.

This is not about child abuse and it certainly won't end it. It is about control by government over every aspect of our lives. Commonsense should tell us that those who abuse children will continue to abuse them, with or without a law. It will be the Law abiding citizens, who love and discipline their children, who have to risk the wrath of the government or risk what is in the best interest of their children.

For me the big issue here is not spanking. It is the willingness of people to be controlled by government.


calm.Touj: "my last comment" Whew!

Glad to hear that. :-)


Talk about out of control!







Spanking is Violence I
Spanking is unnecessary. The "need" for spanking reflects a failure on the part of the parent to properly parent in the first place. At the point of parental failure, spanking just makes the problem worse. It teaches young people that violence is an appropriate means of resolving conflict. Kids who are physically punished are more likely to use violence as a means of conflict resolution.

One of the main reasons parents spank is that they don't take enough time to resolve disciplinary issues non-violently. Part of this is attributable to the fact that largely unregulated capitalism forces parents to work so much that they find themselves trying to solve problems the quick and violent way. Working class children are at the greatest risk of parental violence because their parents feel compelled to use quick solutions in the context of sharp time constraints.

Another piece of this is that the US state teaches its citizens that violence, including violence against the defenseless, is an appropriate means of resolving conflict and obtaining compliance. We are one of the few remaining countries that execute people, including juveniles. We are overall a gun-crazed and warmongering nation. Violence is big business in America. Spanking is a reflection of the fundamentally immoral character that results from the culture of violence.

Anne
I keep my bashing to cyberspace - it is not an interpersonal relationship. And as for my being more harsh than I normally am even in the real world, my responses to your posts are actually an exception and I readily admit they bring out the worst in me.

I'm confused, though, why Giles and apparently, you, think that "unborn babies" (or fetuses) should be so ardently protected, but once their born, should be treated any way that any person likes. Just about all I've seen on this thread are rationalizations for hitting children - when did they become so disposable?

To be fair, I read your post and your comment that you never hit your children...I commend you for that, and for admitting it here, where such a notion seems to be very unpopular. I think that sometimes not hitting a child is the difficult way to go, god knows I was tempted at times,(but not often - my kids were good kids) however, this is one area where we seem to have a commonality, and, it's alot more important than politics.

Spanking is Violence II
Finally, spanking is a reflection of the continuing oppression of the dominus. In the 18th century, the man could beat anybody in his household - slave, indentured servant, wife, and child. In the 19th century, after white immigrant labor gained some freedom, a man could beat his slave, wife, and child. In the 20th century, after blacks gained some freedom, wife and child still got beatings from the father. Over the course of the 20th century, women were gradually liberated from the violent control of men (it still happens a lot, but at least it's illegal). The task for the twentieth century is to legally free children from the last overt vestige of the ancient system of violent patriarchal control over children.

Why have any laws at all?
Farmer's Wife said, "Commonsense should tell us that those who abuse children will continue to abuse them, with or without a law."

This can be said about murder and robbery. So why do we have any laws at all?

Here's a true story
Once, when I was about 8, I played every day in the summer with a little girl down the street (Susan). Her mother and my mother were friends.

One day, in her back yard, which was lovely and overgrown with vegetation, wild flowers, etc., she picked a little bouquet for her mother. When we grought it to Susan's mother, she became very angry and reminded Susan that she wasn't supposed to pick any flowers (this woman was not a gardener, it was a "wild" yard that had come with the house). She went out into the yard, selected a willow switch, and dragged Susan down into the basement where she beat her for about 5 full minutes, mostly on her legs. I listened throughout at the back door, which shared the same stairway to the basement, and could hear Susan screaming with pain and terror.

I never forgot it, I had never heard or seen anone of our friends treat their children this way, and when I got home I was so shaken I couldn't tell my own mother, for some reason. Years later, when I did, she was shocked and found it hard to believe that her friend had been capable of such a thing. The, oddly, she stepped back a little and said that Susan's mother was under alot of stress, that Susan's father was unfaithful and had had several affairs, and that the marriage was falling apart.
I don't think she was excusing her actions, but was pointing out to me that everything happens in a context, and we don't always live up to our best selves.

Actually, kids who are physically and/or

emotionally abused are more likely to use violence as a means of conflict resolution.

Nowhere is it documented that a swift smack on the butt ever caused a child to become violent as he/she got older.

And, let's get to the POINT of the column... which is should the government have the right to tell parents how to raise their children!!!!

Again.. the government should be (and does) have the right to step in an protect a child from ABUSE. But that's NOT the topic of this column!






Unborn Children
Since the author snuck his pro-womb tyranny position into his commentary, I just have to make a comment about this construct of the "unborn child." The unborn child is also called a "fetus." Most of the time people have sex without the intent of causing the creation of a fetus. So why don't we criminalize the practice of sex without the intent to create an unborn child?

wwsword, we already
have laws against child abuse. Why do we need another law that comes into our homes and dictates how we raise our children. A swat on the behind does not constitute beating or violence.

I was spanked and I spanked my children and it had nothing to do with violence. It has to do with teaching children that there are consequences for disobedience. Children that understand and have well defined boundaries grow up well adjusted and respectful of the boundaries of the real world.

Our children never doubted our love and devotion to them and I never doubted the love and devotion of my parents. We rarely had to spank more than once for a particular problem because our children had already learned that lesson and didn't go there again. If they attempted it, all it took was a reminder of the consequence.


Dangerous Nonsense
The idea that physical discipline equates to "violence" is the same dangerous nonsense that teaches teen girls that its wrong to slap a date's face when he won't take "No" for an answer. So we end up with girls claiming that they were raped while the guy in question claims that she never said no.

Its the same dangerous nonsense that led to the non-resistance policy on airline hijackings which led to the deaths of 9-11 when passengers proved too conditioned to passivity and "non-violence" to act to save their own lives.

Both parents and society have boundries and limits. In both cases it is highly effective to make certain that obeying those limits give pleasure and that violating those limits gives pain.

Funny though how the same people who claim that they see nuances and subtle shades of different better than we religious conservatives are incapable of grasping the unsubtle, unnuanced difference between physical discipline and "violence".

ssword
You said "The "need" for spanking reflects a failure on the part of the parent to properly parent in the first place."

We all have opinions baby!! Back up yours
with fact!! Hopefully something other than conventional wisdom, political correctness, or the latest spock/shrink child rearing guide.

Just because many people say spanking = violence does not make it so.

11h

ssword
You said "The "need" for spanking reflects a failure on the part of the parent to properly parent in the first place."

We all have opinions baby!! Back up yours
with fact!! Hopefully something other than conventional wisdom, political correctness, or the latest spock/shrink child rearing guide.

Just because many people say spanking = violence does not make it so.

11h

purplegimp was outwitted
by her children that day in the grocery store, but didn't even realize it.

Smug in the belief that she was "clever" and did not have to "resort" to spanking, here's what she really taught her kids:

1) We can make mom miserable along with us and there is nothing she can do about it. Our suffering will by necessity become her suffering. She paid the price for our bad behaviour by having to eat Saltines and JIF for 2 days along with us. (Gee, what if the kids at crackers for 2 days while you ate pizza? Wouldn't that send the message a little more strongly?)

2) Want to get mom to stop an activity that you find particularly boring (when I was little, this was visits to the fabric store with my aunt and mom)? No problem. Throw a hissy fit. Sitting at home in your room may be "punishment" to them, but to you it is the lesser of two unpleasantries. Ditto for sitting in that BORING church service. Score: kids 1, mom 0.

3) If we feel spiteful enough in the future, this tactic can be employed at-will. Mom and/or dad has an important activity to attend to but we want them home instead or just want to yank their chain? No problem. Just engage in an activity that forces them to change their plans and then weigh the pros/cons. As long as you are willing to suffer the consequences, you can control them, not vice-versa. (And don't think kids aren't astute enough to figure this out and willful enough to use it)

Yes, congratulations to all the non-spankers who think they are smarter and less-barbaric than the rest of us. They certainly teach some effective lessons (although probably not the ones they thought they were teaching).

If you don't want to spank your children, that's your prerogative. But please allow me MY prerogative to discipline my child according to the dictates of my beliefs and my conscience.

Mother of 4
Thanks, great post!

I learned a lot from watching animals teaching their young.

Had a good brown dawg who had it down to a science. He'd just knock the young smarty pants down and sit on them for a while.

He did this to young dawgs, children, and cats.

Worked evry time!

Missing the Point Touj....
Touj. writes: "she beat her for about 5 full minutes".

Yes Sir, that is child abuse. And we already have laws covering a stick-beating.

I work in a Detroit hospital... where Black crack-babies are born every day with severe damage. And they go home with Momma and a new welfare check.

At what point are Democrats going to consider abuse of Black children a crime? Why do the Democrats protect White babies at the expense of Black babies?

When Democrats fix Detroit... I'll start listening. Until then, I will consider it the Party of Bigotry and Unequality.


Touj: “I keep my bashing to cyberspace.”

So that means it’s okay to bash someone you don’t know personally? It’s okay to call someone names whom you don’t know?

Somehow I miss your logic or train of thought. But maybe it’s a liberal thing… who knows?

“… my responses to your posts are actually an exception and I readily admit they bring out the worst in me.”

Is that so? Well, it seems that your posts are harsh and rude and intolerant of ANYONE you don’t agree with, or who challenges you.

”… that "unborn babies" (or fetuses) should be so ardently protected, but once their born, should be treated any way that any person likes.” That’s NOT what was said!!!!!

The thing is (and I believe that this is the THIRD time I’ve posted this!) the POINT of the column was NOT about spanking –vs- not spanking! The POINT was Jay Kaufman’s attempt to have the state dictate how parents should and should not raise their children.

Well, that’s what so exasperating and frustrating with you and other liberals’ posts. You make assumptions and statements that are JUST NOT LOGICAL, ACCURATE, or TRUE!

What you see as “rationalizations for hitting children” is your opinion. Okay, your opinion! But there are parents who think differently from you, and they are entitled to their opinions and their right to raise their children as they see fit without you or the state telling them how to raise their children.

And as for me “admitting” that I did not spank my children?? I didn’t admit anything. I simply stated a fact! And actually, of all the posters who say that either they were spanked as children or do spank their children, so far I have not seen one criticize me for not spanking my children.

And, I for one would never think of criticizing anyone who spanked their children.



Anne
I think this Massachussetts dictate is just the beginning to the gov't becoming the parent. Pretty soon, the gov't will come in and take the child at a very young age, "for the common good". Let the indoctrination begin at the age of 12 months!!

What a bunch of hooey.

Moderation
When it comes to punishing children we have to use moderation in everything. If a child needs a spanking give them one, but don't beat the crap out of them. If the child needs a "time out" give them a time out but don't throw them in a closet for 8 hours. we have to apply commmon sense when punishing children. I fully believe that most parents can do this without government involvement, or filing charges against the parents because little Johnny got his butt busted for stealing candy at the local store.
Children have to learn that there are consequenses for their actions, but doing it without abuse.

Anne,Anne!
You are feeding that troll again.

Didn't touj promise to go away many posts earlier?

You seem to be able to discipile children without spanking. That is an art!

See my previous post to ElizabethBennet.

You could join us after we just have to drive by.

"Mean ole Grannies, soon appearing in toujworld"

also
Also I heard that one person asked for this law. Isn't democracy going a little awry when one person's opinion gets turned into law and foisted off on millions of people?

Thanks USMC for reminding me. I forget things like that and it gets me into trouble.


Anne
You are famous on TH for posts that are vindictive, character-assassinations rife with mean-spirited generalizations about liberals and anyone who takes a different position. I have seen even conservatives try to get you to reign yourself in. What you put out, you get back.

Also, I have never seen you attempt to reach some kind of consensus or polite debate with anybody, anybody who you think might have even a touch of liberal thought, aka to you as socialist, communist, murderous, or simple minded.

It's never possible to ahve a reasonable debate with you because all you do is trash the dissenting person's statements with generalizations, you never provide specific examples, or arugments, everything is always on the frozen surface of emotionalism and ideology.

If you disagree, look at your last post to me.

I would also turn your question to me around to you, how is it that anyone who hates 1/3 of the American population as you do, sees them with such blanket contempt and scorn, manage to raise children who are not angry and acting out?

The word "discipline"
comes from the word "to teach". What are you actually teaching a child when you hit them?

Also, Katy, it's interesting to me how many people on TH have to perpeturate the myth of "trolls" in order to dissociate other points of view rather than address them like grown ups/

Just like the little hairy men that live under Norwegian bridges, trolls are about fairy tales, invented for a deeper purpose.

Carlos
for the life of me, I can never figure out what you are talking about.

Who told you that liberals only care about the poverty, drug addiction, and abuse of "white" children? Katy? Anne?
Giles? Rush Limbaugh?

You need to be more selective about your sources.


In defense of Anne
I didn't see any "personal attack" agaist anyone in any of her posts, I think she expressed what most people think in the area of child rearing. Keep the government out of peoples lives. I admit there are certainly exceptions to that rule, because there are people who abuse their children.

Katy: "That is an art!"


Art? No, I think I was just lucky!

And, my two children were 7 years apart, so I didn't have two children so close in age... which I suspect might have made a difference.


Here's one of those questions
that I doubt anybody will answer:

If you don't believe that the government should have any control over how people treat their children, does that mean everybody has unlimited rights to whatever form of discipline they choose to implement?

If not, at what point can their rights be challenged - broken bones, welts, fractures, black and blue marks, what?

Are there two "touj."es?
I see posts by "Touj." and by "calm.Touj" here.

Are they the same person?

If not, they certainly read like doppelgangers. Or if they are the same person, what's with the dual usernames?

All posts under the "touj" name and variations thereof read the same to me: Mostly blathering nonsense, little of which can be construed as "calm."

Dark_Wizard62: Thank you! :-)

I appreciate your words and honesty.

calm.Touj
I believe I addressed that in my last post when I said "Keep the government out of peoples lives. I admit there are certainly exceptions to that rule, because there are people who abuse their children."

Anne
Your Very welcome

calm.Touj: Okay, please be specific

about your accusations regarding my previous post to you...

Thank you..



calm.Touj: Okay, please be specific

about your accusations regarding my previous post to you...

Thank you..



Questions for Democrats...

You support...

*un-safe sex with/among children,
*pot-smoking over cigars,
*UN-registering sex offenders,
*Early release for violent criminals, etc.

Does any of this worry you? Or, are you just hell-bent on anarchy? Which of the above is safe for children?

Where on "the list that never ends", do you draw a line?

Dark wizard 62
"keep the government out of peoples lives."

Except when it comes to most personal and important issues of our private lives: how we decide for our bodies, who we marry, how we medicate ourselves, where we travel, and under what circumstances we can die.

The fact is, I think conservatives want as much interference as possible.

Also,

I admit there are certainly exceptions to that rule, because there are people who abuse their children"

then under what circumstances should government get involved? At what point? Does the father who spends his day at Town Hall readingthese posts finish his second six-pack and then, deciding that one of his kids is too noisy, throw him against a wall qualify as an abuser? What if he accidentally breaks the kid's arm? Is that abuse? Who is going to protect the child? What about the child's rights?







I admit there are certainly exceptions to that rule, because there are

BTW
I'm not posting because I think that big brother should intefere with child-rasing, just as it shouldn't force our kids to hear about creationsm in the public schools or have libraries censored.

All I'm trying to do here is move the debate off of the simplistic slogans that Giles is so fond of and find out what people really think, in a more substantial and complicated way.

Silly me.

A QUESTION THAT SHOULD BE ASKED . . . .
With all that has been written in defense of spanking, there is one question that should be asked.

Quakers are a religious group that played a significant role in the early history of our nation. Throughout their history, they have been known for rejecting slavery and violence. How have Quakers raised their children?

nevadadad
unfortunately you are both right and wrong
touj and calm touj are the same person
however, touj is just like all the other indoctrinated libs who have been trained to recite the carefully crafted belief systems they have ingrained in their minds
they can calmly spew forth these ridiculous inanities because they simple dont know any better
as Ronald Reagan said "it is not that the democrats (libs) dont know anything, it is that they know so much that simply is not true"

calm toug writes...
If you don't believe that the government should have any control over how people treat their children, does that mean everybody has unlimited rights to whatever form of discipline they choose to implement?

Touj: Your question really does not deserve an answer. We already have laws against child abuse. You know that no one here believes that breaking bones, etc. is an acceptable form of discipline.

Again, the issue, at least for me, is my right as a parent to decide what is in the best interest of my children and the same for you. I am not willing to give up those rights in an effort to control what someone else, who has no respect for law will continue to do no matter how many laws are passed.

Unfortunately and sadly some children do suffer at the hands of unfit parents and should be punished, but a law against spanking will not have the desired effect on those people. Respect for other peoples lives and/or property cannot be legislated, it has to be taught.

calm.Touj
You said: "If you don't believe that the government should have any control over how people treat their children, does that mean everybody has unlimited rights to whatever form of discipline they choose to implement?"

This is an absurd strawman and you know it.

There are laws regarding child abuse and they are entirely appropriate. I cannot starve, beat, abandon, or burn my child in the name of "discipline" to name just a few. At one time, we possessed enough common sense as a culture to understand the difference between abuse and discipline, but I'm no longer confident of that. You and several other posters here serve as "Exhibit A" in that respect.

The problem is not whether government has a say in punishing parents where bona-fide abuse occurs. The problem is that the line between "abuse" and non-abuse has long ago left the realm of common sense, and has instead become a way for a Spockian parenting *philosophy* to impose itself upon the entire populace.

There is a difference between abuse and spanking, any strawman you might construct notwithstanding. As I said in my original post, spanking *can* be abusive, but then again so can non-spanking methods of discipline as well.

I've raised 5 kids.....
Everyone of which has had their butt beat for one reason or another. I can assure you that they are respectful, healthy and well adjusted adults. I have one more teenager to get out of the house and believe me, she knows what line not to cross.

It's not child abuse to discipline your child. It is insanity not to. They all know that I love them very much and spoil them all to the point of them loving me back. See the difference libs?

Idiots.

Now, now, children!!
Touj, nevada and a few others posting here are demonstrably products of the no-spank rule. They are spock-marked! Their children may be polite and well adjusted to them, but are they to society at large? One wonders.

Parents who have children who do not need corporal discipline do not need to, nor should they, spank. But we all know (well, maybe touj, nevada and ilk don't) that every child is different. Some don't learn by observation or explanation, or even by time outs. Those are the children for whom more effective disciplinary measures are needed.

Children need structure and discipline. The end of the spectrum from which the structure and discipline must come depends entirely on the manner in which the child responds. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to effective discipline.

The poorly informed feel-good meddlers who want to dictate the manner in which well adjusted and loving parents train their children to be well adjusted, happy and productive adults are simply spock-marked fools.

Touj.
I left you a reply on the Knight column at 7:53 PM. Hope you read it.

calm.Touj
FYI, I am a "Progressive Conservative" I think gays and lesbins should be able to marry. Next, we as a society have decided to put limits on what we can do with our own bodies for the collective good of society. We don't allow the use of illegal narcotics because the drugs are a detriment to society even though the user is hurting themselves as well as society, we have laws mandating seat belts use and te list goes on, why should abortion be any different?
Finally no one with any sense would advocate welts, bruises or broken bones when implenting corperal punishment.

nevada dad, Nut
You still haven't addressed my question, you and nut seem to prefer to put your energy and time into basically insulting me, and implying that my children are defective, but the question is still unanswered.

Law is about specifics - you can't just say, "we all know the difference between abuse and discipline" - Many people don't, and many others know but are unable to control themselves when the going gets rough.

Where do you stand on the greyer areas of discipline? somewhere, between concussions and a pat on the behind, there is a wide range of questionable behaviors that deserve to be debated. What is your problem with that? Why does it have to be a referendum on me personally?


YLG
I have to go out for a while, but I'll get it when I get back. Thanks.

Was Douggie Spanked?
I wonder how many times Douggie was spanked as a young tyke. Maybe that accounts for his warped behavior. Did Douggie get cheap thrills spanking his precious daughters too--you know the ones who can't date unless their boyfriends first bribe daddy weirdest with expensive booze and gifts and who teased Douggie's pit bulls?

By the way did anyone check out that racist over the top cartoon?????

calm.Touj: Beating a dead horse!

Is that abusive? 'Cause that's what you're doing!!

We got it! You don't believe in spanking your kids! Okay! Really, it's okay!

We know there are law already on the books about child abuse... Okay, we got that too!

However, you might want to have a little chat with some of your LIBERAL LEGISLATORS and LIBERAL JUDGES in some of your LIBERAL STATES who can't even put child sex offenders in jail for more than 60days, or at all.

Perhaps then we can talk!



Also, in general
It's true that I get overheated, but usually it's in reaction to really extreme posts, or posts that combine ignorance and insult. I think there are poster on all politically-based blogs that are only there to validate their own ideologies and bash anyone else.

Sometimes, though, I have really rewarding dialogues with conservatives here that are polite, interesting, and some of them I keep up with on my private e-mail. I value these relationships.

When I use the word "ignorance" I specifically mean people who really think that liberals, who constitute about a third of the population, are clones of each other, and that there is no variety or differences among them in the way that they think. I hate generalities, they obfuscate meaning and blur ideas.

I forgot, Nevada Dad
I was really planning to answer the Touj. identity question until I read your gratuitously nasty last sentence.

Maybe it served it's purpose.

RxLady
"hey lonestarblues... time to push the tangent button... i think i see some red herrings..."

Exactly my point. I find TH threads tend to drift, I was hoping to nudge that along early. There are more interesting things to discuss than Dougie's love of spanking.


Corporal Punishment
Here in South Carolina we allow parents to use corporal punishment to disipline their children, however there are laws in SC that distinguish between disipline and abuse, red mark where the parent hit the rear end verus a bruise, for example.

calm.Touj
What does physical discipline teach?

When properly administered it teaches kids that it hurts to defy legitimate authority.

The consequences of having members of society who are not taught that lesson are plain to see in the myriad ills that afflict our society from the devastating effects of family breakdown to the annoyance of rowdy sports "fans" making it impossible for families to take their kids to see a game.

The issue here isn't spanking or not.
I think the issue here isn't whether or not spanking is good or bad. It can work, and others have come up with alternatives with their own pros/cons that work also. The issue is: Should the government tell you how to parent your children? No.

Now, even if you don't spank your kids, what happens when a neighbor discovers a bruise on your daughters theigh when she went over to use the pool? Your daughter may have only gotten it from a fall on a playground, but how will you defend yourself when the neighbor calls the police? Do you want to deal with situations like this??? No.

I think it's time libertarians stop trying so hard to legalize marijuana, and start focusing on the freedoms the government is trying to take from us now. They're telling the folks in NYC they can't use their Ipods in the streets, now they're telling parents they cannot spank their children. Do we want America to become a nanny state? No!

offensive...if you're a black woman
Well, well....why would this subject bring out yet another stereotype for Doug to assert?
The big, fat black mammy offering to whip a child for a white lady?
This is funny at WHOSE expense and whose image?
And no, it's not a joke. There is a purpose here for Giles.
Apparently, us black women will never live it down, will we?
Thanks a lot, Giles...we really needed that.

I agree, that this legislation is beyond stupid. And a waste of time when far more important issues are at stake.
Of course, Giles could have made the point without such a cartoon, so the question to YOU all, dear readers is why didn't he?


NUTNFINER
Where in the world did you get the idea that I was opposed to spanking? Nothing could be further from the truth, nor was I raised in a "no-spanking" home.

Please re-read my posts. They are crystal clear.

landofconfusion
I agree 100% with your last post. We have allowed the "nanny state" too much control over our lives as it is.

Spanking
I raised three children, and never found it necessary to strike them in any way. From day one, we had rules which we expected would be obeyed. I now have three adult children who are all successful in business, due to their own efforts -- who do not cheat or steal -- who do not lie -- who have made their father and me very proud. I once read an article in Readers Digest which stated that while a father was spanking a child for hitting a smaller sibling, he remarked "I will teach you to hit someone smaller than you." We had honest discussions during the mandated attendance at dinner. We set an example for our children to follow. We did not lie, cheat, or steal while telling them they should not do so. It worked for my husband and me!!!

motherof4
exactly
everyone should read and reread your post
"dont tas me, bro" is just another classic example of your point.
the me, me narcissism of a majority of people in todays society are that way because of a lack of discipline

Evidence
11th,

First, the wealth of scientific research demonstrates that humans and animals respond well to positive reinforcement (non-coercive forms of conditions), but that physical punishment is an ineffective long-term conditioner of behavior and carries many negative effects. Physical punishment is counterproductive, as human beings respond to physical punishment with resistance and both direct and displaced violence. The old saying, "Violence begets violence," is demonstrably true.

All you need to do, 11th, is look at the research to learn about this. What the facts tell us is that if physical punishment is being used, the superior system of positive reinforcement is either not being used or has broken down.

Second, in a rational society, those who use physical coercion, whether against children or adults, have the burden of justifying the practice and they must do this by demonstrating scientific evidence that compliance cannot be obtained by non-physical and coercive ways. The principle is do the least harm.

Here's the science: In a meta-analysis of 88 studies covering over 60 years of research, psychologist Elizabeth Gershoff (Columbia University), found that ten of eleven child behaviors/experiences from corporal punishment were negative, including antisocial behavior and increased child aggression. She found only one "desirable" association, which was immediate compliance on the part of the child. However, long-term compliance is undermined by physical punishment and the negative consequences overwhelm short-term benefit. Positive reinforcement works in the short term and the long term and doesn't carry negative consequences.

Therefore, corporal punishment is irrational and other forms of behavior shaping (such as nonviolence positive modelling) are rational.

Evie
Kudos for having great kids, however as a child who that was spanked at least twice a day in the summer, I can attest that some kids like myself really do need it. My parents were model parents. My father worked and kept his job and was home at the same time everyday, spent time with his children and loved his wife. However in my case I tried to get away with as much mischief as I could, why? Because it was fun, if it wasn't fun it wasn't worth doing.
So in retrospect I know for a fact that my life would be considerably different if they had "spared the rod".

Spanking vs. hitting
I don't believe in hitting children. I believe in using spanking as one of the methods of disciplining my children.
But the groundrules are:
1. Use every other form of discipline first - time out, withholding favorite toys/activities for a specified period, etc.
2. Spanking is only for the most serious problems - actions by the child that are dangerous to him or herself or others.
3. Never, ever, spank a child when you are angry. If you are angry at the time, tell your child that they are going to be spanked and why and then wait until you are calm. Both of you will benefit for the cooling off period.
4. Most importantly - be consistent. Your children need to know that you mean what you say and that the rules don't change with your moods.

I spanked both my daughters on occasion. They always understood the reason and they knew that they had crossed the last line. I rarely had to spank them. I never had to spank them twice for the same behavior problem.

They are in college now, on the honor roll and they do not lie, cheat or steal. They know that they may make decisions in life that may disappoint me, but I will always love them. I am not their best friend, I don't want to be. They have best friends. Best friends sometimes stop being friends. I am happy to be their mother.

Anne wrote
"However, you might want to have a little chat with some of your LIBERAL LEGISLATORS and LIBERAL JUDGES in some of your LIBERAL STATES who can't even put child sex offenders in jail for 60 days"

That's exactly what I mean, Anne, you couldn't have provided a better example of TH-think if you paid a striking writer.

Touj: Really? Care to explain that?
.


wwsword
Brilliant analysis.

In tribute to your airtight logic, let's put it to the test by immediately releasing all prisoners and begin paying them a monthly stipend for good behavior. The positive reinforcement will increase for each month they are crime-free so they'll be rewarded not only for good behavior, but length of good behavior as well. Simultaneously, let's also turn our law enforcement agencies into reward bureaus. Cops will no longer pull speeders over. They'll pull over the law-abiding and write checks instead of tickets.

In all seriousness, there has to be both carrot and stick. Your problem is that you only want to use the carrot. The carrot may indeed be more effective, but your error is in assuming that the stick can be disposed of and has no place in discipline, in the raising of children, or in the regulation of society.

I will not speak for all spanking parents, because I know there are some that are 99% stick and 1% carrot. Just as those who are 99% carrot and 1% stick and obtain equally disasterous results. But in my life, I am very thankful that a stick was used on me occassionally, and that it is available in moderation for use on my child. If it were all carrot, I would have a spoiled brat for a son.

Do yourself a favor: expose yourself to the rationally expressed opposite side of the "no spanking" debate. Read "The Strong-Willed Child" by James Dobson if you really want to understand how to raise children properly and with the right balance of both carrot and stick.

Don't hold your breath Carlos
Carlos writes: Sunday, December, 02, 2007 11:19 AM
Missing the Point Touj....
When Democrats fix Detroit... I'll start listening. Until then, I will consider it the Party of Bigotry and Unequality.


Seriously, Don't do that.
I grew up in Detroit and I don't know how old you are but I lived thru the reign of Coleman Young. One of the most corrupt mayors that Detroit has EVER had.
I remember how he "fixed" the racial probelms after the 67 Riots. He just chased all the white families "across 8 Mile Road."
His "Board of Education" had CADILLAC Limos to take them to board meetings, and he himself had a stretch limo loaded with luxuries beyond belief and certainly WAY beyond what his office entitled him to.
I remember my father, who was in charge of security at a conference where Mayor Young and Governor Milliken both attended telling me about how both men arrived. The Governor arrived in a simple Lincoln Towncar type limo with two State Police bodyguards. Mayor Young in his gaudy big limo with a ten man Detroit and State Police security detail.
Do you remember how Detroit started celebrating "Devils Night" while Young was mayor, by burning down whatever they pleased, and Young all but forbade the DPD and DFD from stopping them?

Yep, Coleman Young "fixed" Detroit alright. Drove it right into the gutter.
And from what I've seen and heard, even though several others have had the job since Young, Mayor Kilpatrick seems to be just as corrupt as Young was.

Anne
A few posts above, I wrote about TH posters who think that liberals, which make up about 1/3 of the American population are clones of each other. As a result they make silly generalizations i.e., liberals eat their young, liberals are all communists, liberals champion pederasty (Carlos is particularly famous for these, he even lists them in numerical order).

I also wrote about people who rely on sweeping generalizations , which cloud real issues and circumnavigate genuine thought, to avoid having to be specific or particularly articulate.

I have a relative who works in the Sherriff's department in Portland. To say that "liberals don't care about child abuse" is just so TH/groupthink, so limited, so cartoon-like that it shuts off any kind of meaningful dialogue.

nevada...
sorry! mixed up names.

YLG
I'm back - I looked for the column, which I remember, but I can't find it and can't remember who wrote it - can you give me the name of the columnist?

Spanking is sometimes needed
I've worked with toddlers for 20 years, and have watched many of them grow up as I began taking care of their smaller siblings. There have been loads of them that needed to be spanked, believe me. I have seen parents brought to tears because they could not control their children; and as the kids get older, they do get worse. The behavior starts out with the manipulative whining and crying to get what they want; by the time the kid is 7,8,9, or 10 years old he or she is openly defiant and disrespectful, and the parents are still crying. It hurts to see these parents so humiliated by their kids' behavior and having no clue how it got so bad, or how to change it.
I have also witnessed very good parents who did not give in to their childs' manipulations at a young age; those kids, while not angles (what kid is?)turned out to be pleasant, respectful young people.
Maybe spanking is not needed. But parents sure do have to let their kids know who's boss and nip bad behavior in the bud the moment it rears it's ugly head- however they choose to do it.

nancy
amen Nancy
to love and nurture does not equate with approve
approved behavior is not and individual belief but a collective sense of right and wrong
which most if not all common sense people understand

I Love Townhall...

The opinion from both sides (or more) is great. What a learning experience in thought process.

Less educated folk like me should be streaming in here to help make an informed vote. It's sad most of us aren't.

We'd rather watch rented movies with no plots, drink til' we're blind, and watch the Lions lose every decade.

No sarcasm, just sad.

WWS word
I appreciate the time you took to write your informative and thought-out post. Since I agree with everything you wrote, I have nothing to add, but there still is room for debate about how far the government should go in protecting children.

A woman once said to me "I can't understand that kid, I spank him at least everyday, and as soon as he leaves the house the first thing he does is beat somebody up!!"

I think there is still room for debate on how far the government should go to protect children - there are alot of wrong-headed things that parents do in the name of parenting, but where it should become illegal is a tricky matter. I don't think it's likely to be discussed in much depth on this thread, but it's defiitely worth thinking about.


Nevada Dad
Your analogy to prison populations is specious - for one thing, prisons are full of adults who are either mentally ill, psycopathic, retarded, or just beyond redemption. I suspect many of them were also beaten and abused as children, based on the legal defenses I hear about in most cases.

In any event, why would you compare them to 5 year old children? Have you ever actually been in a prison or known someone who has?

It's like saying, "capital punishment works for the prison population - let's put really difficult children in the electric chair.

Mother of 4
"When properly administered it (physical punishment) teaches kids that it hurts to defy legitimate authority.

Actually, I think it teaches children that when they can't control someone elses behavior, they should hit them.

Also,

"When properly administered it teaches kids that it hurts to defy legitimate authority."

How many German storm troopers were spanked as kids? There are all kinds of negative results to following "legitimate" authority without question.


touj: So?

"I have a relative who works in the Sherriff's department in Portland. To say that "liberals don't care about child abuse" is just so TH/groupthink, so limited, so cartoon-like that it shuts off any kind of meaningful dialogue."

I never said that 'liberals don't care about child abuse.'"

My point was, you have done nothing but harrass and criticize anyone who thinks spanking their child (NOT beating or being abusive) is within their right as a parent....

YET, you can't address the a much larger FACT that it's the LIBERAL states... LIBERAL legislators and LIBERAL judges, who will not pass Jessica's Law or put child sex offenders behind bars...

How easy to call it "TH/groupthink" instead of addressing the point.





Tools of Parental Discipline -- part 1
The tools of parental discipline include:

Explaining the rules -- Always necessary. Ranges from "No touch coffee cup! Hot!" that I told my toddler this morning to the 45 minute discussion about the theological, moral, and medical reasons to abstain from sex before marriage, the responsibilities incumbent on him if he chose to engage in premarital sex anyway, and the consequences that WOULD occur if he got a girl pregnant -- namely lifelong guilt if she aborted the baby or lifetime financial and moral responsibility for that child if the girl kept it – that I had with my 16yo this past summer.

Verbal reminder -- Given when a child is considering violating a rule but before the rule is actually broken. This is the soft "No," when the toddler reaches for the VCR and the "Remember, no talking when you should be working," given to the 7yo who is apt to lose focus in school.

The Look -- A non-verbal reminder that Mom knows what the child is thinking of doing and that he/she'd better think again because he/she WILL be caught and there WILL be consequences if he/she doesn't.

Verbal Reprimand -- A statement of disapproval at the child's actions. Some children rarely need anything more severe, others will ignore verbal reprimands completely.

The Pointing Mom Finger -- A non-verbal reprimand that indicates that the child was caught, he/she knows what he/she did, and it better not happen again or there WILL be consequences. Can be administered from across the room in a public place without unduly embarrassing the child in front of his/her peers.

The Finger Smack -- The most useful tool for teaching toddlers not to grab things that are hot, sharp, fragile, liable to pinch/entrap, or otherwise dangerous/inappropriate for him/her to touch. The light sting drives home the concept of potential injury to a non-verbal/minimally verbal child or acts as an intensifier for an older child who has already ignored a Verbal Warning.

...

Don't believe in spanking
fine. I am sure you came to this conclusion from use of reason. But many Americans see it as a useful tool in teaching rebelous children. They also used reason to come to their conclusions.

Reguardless of my personal stance on the subject, I do not feel the need for government intrusion into family affairs on this subject.

That is unless government also frees the parents from responsibility from any damages caused by unruley offspring.

Its is not right to dictate to parents how to raise their children and at the same time hold them responsible for the failure of the policy forced on them.



The Tools of Parental Discipline -- part
...

The Shaming Lecture -- And extended Verbal Reprimand expressing deep parental disapproval.

The Time Out -- Probably the best option for errors of childish carelessness rather than defiance if the offense is too severe for a Verbal Reprimand. Can be used in conjunction with The Shaming Lecture when appropriate to the circumstances. A useful variation is to put a toy into time out when several children are fighting over it.

Taking Away Privileges -- effective only in older children who are developmentally capable of connecting actions to consequences over time. Ranges from taking away the Legos that have been left on the floor AGAIN to unplugging the computer of a young teen who has been gaming instead of doing chores/homework to taking away the car keys of an older teen who stayed out too late.

Logical Consequences -- Requiring the child to endure the logical consequences of his actions/omissions. Includes requiring a child who knocks over a glass of milk to clean up the mess and requiring a child who cheats on doing the dishes (deliberately avoiding a messy pan the requires scraping in order to stick another sibling with the unpleasant job is a favorite cheat in my household), to hand wash dishes for several days, and simply having to do without something that he/she broke/lost.

...

Christian Manfred writes:
"I would rather cut my arm off then hit a child."

Oh really? I'd like to see that put to the test.

Hyperbole at its best.

An undisciplined child will be an undisciplined, self centered, socially maladapted adult.

Anyone who doesn't understand that is living in a dream world.

The Tools of Parental Discipline -- 3
...

Spanking -- The considered administration of a measured and controlled amount of physical discomfort to either induce compliance in cases of defiant disobedience or to impress the child with the seriousness of his/her offense in cases of dangerous disobedience. The number of swats, the choice of bare-hand or suitable instrument, and the strength of the blows will vary according to the severity of the problem and the individual nature of the child. Differs from abuse in its controlled and measured nature and in the fact that no actual, physical damage occurs. Around here it usually involves 1-3, occasionally as high as 5, swats with the flat of a wooden spoon -- which stings viciously for a moment but leaves no mark.

Praise – Given for meeting minimum standards over a period or time or for being especially good at any particular time. Must be suited to the child’s developmental stage and must be sincere. Kids see right through it if you’re faking and they know when you’re over-praising when they don’t deserve it.

Rewards – Can be material or non-material. Most effective when given irregularly and unpredictably. Rewards given too often or too predictably become entitlements and lose their effectiveness.
...

Nancy
Nice post, but save your breath. You'll quickly be branded as a barbaric, violence-begets-violence Philistine who wouldn't have needed to spank your children in the first place if you had only been as enlightened as Touj or wwsword.

You see, their children apparently never pushed the boundaries far enough to warrant corporal punishment because the products of non-spanking homes become loving, tolerant, and cooperative at a very early age through osmosis. By simply explaining the rules in sufficient detail and with calm detachment, compliance can be automatically assured. Or, you can simply remove privileges as necessary because toddlers and young children are highly linear thinkers, and all disciplinary situations inherently allow you to take the time to explain things rather than act. Children are inherently reasonable. By simply explaining the consequences and providing abudant awards for good behavior, a stick will never - I repeat - never be necessary.

In our next installment of "loony liberal parenting" join us for a fascinating convolution of common sence as we explain why teaching your children how to have "safe sex" doesn't inadvertently encourage promiscuity.

The Tools of Parental Discipline -- 4
...


The Voice of Command aka The Mom Voice – Reacting to the Voice of Command seems to be hardwired into human nature. My sister once used this to quiet a dozen or so rowdy, young Airmen who were ignoring both the established rules of conduct during a tornado and prior reminders from others that their conduct was inappropriate despite the fact that she was their equal in rank. The one Airman who was resistant to the Voice yielded instantly to The Pointing Mom Finger. She then delivered a short Shaming Lecture, after which her good behavior was rewarded by Praise from the noncom in charge.

Unfortunately, its possible to train children out of this response – kids who repeatedly get away with defying legitimate authority become hardened in their defiance. The most obvious example being the dysfunctional state of inner-city schools where kids who have never been made to comply with any type of authority go crazy in a way that no pack or herd of wild animals would tolerate.

CharlieS

Oh so true. Consider this snipit from Keith Butler's website.

LIBERAL HEAVEN ???

DETROIT CITY COUNCIL ELECTION
In 1989, Mr. Butler was elected in a city-wide vote to the Detroit City Council; he garnered 43% of the votes, representing 105,000 of the total votes cast. Eighty-eight percent of Detroit's residents identified themselves as Democrats. He was the first known Republican to hold a city council seat in the city of Detroit since before World War II. Mr. Butler served a four-year term.

Touj.
Liberals always claim to be nuanced and capable of subtle distinctions beyond the comprehension of Neadertalish, religious conservatives.

Try the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate authority first.

Then consider the difference between a parent molding his/her child into a productive member of a civilized society and a child bullying a peer.

What if, God forbid...
the government decided that spanking was mandatory and that parents unwilling to use corporal punishment were unfit to raise their children? Absurd, of course, but not any more absurd than making spanking against the law.

There are plenty of laws protecting children from people who respect both the law and their children. The problem is with individuals who respect neither. I just think punishing good parents, who understand the difference, in an effort to control unfit parents, is not the way to go.

As for me, spanking my girls was not the first choice and was never administered in anger. I don't remember having to spank them twice for the same thing and after about age 5, no more spankings were needed. Today, they tell us that we were wonderful parents and that they were probably not spanked enough.

Well Carlos
At least you get to watch the Lions win or lose. I can't do that out here in Utah because their games aren't shown out here. All we get is San Francisco or Denver, or (UGH!) Dallas.
Of course we do get to see other Eastern teams games too, like NY, Baltimore, New England, etc, but ALMOST NEVER can I find the Lions on TV out here.

So quit your griping, ok.

Spanking it Hitting
Yet another distinction without a difference.

touj
I'm sure that wwsword is capable of generating a response without help from you. Perhaps you could let him/her respond to me since my post was not addressed to you.

Please note that wwsword's reply was very generalized, discussing human behavior in broad terms and not confined merely to child psychology or even human psychology (animal behavior was cited).

As such, I replied broadly and with appropriate sarcasm because it was warranted when someone foolishly implies that negative reinforcement is "obsolete."

Let's agree to disagree on this topic. We obviously aren't going to sway one another's opinions. But frankly, the spank vs. not-spank debate is not the crux of the question. The real question is this: do you think government has any business telling me whether I can spank (not to be confused with abuse) my children? If so, then at what point would you draw the line regarding government intervention as the definition of "abuse" becomes more and more subjective? What if a majority in Massachusetts suddenly decided that instruction in Islam or Christianity in the home is inherently psychologically abusive because it advocates the use of violence in certain situations such as capital punishment? At what point is the government justified in distinguishing between a parental *philosophy* -- and actions that legitimately jeopardize a child's physical health? When spanking becomes a beating that leaves welts and scars and physical damage, it has ceased to be spanking. Surely you are able to differentiate the two? To discriminate between a raindrop and a deluge?

As I said earlier, this becomes a very slippery slope. It is not a particularly large step from "spanking is abusive" legislation to government-prescribed parenting techniques. And I have no doubt that Massachusetts will lead the way.

wwsword
Such subtlety and such delicate shades of nuance!

One is led to wonder why the English language has so many words when people like you refuse to acknowledge differences in their meanings.

*rolls eyes*

NevadaDad
As a onetime resident of dear, old Taxachusetts, the home of the liberal weird, I can tell you that this nonsense has been building for a long, long, long time.

The Founding Fathers who participated in The Boston Tea Party must be rolling in their graves to see what their home has become.

:-(

CharlieS

You're not missing a thing. I'll gladly trade states with you.

King liberal and guests should move to Detroit, "the most dangerous city in America". It is 100% liberal Democrat rule.

I'd love to move TH liberals down to 6 mile road with me. I could show them how liberalism has killed/maimed more Black children than Vietnam and Iraq combined.

We can visit the graves of many of my classmates, and visit many more in prison.

TW liberal Democrats can say all they want...

But I have spent over 4 decades watching the Black man die. In Detroit, liberalism is Genocide .


I moved out of Michigan in 1986
DETROIT CITY COUNCIL ELECTION
In 1989, Mr. Butler was elected in a city-wide vote to the Detroit City Council; he garnered 43% of the votes, representing 105,000 of the total votes cast. Eighty-eight percent of Detroit's residents identified themselves as Democrats. He was the first known Republican to hold a city council seat in the city of Detroit since before World War II. Mr. Butler served a four-year term.


So I wasn't there when Mr. Butler managed to get onto the city council, but I'd bet he got STRONG opposition at every move.
I don't remember what the term of a Detroit City Council member is supposed to be, but I'd also bet that he didn't run for re-election because he couldn't take the liberals BS any longer and still retain his sanity.

CharlieS: "So quit your griping..."


Geeze, did you get up on the wrong side of the bed today...? :-)







tr: Ignorant and witless as usual!!!
.