California Legislator Proposes Ban on Spanking

[jaaska 0]

Quote

So no S&M is allowed between adults? I thought we Americans were the prudes.

I was thinking more in terms of spanking your wife/mother/sister/brother/friend for acting stupidly etc.

S&M is a different story...

Quote

Type and size of dog? I think it's grossly wrong to generalize an entire species on a single example. Dog breeds vary far more than people do.

Some dogs will challenge for dominance in the house and if people are afraid, it will take advantage. Discipline is quite important when you have a 100lb dog in the home.

I think it's a mixed breed - a bit over 100 lb (about 50 k's). The dog is very discipline - she told me that it has been made very clear to the dog that she and her husband (my brother) are the "alpha couple" so to speak and she does have quite strict rules how to behave when e.g. we go over there to visit them. We are not allowed to pay any attention to the dog when we get in before we have had time to properly greet her and my brother and take off our jackets etc. Also, we are not allowed to take any side steps (or dodge) the dog (even if we are about to step on it) but rather act as it was not there and even keep on walking straight and let the dog dodge before us. Only after all this can we pay attention to the dog, scratch him or what ever...

[jaaska 0]

Quote

Hell-ooo? Right here?

I support the proposed law and believe that it is NOT appropriate to hit a child under 3 for any reason.

Exactly!

Human beings are very adaptable mammals. Giving a spanking to a child under 3 years old won't stop that individual from growing up to a decent fellow. All the studies I have read do suggest, however, that this kind of behavior (spanking) will have a permanent effect on the child's personality - not necessary a big one (human being are, after all, quite different from each other - some are stronger, some are more fragile), but still... The child's sense of basic security will have a small breach (or bigger one, if the child is more sensitive). As an adult, it's possible, this child may have less emotional intelligence than w/o the infantile spanking. People with less emotional intelligence will try to rationalize things that are not meant to be rationalized. Now - someone might think this is a good change. I mean, who wants to foster a son who is "emotionally intelligent"? Harden him up, some might say.

I say:
-No thanks!

[Zenister 0]

sorry but i'll take the kind of discipline i received as a child over the 'hands off' approach everytime..

you seem to mistake pain used as a learning tool /punishment with 'striking in anger'

punishment is NEVER given in an angry state, in fact the 'waiting' is far harsher punishment than the pain itself. The transition from 'fear of pain' to 'fear of displeasure' is a gradual one but very effective.. my mother can still make me feel worse with a simple look than she could have with a baseball bat (and no dont assume anything, i'm simply stating i'd much rather have my ass kicked with a ballbat than disappoint my mother)

Laws that remove tools from parents simply because ignorant fools abuse them are fundamentally flawed. No one should interfere with how a parent disciplines a child (when those methods cause no real harm.)

if you wish to raise your children without any form of true discipline please do so. When you attempt to enforce your mores on another we have a problem.

such modern coddling like child leashes, helmets and other 'protective' measures are continually creating a generation who have no real personal discipline, fortitude or determination to endure when placed under long term stress (or even minor physical discomfort.) Thousands of years of martial arts and military training bears out that using pain and discomfort as a training tool works VERY well.

only if/when spanking crosses the line (and there is a clear line between uncomfortable pain and actual physical harm) should the LAW ever be involved.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

I think it's a mixed breed - a bit over 100 lb (about 50 k's). The dog is very discipline - she told me that it has been made very clear to the dog that she and her husband (my brother) are the "alpha couple" so to speak and she does have quite strict rules how to behave when e.g. we go over there to visit them. We are not allowed to pay any attention to the dog when we get in before we have had time to properly greet her and my brother and take off our jackets etc. Also, we are not allowed to take any side steps (or dodge) the dog (even if we are about to step on it) but rather act as it was not there and even keep on walking straight and let the dog dodge before us. Only after all this can we pay attention to the dog, scratch him or what ever...

sounds more like they've trained you not to excite the dog more than they have trained the dog to behave when guests enter the home..

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[jaaska 0]

Quote

sounds more like they've trained you not to excite the dog more than they have trained the dog to behave when guests enter the home..

You are probably right.

J

[windcatcher 0]

Quote

sorry but i'll take the kind of discipline i received as a child over the 'hands off' approach everytime...

I actually agree with you for once, ZEN!

I think not disciplining one's children is probably one of the worst things you can do as a parent, spanking or no spanking. I just don't understand how some parents don't give their children ANY discipline, and just let the kids rule over them.

Mother to the cutest little thing in the world...

[steveorino 7]

I spanked my four kids when they were young between the ages of say 4- 9. I tried my best never to discipline them while I was angry, but I seriously doubt I was that good of a parent.

Now that I'm a granddaddy (5 year old and 18 mo old) I can see where discipline doesn't require corporal punishment. The big difference now is I am more mature. It does take a lot more self discipline on the parent's part to instill discipline in their kids's lives w/o spanking, but it is worth it.

That being said, every now and then I see a kid acting out terribly and his parents acting like they don't see the misbehavior. I can't help but think "that kids needs a good swat with a wooden spoon."

Also I see more and more kids being overly disciplined by a male who is not the dad. These kids are being abused. As the nuclear family fades away this problem most likely will only esculate

steveOrino

[freeflybella 0]

I'm not mistaking anything, Zen ~ we just disagree.

I DO agree with you that laws for the most part should stay out of our homes/bedrooms etc. BUT only for consenting adults.

Children have no vote. We must do what we can to protect them.

It's good that you agree 'punishment' should never be handed down while angry. The problem is - very very often that's exactly how it happens.

So let's agree to disagree there.

Quote

i'm simply stating i'd much rather have my ass kicked with a ballbat than disappoint my mother

This is exactly my point. This teaches empathy and responsibility in children. Spanking teaches them to avoid getting caught or to lie about it when they do to avoid being spanked.

Anyway - this isn't about spanking in general, this is about spanking infants and toddlers. I say NO.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[freeflybella 0]

Talk to me when your child is born. Seriously.

This isn't about NOT DISCIPLINING children. This is about SPANKING infants and toddlers.

My child is wonderfully disciplined and I use a variety of methods - not one of which is striking him. Ever.

If the issue is THE PARENTS not disciplining, why would you advocate that CHILDREN should be the ones being spanked?!

Anyway - I hope you don't feel the same about striking your infant or toddler once you become a parent. But until a law is p-assed, it's your business.

Good luck!

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

This isn't about NOT DISCIPLINING children.

see how that spins you up? It's much the same when you characterize spanking as "violence" or "hitting"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

It does take a lot more self discipline on the parent's part to instill disciplen in their kids's lives w/o spanking, but it is worth it.

Quote

That being said, every now and then I see a kid acting out terribly and his parents acting like they don't see the misbehavior. I can't help but think "those parents need a good swat with a wooden spoon."

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

It does take a lot more self discipline on the parent's part to instill disciplen in their kids's lives w/o spanking, but it is worth it.

Quote

That being said, every now and then I see a kid acting out terribly and his parents acting like they don't see the misbehavior. I can't help but think "those parents need a good swat with a wooden spoon."

Yeah, that is better. Thanks for the correction.

steveOrino

[billvon 2,380]

> The child's sense of basic security will have a small breach . . .

. . . which he absolutely needs to grow into an adult. One of the most important things a child needs to learn is that the world does not conform to his/her wishes, and if he plays with fire he will get burned. He is not safe from such things.

>this child may have less emotional intelligence than w/o the infantile spanking.

I suspect he will have more such emotional intelligence early on; he will be closer to learning that actions have consequences. But predicting what X causes 15 years later is next to impossible.

There are a lot of minor traumas kids go through; these are a critical part of growing up. For many, abandonment is a bigger fear than being spanked - yet people still use "time outs" to discipline their children, which are effectively temporary abandonments. If we go down the road towards not causing any "trauma" to children at an early age, time-outs (and harsh scoldings) would soon go the way of the spanking and be illegal. "It's to protect the children!"

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>not causing any "trauma" to children at an early age, time-outs (and harsh scoldings) would soon go the way of the spanking and be illegal. "It's to protect the children!"

You're right, time outs are horrible. We shouldn't torture children by abondoning them to starve by the side of the road. We don't torture adults. California should immediately outlaw time-outs - starving and neglecting a child is just wrong.

When, oh when will people evolve to the place I'm in...

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[steve1 5]

I think the government needs to keep it's nose out of this. If it's a clear case of abuse that is a different matter, but hauling a parent off to jail for giving a kid a swat, that's ridiculous.

I agree that using physical punishment is probably just teaching a kid that it is okay to be violent. If a parent is abusive....arrest them, but an occaisional swat is not physical abuse in my oppinion.

There are better ways to discipline a kid than flipping out and beating your kid. But, I guess I can't see what's wrong with giving a youngster a swat if their behavior becomes too extreme, and if it's not done in anger.

I remember more than one time when my father flipped out and took a belt to me. It did a lot more harm than good. When I became a parent I wanted to do a better job of parenting, than my old man did. In some ways I failed. In some ways I was just like him. After all he was my mentor in the parenting department.

I can remember giving my kids a swat a few times when they were little. I never felt good about that. I should have used a different form of punishment. One time I really lost it and spanked them both in a fit of anger. What a lousy thing to do to a kid! I later appologized to them for this, but the damage was still done.

In no way am I in favor of spanking kids, but at the same time, I think the government needs to keep it's "Do Gooder Nose" out of this one. With all the problems in the world, don't they have anything better to do?....Steve1

[jaaska 0]

Quote

> The child's sense of basic security will have a small breach . . .

. . . which he absolutely needs to grow into an adult. One of the most important things a child needs to learn is that the world does not conform to his/her wishes, and if he plays with fire he will get burned. He is not safe from such things.

>this child may have less emotional intelligence than w/o the infantile spanking.

I suspect he will have more such emotional intelligence early on; he will be closer to learning that actions have consequences. But predicting what X causes 15 years later is next to impossible.

There are a lot of minor traumas kids go through; these are a critical part of growing up. For many, abandonment is a bigger fear than being spanked - yet people still use "time outs" to discipline their children, which are effectively temporary abandonments. If we go down the road towards not causing any "trauma" to children at an early age, time-outs (and harsh scoldings) would soon go the way of the spanking and be illegal. "It's to protect the children!"

As I said - the law in hand concerns toddler and infants (0-2 years). If you [I]believe spanking will help (your) toddlers/infants to become better persons, fine. Since you are always so into to scientific data etc., I can point out couple of interesting scientific articles about this one. Or just look up your self: "early childhood development" AND "corporal punishment".

I haven't (neither have any of my friends that I know have not received corporal punishment) burned/nearly killed/etc. myself/themselves. There are alternatives - spanking is a shortcut/easier way out.

Most of the time we (as parents) act similarly to our own parents (in many situations - including corporal punishment). I'm just saying there is an alternative and it's not necessary to pass on all the family traditions down the line.

The law in hand is about infants/toddlers (0-2 years old). Saying that this will lead to ever stricter laws may or may not be true. It's like the good old gun law debate...

I just can not imagine raising my hand against a/an toddler/infant

[billvon 2,380]

>I haven't (neither have any of my friends that I know have
>not received corporal punishment) burned/nearly killed/etc.
>myself/themselves.

When I was 3 I threw my sister in the fireplace. (She was about 12 months old.) Fortunately the fire was out. Only time I got slapped. I have no memory of it, but I never did that again. Did it work? Yep. Might other methods have worked? Perhaps. But that decision should be up to the parents, not a politician in Sacramento.

[rehmwa 2]

How about a required training class BEFORE Californians have kids?

"but that would be intrusive"

(the age quote 0-2, is more compelling. A swat is meaningless unless the child understands the reason for the punishment - but, then there are already abuse laws on the books to enforce instead of putting up a PR law for face value. This isn't about protecting kids from violence, this is exactly about the parent that does the very rare swat when the kid runs into traffic. This is only about forcing the loss of discipline and control that parents have so they must rely on the nanny state to raise the kids for them).

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

But that decision should be up to the parents, not a politician in Sacramento.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't research (and public opinion) factor into whether laws get passed?

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[billvon 2,380]

>but doesn't research (and public opinion) factor into whether laws get passed?

Research? Perhaps, if it's compelling.

Public opinion? Fortunately, not always. When the Supreme Court said that interracial marriage was legal, they were bucking the popular opinion at the time. But it turned out to be a good thing in the long run.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

When I was 3 I threw my sister in the fireplace.

Did she have it coming? I have a sister, see, so I can relate.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

But that decision should be up to the parents, not a politician in Sacramento.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't research (and public opinion) factor into whether laws get passed?

But it doesn't (well, it's not supposed) to factor into individuals rights and their privacy. (Sorry to you smokers, you're getting fucked left and right by what freeflybella points to here)

[windcatcher 0]

I don't plan on spanking my infant/toddler. I will however, spank my kid once he gets older if I feel his actions warrant it.

Mother to the cutest little thing in the world...

[jaaska 0]

Quote

I don't plan on spanking my infant/toddler. I will however, spank my kid once he gets older if I feel his actions warrant it.

So, what do you think about this ban on spanking then? I mean, it concerns children from 0-2 years old - I would call children at that age infants/toddlers. Are you still against it? If so, why?

[steve1 5]

I guess what all this boils down to, is what level of government intrusion do you want in your life.

Maybe we should make another law that punishes parents who let their kids watch too much TV. Perhaps another one for parents who let their kids play too many video games. Or maybe we should throw all parents in the slammer who get angry with their children and raise their voice.

I agree with whoever says spanking is wrong, but at the same time I think this law is stupid. I don't want more government in my life. I think I could get by just fine with considerably less....Steve1