Study says spanking kids makes them aggressive

http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/06/10332328-spanking-linked-to-more-aggression-in-kids


Are these people serious? First they say hitting your kids BUTT gives them BRAIN damage, and now this. Funny because the kids I knew who were truly aggressive and could become downright violent and murderous never were spanked, whereas we were and we knew to behave ourselves.

Bullshit!

In the last 25 years or so that it's been taboo to spank, I've not noticed kids to be doing any better for it. And that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Indeeeeeeeed! When spanking bad kids was the norm, how many were there throwing tantrums in stores because they couldn't have something they wanted? There wasn't anybody going 'Johnny PLEASE stop doing that' back then, or if they were, they were the minority. Which do people prefer, kids who know how to mind, or the whining screaming crying bawl babies who hit people to get what they want?

Maybe beating them makes them aggressive. I don't trust studies enough to distinguish the stark difference between abuse and discipline.

I can believe it if the "spankings" are more akin to frustrated beatings.

Marc™ wrote:I can believe it if the "spankings" are more akin to frustrated beatings.

I know when I have kids, I won't resort to spanking them for every little thing....but if they don't listen after I've told them several times, they're getting the belt.

Bunch of Bull. Spanking a kid is not going to turn him into a serial killer.

Seriously? They actually needed a "study" to link physical violence with aggression? You don't say! What will they think of next?

Hey, why don't we conduct a new study to see if living an unhealthy lifestyle might lead to childhood obesity. Or perhaps a study on whether or not smoking cigarrettes while pregnant causes health problems for newborns? I know these sound like crazy ideas, but I believe there might be a possible corralation in there somewhere!

Somehow I don't equate spanking with physical violence. Physical violence is physical violence pretty much regardless of age, but when an adult gets spanked nobody calls that abuse, they call it kinky. Nobody spanks adults with an intent to 'injure' them.

beat the damn kids!

wants2laugh wrote:

beat the damn kids!

For the most part. They need their ass whupped.

Supernova wrote:Somehow I don't equate spanking with physical violence. Physical violence is physical violence pretty much regardless of age, but when an adult gets spanked nobody calls that abuse, they call it kinky. Nobody spanks adults with an intent to 'injure' them.

And there are many people out there that would make the same argument with spanking children. That happens to be the first line of defense for child abusers who say things like "it just got out of hand". The point is, if you tried to "spank" your neighbor for repeatedly parking on your lawn, you would be arrested for assault, whether you intended to "injure" them or not. Because barring self-defense, "hitting" an adult (or someone elses child) is ALWAYS considered assualt regardless of the reason you did it, while doing exactly the same thing to your child is called a "spanking". It's a very convenient euphemism for HITTING that we've made into this benign term for the purpose of considering it something "other than violence". But there is no real difference! Spanking IS physical violence whether you equate it with that or not. You are in fact HITTING a child with your hand something else used as a weapon (belt, switch, etc) with the intent of causing them physical pain. That is what spanking means! And while calling it "violence" seems distasteful to those who agree with spanking, it doesn't change the fact that it is. It happens to be a violent act. You can rationalize it any which way you want, but the person being spanked views it as a form of violence and subsequently sees violence as "acceptable" under certain circumstances. There is no wonder why it increases aggressive tendencies! That is not a "new" theory by the way. This is BASIC psycholgy we are talking about here.

Here is another basic element of psychology: the abused often become abusers themselves! And an argument could be made that people who are for spankings and defend it by saying "it was done to me and I turned out okay", these people were actually ABUSED and have become the abuser. The reason people who were spanked as a child view it as "okay" is because they see that form of violence as being acceptable. Just like when boys who see their father beat the wife grow up to be abusers of women. It's the gift that keeps on giving! If you grow up under the assumption that violence is an acceptable answer to conflict, then you don't see it as abuse (even if you were the one being abused). It's called the "cycle of violence". People tend to view their parents as "perfect" or at least always having their child's best interest in mind. And because of that trust, you tend to consider whatever your parents do/did "correct" whether it is or not. That is human nature! But your parents could have had the best of intentions, and out of sheer ignorance acted in ways that unbeknownst to you were NOT in your best interest. I'm not saying that ALL spankings are bad, or that parents who believe in spanking are "bad people" or irresponsible parents. I'm not saying that at all and I'm certainly not judging anyone here! I'm simply saying that from the stantpoint of psychology (particularly child psychology) violence tends to begat violence and the vast majority of pediatricians agree that spanking is the LEAST effective form of discipline compared to other methods. Look it up!

The reason that children might seem wild and unruly today is because they are undisciplined, not necessarily because they were not spanked.

People who can't distinguish between spanking kids as discipline and beating kids in abuse are only going to make the problem of child abuse worse.

Forgiveness Man wrote:People who can't distinguish between spanking kids as discipline and beating kids in abuse are only going to make the problem of child abuse worse.

Unfortunately the point at which point something goes from being "discipline" to being "abuse" is completely subjective, which is one of the reasons why child abuse is a problem to begin with.

However, since most people who were spanked as children said that it worked on them and they deserved it and their parents did the right thing by doing it, that seems to imply that most who do KNOW what the line is between discipline and abuse because you don't hear people so widely praising their parents for breaking their arms or burning them or giving them black eyes. And likewise, you see a lot of people in therapy because of the trauma they suffered from childhood abuse but you don't see people going to a therapist because they got their butt spanked when they did something wrong 20 years ago.

Supernova wrote:However, since most people who were spanked as children said that it worked on them and they deserved it and their parents did the right thing by doing it, that seems to imply that most who do KNOW what the line is between discipline and abuse because you don't hear people so widely praising their parents for breaking their arms or burning them or giving them black eyes.

No, actually it doesn't mean any of those things. Let me just break down everything that's wrong with what you just said step-by-step.

1. It assumes that most people who were spanked as a child in fact agree with spankings. That happens to be a false assumption. I was spanked as a child and that is a form of discipline that would be very sparingly used if at all on my own children. It just so happens that most people who agree with spanking were spanked themselves (which is the logical given all the reasons I previously mentioned). But that doesn't mean that most people who were spanked believe in spanking!

2. It ignores the fact that the abused who become abusers fail to recognize what happened to them as abuse. Once again, it's called the cycle of violence.

3. It assumes that "abuse" necessitates broken limbs, burns and black eyes. It doesn't! You can force a kid to sit in a dark room 23 hours a day and while that won't cause broken bones, it is still ABUSE. Spankings MAY be abuse if done excessively and improperly and they need not leave broken limbs to be considered abuse.

Supernova wrote:And likewise, you see a lot of people in therapy because of the trauma they suffered from childhood abuse but you don't see people going to a therapist because they got their butt spanked when they did something wrong 20 years ago.

Really? Are you a psychologist? How many people have you interviewed on this subject? How much research have you actually done on this AT ALL? Because I actually have, and I'd be very interested to compare notes with you. Allow me to remind you that the difference between spanking and abuse is subjective. That means that every individual determines for themselves whether or not they think a particular spanking is abuse or not. Not all spankings are the same! You seem to think that there is one universal, accepted method of spaniking that every parent uses, which always yeilds the same results, with all kids. There is no such thing! Not all spankings qualify as abuse. But you seem to think that when it is "abuse" it is no longer called a spanking anymore. Where is the magic line for you exactly? Broken limbs? Because the parents who killed their daughter last summer after learning how to properly discipline her by "spanking" might not agree with you.

Well, everything is subjective to some degree. That's just an excuse to justify the blurring of distinctions. Comparing spanking with beating kind of comes off as comparing taking away a child's dessert with starving them. It seems to be just another step in trying to force the "do nothing" parent onto everybody. We need to have reasonable lines in the sand when it comes to things. If there isn't a clear distinction made between discipline and abuse, we're only going to make REAL abuse worse.

captainbryce wrote:And there are many people out there that would make the same argument with spanking children. That happens to be the first line of defense for child abusers who say things like "it just got out of hand". The point is, if you tried to "spank" your neighbor for repeatedly parking on your lawn, you would be arrested for assault, whether you intended to "injure" them or not. Because barring self-defense, "hitting" an adult (or someone elses child) is ALWAYS considered assualt regardless of the reason you did it, while doing exactly the same thing to your child is called a "spanking". It's a very convenient euphemism for HITTING that we've made into this benign term for the purpose of considering it something "other than violence". But there is no real difference! Spanking IS physical violence whether you equate it with that or not. You are in fact HITTING a child with your hand something else used as a weapon (belt, switch, etc) with the intent of causing them physical pain. That is what spanking means! And while calling it "violence" seems distasteful to those who agree with spanking, it doesn't change the fact that it is. It happens to be a violent act. You can rationalize it any which way you want, but the person being spanked views it as a form of violence and subsequently sees violence as "acceptable" under certain circumstances. There is no wonder why it increases aggressive tendencies! That is not a "new" theory by the way. This is BASIC psycholgy we are talking about here.

Here is another basic element of psychology: the abused often become abusers themselves! And an argument could be made that people who are for spankings and defend it by saying "it was done to me and I turned out okay", these people were actually ABUSED and have become the abuser. The reason people who were spanked as a child view it as "okay" is because they see that form of violence as being acceptable. Just like when boys who see their father beat the wife grow up to be abusers of women. It's the gift that keeps on giving! If you grow up under the assumption that violence is an acceptable answer to conflict, then you don't see it as abuse (even if you were the one being abused). It's called the "cycle of violence". People tend to view their parents as "perfect" or at least always having their child's best interest in mind. And because of that trust, you tend to consider whatever your parents do/did "correct" whether it is or not. That is human nature! But your parents could have had the best of intentions, and out of sheer ignorance acted in ways that unbeknownst to you were NOT in your best interest. I'm not saying that ALL spankings are bad, or that parents who believe in spanking are "bad people" or irresponsible parents. I'm not saying that at all and I'm certainly not judging anyone here! I'm simply saying that from the stantpoint of psychology (particularly child psychology) violence tends to begat violence and the vast majority of pediatricians agree that spanking is the LEAST effective form of discipline compared to other methods. Look it up!

The reason that children might seem wild and unruly today is because they are undisciplined, not necessarily because they were not spanked.

Very well said. The lack of self control, conscience & disrespectful behavior we see in kids often has less to do with sparing the proverbial "rod" & more to do with the parents inability to say "no" & a lack of consequences for actions. Those consequences don't always have to be physical. Add to that too many parents who have the desire to be their child's "friend".

The ancient American Indians' methods of disciplining children were for the most part up to par with modern ways. Most of the time a bad child was only verbally reprimanded, however, I wonder if people would think it worse to spank them, or do like the Indians did and pick up the child and throw them into the water as punishment.

Forgiveness Man wrote:Well, everything is subjective to some degree.

No, everything is NOT subjective. Some things are objective, like murder, rape, grand theft, robbery, etc. Those are not subjective at all because the law clearly defines what constitutes each on of those things. It's not up to a single individual! Abuse on the other hand is when it comes to "spankings". One person may consider spanking abusive while another may not. And while spankings are not against the law, it becomes illegal once the wrong person considers it "abuse". That's why CPS exists!

Forgiveness Man wrote:That's just an excuse to justify the blurring of distinctions. Comparing spanking with beating kind of comes off as comparing taking away a child's dessert with starving them. It seems to be just another step in trying to force the "do nothing" parent onto everybody.

I realize that's how it SEEMS and how it COMES OFF to you, but that's because you tend not to listen very well and you like to make assumptions. If you had paid attention at all, you would have recognized that I'm not advocating a "do nothing" attitude in anyway. I've already outlined that there are alternatives to spanking (which you've apparently ignored) and that I'm not even necessarily against "spankings" in general. So things can often "seem" a certain way that they're not when the receiver doesn't really listen to what is actually being said.

Forgiveness Man wrote:We need to have reasonable lines in the sand when it comes to things. If there isn't a clear distinction made between discipline and abuse, we're only going to make REAL abuse worse.

The irnoy here is that this is exactly MY POINT. I agree that we need to have lines in the sand that differentiate between such things. The problem is that WE DON'T! The line between spanking and abuse is left up to each individual to draw for themselves. And if that individual happens to be "abusive" then they draw no such line! That's the problem with spankings, not everyone knows how to administer them and it's PARENTS who often times abuse that form of discipline. Everytime someone wants to pretend that "spanking" isn't a form of hitting and therefore shouldn't be called "beating" or "violence", they are ignoring a simple reality of abuse and allowing it to go unchecked. That's why we created that euphemism in the first place, and why people are so resistant to calling it what it really is. You ARE in fact hitting a child in such a way that would be considered assault if you did the same thing to an adult. Calling it "spanking" doesn't mean that you're not still hitting them! Calling it spanking IS THE EXCUSE to keep doing it without upsetting your conscience, or considering the full effect that type of discipline may have.

My comment was sarcastic about subjectivity... If people stopped bitching about discipline, we could better stop real abuse instead of wasting time with people's touchy-feely "subjectivity." (And quit the "you always ignore me" skit already.)