Corporal punishment
This is an issue that has come up several times here, and the reaction from most of the other Americans is usually "hitting a child for any reason every means you should be hauled away and never get to see your kids again!".
While I don't want teacher's (or parents) boxing around kids for stupid mistakes, I disagree. A whack on the bottom to me does not equal abuse. Yes, it's unpleasant, but that's the point. The point is, if the child is so incredibly out of control or just does something that they need to know is way beyond a line, that's when something like corporal punishment comes in.
I read this article:http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100412/hl_time/08599198101900
and thought it was down right ignorant. For example, :
"Now researchers at Tulane University provide the strongest evidence yet against the use of spanking: of the nearly 2,500 youngsters in the study, those who were spanked more frequently at age 3 were more likely to be aggressive by age 5."
combined with this:
"Each of these factors contributed to children's aggressive behavior at age 5, but they could not explain all of the violent tendencies at that age. Further, the positive connection between spanking and aggression remained strong, even after these factors had been accounted for."
How do you contribute for these factors? (mother a drunk, divorce, etc). How do you contribute for possible genetic tendencies?
Although I agree if a parent is constantly spanking their child, they will probably enforce into them that violence is the way to solve things and probably instill aggression, that doesn't mean that spanking should be cut out altogether. It's about balance. The spanking is the "you crossed the line" thing, used only in extreme circumstances. Not cleaning a room, etc., would not fall under these circumstances.
"Spanking may stop a child from misbehaving in the short term, but it becomes less and less effective with repeated use"
exactly, it's how you use a tool that largely determines its effectiveness. Spare the rod, don't just throw it away.
Another point, is that if you make it obvious that "I will never spank you or do mean things to you not matter what you do", you give the kids free license.
When I was a kid and I did something I knew was bad, I got scared because I was afraid of the consequences. While they were never as bad as I thought, it was partly fear that kept me in line. Most times I understood why I shouldn't do certain things, but of course, sometimes I didn't care about the "real" reasons, and that's where "because you'll get in trouble" comes in.
There are too many things where if the parents don't provide a real consequence, the children just won't care about the ones that are there. Studying, for example. If no one every taught a child why an education is important, and then didn't put real (and more immediate) consequences to not studying (fail a test no allowance, etc.), then the kids would turn 30 and still not know why they should have studied and why they are failing in life.
Also, I don't think parents letting their kids know they have power over them is a bad thing. Kids should know are realize that they exist and will continue to exist thanks to their parents. Parents provide everything for a child (at least everything that child receives. I believe I had a pretty good grasp on this as a child, and it also helps you respect your parents.
Anyway, I've rambled enough for now.
While I don't want teacher's (or parents) boxing around kids for stupid mistakes, I disagree. A whack on the bottom to me does not equal abuse. Yes, it's unpleasant, but that's the point. The point is, if the child is so incredibly out of control or just does something that they need to know is way beyond a line, that's when something like corporal punishment comes in.
I read this article:http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100412/hl_time/08599198101900
and thought it was down right ignorant. For example, :
"Now researchers at Tulane University provide the strongest evidence yet against the use of spanking: of the nearly 2,500 youngsters in the study, those who were spanked more frequently at age 3 were more likely to be aggressive by age 5."
combined with this:
"Each of these factors contributed to children's aggressive behavior at age 5, but they could not explain all of the violent tendencies at that age. Further, the positive connection between spanking and aggression remained strong, even after these factors had been accounted for."
How do you contribute for these factors? (mother a drunk, divorce, etc). How do you contribute for possible genetic tendencies?
Although I agree if a parent is constantly spanking their child, they will probably enforce into them that violence is the way to solve things and probably instill aggression, that doesn't mean that spanking should be cut out altogether. It's about balance. The spanking is the "you crossed the line" thing, used only in extreme circumstances. Not cleaning a room, etc., would not fall under these circumstances.
"Spanking may stop a child from misbehaving in the short term, but it becomes less and less effective with repeated use"
exactly, it's how you use a tool that largely determines its effectiveness. Spare the rod, don't just throw it away.
Another point, is that if you make it obvious that "I will never spank you or do mean things to you not matter what you do", you give the kids free license.
When I was a kid and I did something I knew was bad, I got scared because I was afraid of the consequences. While they were never as bad as I thought, it was partly fear that kept me in line. Most times I understood why I shouldn't do certain things, but of course, sometimes I didn't care about the "real" reasons, and that's where "because you'll get in trouble" comes in.
There are too many things where if the parents don't provide a real consequence, the children just won't care about the ones that are there. Studying, for example. If no one every taught a child why an education is important, and then didn't put real (and more immediate) consequences to not studying (fail a test no allowance, etc.), then the kids would turn 30 and still not know why they should have studied and why they are failing in life.
Also, I don't think parents letting their kids know they have power over them is a bad thing. Kids should know are realize that they exist and will continue to exist thanks to their parents. Parents provide everything for a child (at least everything that child receives. I believe I had a pretty good grasp on this as a child, and it also helps you respect your parents.
Anyway, I've rambled enough for now.