Corporal Punishment (spankng)

[Revulero]

Is it right or wrong to discipline children through corporal punishment. I just wanted to know what most leftist view on hitting a child for misbehaving because i feel like my highschool (who pop kids for misbehaving or getting late to class) is outdated for using this method of discipline.

[Sentinel]

I'm an anarchist and am entirely agaisnt it, as were my marxist-leninist parents when they raised me.

I am convinced that absolute condemnation is the correct communist approach to physical child abuse.

I know that the left is divided on a lot of issues, but I truly hope the day will come, when we can all agree on at least this.

Learning children to attempt to justify their actions by rational arguments in discussion, instead moronically trying to beat into their heads what's 'right' and what's 'wrong', will boost their intelligence and rationality -- and their respect for human integrity and autonomy.

Displays of brutality on the other hand often have the opposite effect and can outright harm a child's development into a socially functional adult human being.

[BIG BROTHER]

I disagree with you Sentinel, words are good but sometimes actions are needed. Spanking doesn't have to be a brutal punishment, were you use all your might against the kid.

But at Highschool level I think corporal punishment wouldn't work anymore.

[RedAnarchist]

I'm an anarchist and am entirely agaisnt it, as were my marxist-leninist parents when they raised me.

I am convinced that absolute condemnation is the correct communist approach to physical child abuse.

I know that the left is divided on a lot of issues, but I truly hope the day will come, when we can all agree on at least this.

Learning children to attempt to justify their actions by rational arguments in discussion, instead moronically trying to beat into their heads what's 'right' and what's 'wrong', will boost their intelligence and rationality -- and their respect for human integrity and autonomy.

Displays of brutality on the other hand often have the opposite effect and can outright harm a child's development into a socially functional adult human being.

I second that. Its important that we treat children with the same respect we would give to adults.

[Pirate Utopian]

I would spank a hot adult woman if she was into it.

But no, I'm no fan of psyhically disciplining kids.

[spartan]

Well i was spanked when i was younger and it never did me any harm (Except that i have to visit a local dominatrix every day).

Seriously though it is really up to the parents of the child what they do.

This is really something that the state has no right to get involved in (Telling parents how to deal with their own children).

[blackstone]

I'm an anarchist and am entirely agaisnt it, as were my marxist-leninist parents when they raised me.

I am convinced that absolute condemnation is the correct communist approach to physical child abuse.

I know that the left is divided on a lot of issues, but I truly hope the day will come, when we can all agree on at least this.

Learning children to attempt to justify their actions by rational arguments in discussion, instead moronically trying to beat into their heads what's 'right' and what's 'wrong', will boost their intelligence and rationality -- and their respect for human integrity and autonomy.

Displays of brutality on the other hand often have the opposite effect and can outright harm a child's development into a socially functional adult human being.

I highly doubt not being spanked boosts a child's intelligence and rationality. Let's be serious here.

[jake williams]

I agree with Sentinel, it's totally unacceptable. Moreover the dominance relations it encourages, are, I think, completely tied to class relations.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

It's unacceptable; how to prevent every case is a matter of grandfathering social change; however, children post-revolution will of course be able to leave their families since laws will no longer enforce the nuclear family. Kids will be recognized as people and not property.

Routine slapping with the intent of causing pain should be highly discouraged by Leftists. There are much better ways to deal with kids. We don't need kids learning that they shouldn't stop until it hurts!

[rocker935]

If/when I have kids, i will NEVER hit them. Its Ageist and a sign of dominance.

[jake williams]

... however, children post-revolution will of course be able to leave their families since laws will no longer enforce the nuclear family. Kids will be recognized as people and not property.
I actually really like this idea, it's one I hold personally. Of course, you'd have to set up a lot of social infrastructure to make this a viable option.

[blackstone]

We don't need kids learning that they shouldn't stop until it hurts!



A good ass whooping will teach a kid not to START in the first place!

[Dimentio]

I do think that children should receive punishments if they have done socially unacceptable or simply malevolent things, but not of any sort which is physical, since that could lead to psychological inhibitions and is barbarian (it is as barbarian to hit a child as to have a monopoly of violence as the basis of a culture). I think a parent should be a teacher and a friend, not an authoritarian figure who points with the whole hand.

The dominant father figure is the epithome of all that is bad with our civilisation.

As for the freedom of children, I do not think that children should be allowed to gain total authority over their lives, since they could be easily manipulated by adults with malevolent intentions. Pedophilia is not a consequence of capitalism for example.

I think we should reform the public caretaker system of children. If a child don't want to live in a foster family, do not lock it in on some home (unless it has psychiatric problems) but give it an own apartment with a contact person attached who is responsible to take care of the structuralisation of the day, but also to be someone which the child could speak to and have as a friend and a mentor.

[Sentinel]

I disagree with you Sentinel, words are good but sometimes actions are needed. Spanking doesn't have to be a brutal punishment, were you use all your might against the kid.It none the less sends the signal that you don't have to prove you're right -- and might as well do whatever you please -- as long as you have physical superiority to get away with it. Now I'm no pacifist by any means, but violence is not a good way of teaching children about justice.


Well i was spanked when i was younger and it never did me any harmI don't know if you're being serious spartan, but how can you honestly be so certain? Who can afterwards say that for sure?


I highly doubt not being spanked boosts a child's intelligence and rationality. Let's be serious here.That's not what I am arguing either. I said that alternative teaching methods to spanking might do that, not the absence of spanking itself.

On the other had, I did argue that physical child abuse -- which is what spanking is -- can potentially damage a childs psychological development, and is therefore a both stupid and despicable practice we should en masse condemn, both as humanists and as communists.


.. however, children post-revolution will of course be able to leave their families since laws will no longer enforce the nuclear family. Kids will be recognized as people and not property.I strongly agree, we should strive for kids to have the opportunity to ultimately choose themselves, where they want to live and who is to raise them.

[Dros]

Where the fuck do you go to school?!

Corporal punishment, especially against high school aged people, but against any person in general, is totally unexceptable under any reasonable condition.

And no Spartan, it definitely falls under the state and latter society's obligation to the child. So, NO! NO SPANKING!

[jake williams]

Serpent, a couple things to say.

I do think that children should receive punishments if they have done socially unacceptable or simply malevolent things, but not of any sort which is physical, since that could lead to psychological inhibitions and is barbarian.
I don't believe in "punishment" because, and I don't want this to sound like some oversimplifying "two wrongs don't make a right", but I don't think it's good to set up a structure whereby "If you do something wrong, I'll make you feel bad". I think it makes far more sense to provide logical consequences to actions. It's going to depend a lot on the specific circumstances, and it will take, you know, thought, which seems pretty rare in parenting, but it's not impossible. Just stuff like, you know, if you're hitting your friends you get alone time (if they're toddlers), if they won't help out (fairly, not as slaves) with housework you don't cook them food (if they're older), that kind of thing. I can't think of great examples on the spot - it depends on the specific circumstances - but the idea is that you parent intelligently and sensibly, basically.


Pedophilia is not a consequence of capitalism for example.
I take issue with this whole idea, on a few levels. First off, I know far more people than I'd like to recall who have been sexually abused - all, I think, by family members, in some cases close family members, and certainly all by people whom they know personally. The point is, the whole idea of the dark stranger wanting to rape "your" children (the possessivist ideas behind this sort of paranoia are deeply, deeply disturbing), it's mostly ridiculous. I wouldn't say it never happens, but I think an intelligent society could to a lot to ameliorate it, and in the process also get rid of a lot of irrational and harmful fears (i.e. making it difficult for sincere adults to form non-sexual relationships with children without facing accusations).


As for the freedom of children, I do not think that children should be allowed to gain total authority over their lives, since they could be easily manipulated by adults with malevolent intentions.
...
I think we should reform the public caretaker system of children. If a child don't want to live in a foster family, do not lock it in on some home (unless it has psychiatric problems) but give it an own apartment with a contact person attached who is responsible to take care of the structuralisation of the day, but also to be someone which the child could speak to and have as a friend and a mentor.
Again, I think we have to react intelligently and fairly to specific cases. Some children have certain abilities and mental faculties and understanding of how to do things, others have more or less, and it's only sort of broadly correlated to age, but yeah, it varies. But I don't think we can say "Children are people under 18 and they follow these rules, and other people are Adults and they follow these rules", and nor can we say "You can fuck when you're 12 so long as they're not more than two years older than you, and you can fuck when you're 14 so long as they're not more than five years older than you or in a 'position of trust or authority' (taking the wording of the Canadian law), and you can fuck anyone when you're over 16" and so on, and you can drive when you're 16 mostly and you can... all of this, I think it's nonsense. I think we have to have community institutions that can appropriately react and make sure that people, whatever age, deal with what they can handle and don't what they can't.

[Raúl Duke]

I'm an anarchist and am entirely agaisnt it, as were my marxist-leninist parents when they raised me.

I am convinced that absolute condemnation is the correct communist approach to physical child abuse.

I know that the left is divided on a lot of issues, but I truly hope the day will come, when we can all agree on at least this.

Learning children to attempt to justify their actions by rational arguments in discussion, instead moronically trying to beat into their heads what's 'right' and what's 'wrong', will boost their intelligence and rationality -- and their respect for human integrity and autonomy.

Displays of brutality on the other hand often have the opposite effect and can outright harm a child's development into a socially functional adult human being.

I agree! (I also agree with RS2K's position on this too.)
I don't know what kind of psychological damage might have been inflicted at me, I was both hit with a belt (although not much) and verbally abused (alot). Maybe I would have been a "better person" (although if I change the past I might have not ended up being a leftist too...) if it didn't happen.

[Mujer Libre]

Well i was spanked when i was younger and it never did me any harm (Except that i have to visit a local dominatrix every day).

Seriously though it is really up to the parents of the child what they do.

This is really something that the state has no right to get involved in (Telling parents how to deal with their own children).

I have to agree with Sentinel 100% here.

spartan- the "it never did me any harm" argument is ridiculous and fallacious. Even if it did harm you, chances are you wouldn't know, because childhood experiences can linger in our subconscious without us ever realising that they are there. Furthermore, some people do suffer long-term damage from being beaten by their parents.

Also, leaving it up to the parents is ridiculous. What we're calling for here is not state intervention into parenting, but ethical condemnation for the practice of corporal punishment, which is actually accepted in many parts of the world.

Also, as leftists we have to consider what spanking a child 'teaches' them.
a) disobedience of any sort should be punished (I put that in there because let's face it, many parents spank their child to express their frustration more than anything else)
b) people in positions of power can use force on those below them
c) problems should be solved with violence, rather than an attempt at explanation or negotiation
d) children have less intrinsic value than adults

I think the last one is probably the worst, because it can stifle a child by teaching them to fear their parent and to have a lower sense of self-worth. That's the exact opposite of what good parents should be doing.

As leftists we should not support the hierarchical nuclear family that mirrors the way the state or the military are set up...

Revulero, where do you go to school? Hitting high school kids is even more ridiculous.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

A good ass whooping will teach a kid not to START in the first place!

I only have anecdotal evidence to back up my claim, but I've found through discussing the subject of corporal punishment that those who were spanked don't necessarily display any better traits than those who weren't; in fact I've never met an aggressive person who wasn't spanked, but since I reside in Texas that demographic is too little to really say much about. I certainly wasn't spanked, and I've not been in one serious fight.

I don't see a purpose in corporal punishment. No children are immune from some form of verbal, materialistic, or emotional consequences -- although I think there should be less emphasis on the second.

Now certain situations where parents aren't thinking and just slap their kids' hand away -- like when he's reaching for the hot stove, are another matter. Just like ho nobody would accuse someone of wrongdoing if they pushed someone -- out of the path of a moving car.

[Revulero]

my school is a public school and is the only school in my area that uses corporal punishment. All of the other schools have banned this practice, but the only reason they pop us is because we live in a small religous conservative town.

[jake williams]

my school is a public school and is the only school in my area that uses corporal punishment. All of the other schools have banned this practice, but the only reason they pop us is because we live in a small religous conservative town.
Get the hell out of Texas.

[Led Zeppelin]

Using physical violence against a child to teach them how to behave "correctly" seems a bit contradictory to me.

[jake williams]

Using physical violence against a child to teach them how to behave "correctly" seems a bit contradictory to me.
I've heard this argument and I don't totally agree with it. It's saying that children don't get to hit, I don't know, their friends or whatever - it says "Wait until you're older, and then you can beat your own children (and in some cases/cultural jurisdictions, wives)"

[Le Libérer]

I am am/was a child preotection investigator for the state of La. I happen to know the laws on child abuse for the state of Texas as well, seeing we would have cases that crossed those borders. Listen to me, it is a state law that mandates corporal punishment is against the law and a punishable crime. If you have witness any corporal punishment to a child from an adult, it is your moral and legal responsiblity to report it to the authorities.

Like I said, it is a state law, that involves every school system in your state. If I were you, I would so bust this school and open this case wide open.

If you need any advise or assistance, please PM me.

[jake williams]

I am am/was a child preotection investigator for the state of La. I happen to know the laws on child abuse for the state of Texas as well, seeing we would have cases that crossed those borders. Listen to me, it is a state law that mandates corporal punishment is against the law and a punishable crime. If you have witness any corporal punishment to a child from an adult, it is your moral and legal responsiblity to report it to the authorities.

Like I said, it is a state law, that involves every school system in your state. If I were you, I would so bust this school and open this case wide open.

If you need any advise or assistance, please PM me.
Do it. And then get the hell out of Texas.

[Led Zeppelin]

I've heard this argument and I don't totally agree with it. It's saying that children don't get to hit, I don't know, their friends or whatever - it says "Wait until you're older, and then you can beat your own children (and in some cases/cultural jurisdictions, wives)"

That is not what I meant at all. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion?

Of course I am against all unnecessary forms of violence.

[jake williams]

That is not what I meant at all. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion?

Of course I am against all unnecessary forms of violence.
I think you're misinterpreting me.

I was disagreeing with your argument - that parents are sending a contradictory message by hitting their children - by saying that this isn't the message they're sending. I'm saying that the message they're sending is that it's okay to hit subordinates, which doesn't contradict hitting a child.

[Spasiba]

I was spanked as a kid, and I turned out alright (I think). I think sometimes, kids really have it coming, depending how they act, but assuming we are living in our ideal world, kids won't be growing up in poverty or abuse, so it shouldn't be necessary. A good yell will get the message across. Still, I can think of a few circumstances a spanking might be in order.

[Sentinel]

A good yell will get the message across. Still, I can think of a few circumstances a spanking might be in order.Or, you could try to explain to the child what s/he has done wrong with rational arguments and thus appeal to his/her empathy and intelligence. If you are unable of doing that and have to resort to violence, perhaps you shouldn't have kids in the first place?


Still, I can think of a few circumstances a spanking might be in order.Frankly, I find it revolting that people advocate violence against children, a felony in most legal systems btw, on the board like it was the most natural thing in the world.

[Led Zeppelin]

I think you're misinterpreting me.

I was disagreeing with your argument - that parents are sending a contradictory message by hitting their children - by saying that this isn't the message they're sending. I'm saying that the message they're sending is that it's okay to hit subordinates, which doesn't contradict hitting a child.

Ok I see your point now, but you still misinterpreted me. :p

I said it was contradictoray because, as you said, it promotes the use of unnecessary violence. I didn't mean specifically that they would hit their children when they grew up.

[Red October]

Well i was spanked when i was younger and it never did me any harm

I'd wager against that.

[Le Libérer]

Not only is it contradictory, and promotes violence among their peers (mirroring their parents) It doesnt work. A spanking is over quickly and most kids reason out, "I know this is will get me in trouble, but its worth a spanking". ( I know I did, I was very curious)

But not only that, its lazy parenting. It takes alot more time and patience to sit a child down, discuss the issue, and then decide the nonviolent punishment.

[Raúl Duke]

I am am/was a child preotection investigator for the state of La. I happen to know the laws on child abuse for the state of Texas as well, seeing we would have cases that crossed those borders. Listen to me, it is a state law that mandates corporal punishment is against the law and a punishable crime. If you have witness any corporal punishment to a child from an adult, it is your moral and legal responsiblity to report it to the authorities.

Like I said, it is a state law, that involves every school system in your state. If I were you, I would so bust this school and open this case wide open.

If you need any advise or assistance, please PM me.

Do it!

Close that school down, Revulero! :mad:

[Black Dagger]

I was spanked as a kid, and I turned out alright (I think).

Why does that have a bearing on whether spanking is a reasonable (or useful) response to the misbehaviour of children?

AFAIK the consensus amongst child psychologists etc. is that hitting kids is a very ineffective (not to mention punitive) way of addressing misbehaviour in kids.

This is not really surprising; after all corporal punishment was once widely used to punish adults who committed criminal offences - indeed the logic behind corporal punishment for kids is basically the same as the logic behind corporal punishment for adults (think lashes - a common punishment for crime in a variety of time periods) - in both contexts violence is being used as a punishment for a perceived wrongdoing - and the possibility of more of the same is used as a means to (in theory) deter further wrongdoing.

The problem with this method was that it didn't work - people would continue to break the law because (amongst other reasons) often it was worth a lashing - and so it was largely phased out; like Deb said:


A spanking is over quickly and most kids reason out, "I know this is will get me in trouble, but its worth a spanking". ( I know I did, I was very curious)

Corporal punishment doesn't address the issues that lead to perceived misbehaviour it simply punishes for them - it's just like incarceration in a criminal context - and that is why neither has proven effective in deterring crime in bourgeois society.



I think sometimes, kids really have it coming, depending how they act

'I think sometimes, women really have it coming, depending how they act.'

What is the meaningful difference here? In both instances a person is trying to control, correct or simply punish another human being for perceived misbehaviour through violence.



but assuming we are living in our ideal world, kids won't be growing up in poverty or abuse, so it shouldn't be necessary.Hold up - so hitting kids is only necessary when they're poor?

Or when there's abuse? <---- is hitting a kid not a form of abuse in and of itself? :confused:



A good yell will get the message across. I disagree - generally reason is a more effective means of communication than loud authoritarianism.


Still, I can think of a few circumstances a spanking might be in order.Shoot.

[Mujer Libre]

But not only that, its lazy parenting. It takes alot more time and patience to sit a child down, discuss the issue, and then decide the nonviolent punishment.
Exactly. Most parents spank their kids to let out their own frustration, which is completely reprehensible.

[spartan]

The thing i dont get is where is the evidence to prove that not spanking your child is beneficial to them?

I dont think that there is any evidence to suggest that adults, who were spanked as children, are more prone to violence than someone who wasnt spanked?

I was spanked by my parents and yet i have a great relationship with them (No domination jokes on this one;)).

I dont get sudden urges to go out and batter someone, and i am quite intelligent (Though i am sure that some on revleft would say otherwise:D).

I just dont like the idea of someone making a code of morallity which we must all live according to.

There are lots of things that are you shouldnt do to children, sexual abuse being one of them, but spanking them, when they have been naughty and didnt heed your numerous warnings, whats wrong with that?

Trying to explain to a child what they did wrong is difficult at best, seeing how they lack the refined mental capabilities of an adult to understand right from wrong (Hence their reason for pushing the boundaries), but is even more difficult when they are, for instance, hyperactive and out of control (How the hell do you talk to them and explain what they did wrong then?).

[Le Libérer]

The thing i dont get is where is the evidence to prove that not spanking your child is beneficial to them?

I dont think that there is any evidence to suggest that adults, who were spanked as children, are more prone to violence than someone who wasnt spanked?

I was spanked by my parents and yet i have a great relationship with them (No domination jokes on this one;)).

I dont get sudden urges to go out and batter someone, and i am quite intelligent (Though i am sure that some on revleft would say otherwise:D).

I just dont like the idea of someone making a code of morallity which we must all live according to.

There are lots of things that are you shouldnt do to children, sexual abuse being one of them, but spanking them, when they have been naughty and didnt heed your numerous warnings, whats wrong with that?

Trying to explain to a child what they did wrong is difficult at best, seeing how they lack the refined mental capabilities of an adult to understand right from wrong (Hence their reason for pushing the boundaries), but is even more difficult when they are, for instance, hyperactive and out of control (How the hell do you talk to them and explain what they did wrong then?).
ANd this is why some people shouldnt breed. To strike a blow to someone so much smaller than you is cowardess, ignorant, and immoral. Come on, Spartan, what you just said, isnt intelligent. I would suggest you reseaching the mental capacities of a 3 year old. Most of them know what the word No means, or if you dont stop at the count of 3, you are in timeout. It usually sinks in around the number 2.

[Mujer Libre]

The thing i dont get is where is the evidence to prove that not spanking your child is beneficial to them?

I dont think that there is any evidence to suggest that adults, who were spanked as children, are more prone to violence than someone who wasnt spanked?

I was spanked by my parents and yet i have a great relationship with them (No domination jokes on this one;)).

I dont get sudden urges to go out and batter someone, and i am quite intelligent (Though i am sure that some on revleft would say otherwise:D).



You asked for evidence?

Here's an editorial from Lancet- among the most respected medical journals.

"It's parents trying to hit you, but instead of calling it a hit they call it a smack", was one 7-year-old girl's description of smacking in a January report by the UK's National Children's Bureau and the charity Save the Children. "It's like very hard hitting and it hurts you", said a 6-year-old. In the debate about corporal punishment by parents, it is rare to hear the views of children.


Usually, in research on long-term effects of corporal punishment, adults are asked about their experiences as children. In the Canadian Medical Association Journal in 1999, Harriet L MacMillan and colleagues surveyed nearly 5000 adults. A third had been slapped or spanked "sometimes" and 5.5% "often". After allowing for other variables, people in these categories compared with those who had "never been slapped or spanked" were one-and-a-half times more likely to have anxiety disorders, and twice as likely to abuse or be dependent on alcohol or drugs or exhibit antisocial behaviour. Commenting, Murray A Strauss (Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire) said that MacMillan's work and five recent longitudinal studies give more definitive evidence than ever on the benefits of not spanking.


Last week, the UK's Institute for Public Policy Research released a report by Christina M Lyon, director of the Centre for the Study of the Child, the Family, and the Law at the University of Liverpool. She concludes that: "Research over the past 40 years has been remarkably consistent in demonstrating that hitting children increases the chances of aggression, delinquency and later criminal behaviour in adult life. It also affects cognitive development. Recent studies have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt the causal relationship between physical punishment and increased aggressive behaviour".


The UK allows the legal defence of "reasonable chastisement" of children. But, in 1998, the European Court of Human Rights judged that the UK had violated Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment). The court found that the government had failed to protect a boy from heavy beating with a cane by his stepfather, who had been acquitted in the English court of assault.


The UK is a signatory to the European Convention, and the government acknowledges it will have to change the law. In January, the Department of Health issued a consultation document on the physical punishment of children. The government's position is clear: "It would be quite unacceptable to outlaw all physical punishment of a child by its parent. Nor, we believe, would the majority of parents support such a measure".
As part of the consultation, the government commissioned an opinion poll in 1998. The poll found that 88% thought it sometimes necessary to smack a naughty child and 9% said it was sometimes necessary to use an implement such as a cane, belt, or slipper. Worryingly, given the trauma that can follow, 2% would smack on the head and 3% would shake a child. 4% said that leaving a red mark for a few days was reasonable. A more recent MORI poll in the UK showed that 80% of adults thought smacking is not effective discipline, which is in contradiction to the numbers who smack or approve of it. The government has set itself the impossible task of redefining "reasonable chastisement"--any definition will still be open, as before, to the courts and to parents, who will not know when a smacking gradates into something more severe.


Nine European countries have banned smacking of children, starting with Sweden in the 1980s--78% of Swedish adults now support the ban, so it is not correct for the UK government to assert that public opinion would necessarily be in favour of smacking. In Italy and Israel, corporal punishment of children is effectively outlawed. Four other European countries are moving towards a ban. As the UK considers its legal position, its European neighbours have shown how smacking bans can be introduced and how to support parents in alternative ways to discipline children. Given the acute physical effects of severe smacking and the long-term sequelae of chastisement, health professionals have an important role in transforming opinion in those countries where children are still beaten.
(my bolds)

[EneME]

i disagree with corporal punishment because IMO it teaches children to accept inferiority in a power dynamic. that is a dangerous theme to play with, because it can easily lead to unhealthy and abusive relationships in the future. rather than modeling healthy behavior, the parent model's violence which will then be repeated by the child as acceptable behavior. as having worked with children for years, i never saw "positive" results come from corporal punishment. plus, there is such a thin line between "punishment" and "abuse" that is a dangerous door to even open...

[Le Libérer]

plus, there is such a thin line between "punishment" and "abuse" that is a dangerous door to even open...
That is so true. I have seen parents arrested for "not realizing their own strength", as they would say, where the child is left with bruises, or lacerations. You go to jail and the state will take your children for such infractions.

I'll never forget one of the cases I investigated where the mom was stressed out and tired from working 12 hours, trying to get her 13 year old daughter to school so she could rest. The daughter talked back to her mom and she went and got a rubber extension cord to hit her on the leg with . She struck downward, the daughter fought back and the end of the extension cord flew up and cut her across the face, from under her eye, down her chin. SHe was bleeding but went to school anyway. I had mom arrested and her daughter taken away from her. That poor girls face is scarred for life. See the danger there? ANd thats not the worst case I saw from so called spanking or "whoopings".

Mom thought just because this 13 year old was almost as big as mom was, her hand or belt wouldnt be effective and moved it up a notch.
Her mom still didnt feel she did anyting wrong, because it was her daughter who jerked and fought back and she shouldnt have. Parents become desensitized over extended amounts of time and scar children for life.

[Revulero]

I am am/was a child preotection investigator for the state of La. I happen to know the laws on child abuse for the state of Texas as well, seeing we would have cases that crossed those borders. Listen to me, it is a state law that mandates corporal punishment is against the law and a punishable crime. If you have witness any corporal punishment to a child from an adult, it is your moral and legal responsiblity to report it to the authorities.

Like I said, it is a state law, that involves every school system in your state. If I were you, I would so bust this school and open this case wide open.

If you need any advise or assistance, please PM me.


man trust me people have tried, but its the schoolboard and superintendent that makes these decisions and im assuming the town govt. doesnt care what they do to us. In texas its school district who decides if there going to enforce corporal punishment not the state. check this website out: http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/op50abbott/ga-0374.htm

[apathy maybe]

I agree with Sentinel. Trying to explain why something is incorrect is much the better way to go. But the "trouble" with that is, you get parents who have a moral problem with something, and the kid won't accept the irrational argument as a reason not to do something...

[Vanguard1917]

So you're against corporal punishment on children by parents... The question is what are you going to do about it? Are you going to call for it to be banned, thus arming the bourgeois state with greater powers to intervene into the everyday lives of working class people? That has far worse implications than a smack on the backside every now and again.

I personally think that the bourgeois state, until the day it is smashed, should have far less power to tell working class people what to do. That's what we should be fighting for - to get the repressive bourgeois state out of our homes and out of our communities.

Unfortunately, some on the left, who are no longer interested in smashing the bourgeois state, are doing the complete opposite, asking the state to play a more 'active role' to 'promote good'.

It's not up to the capitalist state to tell working people how to raise their children. Our children don't need to be protected from ourselves. Anyone who arms the bourgeois state with greater powers to intervene into working class homes is no friend of the working class.

[blackstone]

I only have anecdotal evidence to back up my claim, but I've found through discussing the subject of corporal punishment that those who were spanked don't necessarily display any better traits than those who weren't; in fact I've never met an aggressive person who wasn't spanked, but since I reside in Texas that demographic is too little to really say much about. I certainly wasn't spanked, and I've not been in one serious fight.

I don't see a purpose in corporal punishment. No children are immune from some form of verbal, materialistic, or emotional consequences -- although I think there should be less emphasis on the second.

Now certain situations where parents aren't thinking and just slap their kids' hand away -- like when he's reaching for the hot stove, are another matter. Just like ho nobody would accuse someone of wrongdoing if they pushed someone -- out of the path of a moving car.





That really doesn't prove a thing. It can be reasoned that they are aggressive and troublesome period, and that's why they get into fights and why they always get spanked. Either or, i'm sure your well aware that there's people who have been spanked and never gotten into any fights.

And all your "studies" are culturally bias.

[The Feral Underclass]

While I agree that we should not be encouraging the state to form legislation on parents hitting children, actually hitting a child is clearly an unjustified thing to do. Despite the fact that disciplining your child in that way doesn't work, it reflects an overall mentality/moral prevalent in class society. Using violence to solve an issue is something that is considered perfectly normal in a society where war and violence is used on a routine basis to maintain control and deal with "problems". Why would this not stretch to dealing with unruly children? Indeed, hitting a child sets the standard that it's perfectly acceptable to use violence when you want to solve a problem.

Why would you need to hit a child, anyway? If an adult does not have the ability to deal with a situation without resorting to physically hurting a child, then there is clearly something amiss.

[PigmerikanMao]

I'm not against it- if a kid is outside smoking cigarettes why not get a slap or two? 'Tis quite a nasty habit.

[blackstone]

While I agree that we should not be encouraging the state to form legislation on parents hitting children, actually hitting a child is clearly an unjustified thing to do. Despite the fact that disciplining your child in that way doesn't work, it reflects an overall mentality/moral prevalent in class society. Using violence to solve an issue is something that is considered perfectly normal in a society where war and violence is used on a routine basis to maintain control and deal with "problems". Why would this not stretch to dealing with unruly children? Indeed, hitting a child sets the standard that it's perfectly acceptable to use violence when you want to solve a problem.

Why would you need to hit a child, anyway? If an adult does not have the ability to deal with a situation without resorting to physically hurting a child, then there is clearly something amiss.


"Despite the fact that disciplining your child in that way doesn't work"

Where are you pulling these so called facts from?

Exactly, they are not facts at all. You can't just call something a fact and magically it becomes a fact.

And thats a fact ;)

[RedAnarchist]

I'm not against it- if a kid is outside smoking cigarettes why not get a slap or two? 'Tis quite a nasty habit.

So what if its a nasty habit? The kid doesn't deserve to be hit just because its a bad habit. Would you slap your partner or a family member if they were doing something you consider nasty?

[The Feral Underclass]

"Despite the fact that disciplining your child in that way doesn't work"

Where are you pulling these so called facts from?

The fact the parents have to keep doing it...


Exactly, they are not facts at all. You can't just call something a fact and magically it becomes a fact.

There is the fact that parents have to continue hitting their children. If it worked, why do they have to keep doing it...?

Essentially, the hit is a symbol of the parents dominance over the child. When you hit the child you are saying, "you will do what I tell you". Presumably, having hit the child a few times to ensure it understands this sentiment, if it worked, the child would not continue to defy that command, would it?

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm not against it- if a kid is outside smoking cigarettes why not get a slap or two? 'Tis quite a nasty habit.

Because assaulting someone that isn't doing what you want them to do is not a solution to a problem, is it?

[blackstone]

The fact the parents have to keep doing it...



There is the fact that parents have to continue hitting their children. If it worked, why do they have to keep doing it...?

Essentially, the hit is a symbol of the parents dominance over the child. When you hit the child you are saying, "you will do what I tell you". Presumably, having hit the child a few times to ensure it understands this sentiment, if it worked, the child would not continue to defy that command, would it?

That doesn't prove that your strategy is any better. Presumably, after talking and using logic with a child to ensure he/she( it ?) understands this sentiment, if ti worked, the child would not continue to defy that command, would he/she?

[PigmerikanMao]

"Would you slap your partner or a family member if they were doing something you consider nasty?" Yup xD

[The Feral Underclass]

That doesn't prove that your strategy is any better. Presumably, after talking and using logic with a child to ensure he/she( it ?) understands this sentiment, if ti worked, the child would not continue to defy that command, would he/she?

It's not a question of logic. It's a question of understanding the child and finding the appropriate method to help encourage it's understanding of the world around it, it's responsibility within it and how to keep safe as apart of it.

Hitting a child is not the justified approach. Violence against a child is unacceptable.

[juozokas]

The fact the parents have to keep doing it...

There is the fact that parents have to continue hitting their children. If it worked, why do they have to keep doing it...?

From personal experience, it worked with me. With my father there was a line, and I knew if I crossed it I would catch a hiding. After the first couple of times that line was not crossed.


Essentially, the hit is a symbol of the parents dominance over the child. When you hit the child you are saying, "you will do what I tell you". Presumably, having hit the child a few times to ensure it understands this sentiment, if it worked, the child would not continue to defy that command, would it?

Hitting aside, the entire relationship of parent/child is one of dominance and "you will do what I tell you". Children begin to attempt to exert dominance over their parents (and siblings) as soon as they can. The entire parent/child relationship is a power struggle and it will continue until they move out of your house.

There seems to be a lot of moralising going on in this thread & people trying to politicise spanking to justify their objections against the state/capitalism/power/etc. MOST of the time I am against spanking because I have seen first hand it is done 90% out of frustration and time-outs usually work, but I would never look down my nose @ a single mother spanking her child, for example. If spanking has worked for them (as a last resort) then that is their business how they raise their child. In these situations, unless you have been there yourself you cannot imagine how difficult it can be with an out-of-control child on top of everything else and you should keep the moral high ground shit to yourself sometimes.

[Jazzratt]

"Would you slap your partner or a family member if they were doing something you consider nasty?" Yup xD

Either be lying or be posting from some kind of secure facility.

Vanguard1917


So you're against corporal punishment on children by parents... The question is what are you going to do about it? Are you going to call for it to be banned, thus arming the bourgeois state with greater powers to intervene into the everyday lives of working class people?So protecting bonehead thugs and wankers like the BNP from assault is a good utility for the bourgeois state, but applying the self same protection against assault to children is perfectly morally justifiable, because we all know that the working class are a bunch of low-IQ child-battering scum, don't we?

Every other pro child battering toss pot in this thread:

Well it worked for me/ I was beaten and not fucked up/I have some other similar flimsy justification for why we should allow assault against kidsWhile I think it's fantastic that you survived an abusive upbringing with relatively little in the way of emotional or physical damage others are not so lucky. It's fallacious to assume that, just because you have anecdotal evidence in favour of liberalising child abuse, liberalising child abuse is the right thing to do.


This is an intrusion on the rights of the parents!Oh dear, how dare we tell these poor parents that their continued cowardly bullying & assault should stop! After all the kid must be their property.

***

THis shit just enrages me, it's unacceptable to beat up someone smaller and weaker than you because you don't like what they're doing. Like Sentinel I am no pacifist, by the way, and would happily see these cowardly scum get their teeth kicked down their throats, I would even cheerfully join in.

[Freedom4Tooting]

Sentinel summed that up rather well. I think it would be good to teach kids to rationalise their actions and consider the effects of them from a young age. There seem to be increasing calls in the UK to bring back corporal punishment in schools, as they cannot 'control' the unruly kids in the classroom. National Service also seems to be a popular option for sorting out 'yob britain'...

[Sentinel]

So you're against corporal punishment on children by parents... The question is what are you going to do about it? Are you going to call for it to be banned, thus arming the bourgeois state with greater powers to intervene into the everyday lives of working class people?I'm entirely for smashing the bourgeois state. Until the day this is a possibility, I will be protesting it's very existence, but not those of it's actions which protect human rights, and will remain and be carried out by other instances post-revolution. I'm no more against state interference and legislation when it comes to violence by parents and teachers towards children, than when it comes to violence by men towards women, or by bosses towards employees.

Vanguard, by your logic you should be against wife-beaters and physically abusive bosses being prosecuted for their crimes in capitalist society as well?

The working class should absolutely self-organise to stop domestic violence among other things. We should self-organise to do everything, that's how the stateless society will function! But until the day comes when we can provide a safe environment to grow up in for all children, the bourgeois state has to fill this function. As it currently happens to be the only organisation protecting the victims, they are reliant on it and we can't ignore that.

Parents -- regardless of class -- have no 'right' to abuse their children, they are persons and not property. Thus this 'right' does not need to be safeguarded. The right of children to not be abused physically on the other hand has to, by the means that are possible.

Endorsing vital, progressive actions by the state does not equal endorsement of the system itself. The pseudo-marxist rhetoric which claims we should oppose such measures, is in fact running the errand of conservative, patriarchal social values, such as belief in the concept of 'family'.

[Le Libérer]

Quote:

Well it worked for me/ I was beaten and not fucked up/I have some other similar flimsy justification for why we should allow assault against kids
While I think it's fantastic that you survived an abusive upbringing with relatively little in the way of emotional or physical damage others are not so lucky. It's fallacious to assume that, just because you have anecdotal evidence in favour of liberalising child abuse, liberalising child abuse is the right thing to do.
Its common almost a given that abuse children justify their parents right to abuse them. I saw it in almost every case I worked. I can only think of 2 or 3 children, mostly teens, who had enough and wanted their parent prosecuted.

[spartan]

Its common almost a given that abuse children justify their parents right to abuse them.

Spanking a child and abusing a child are two completely different things.


I saw it in almost every case I worked. I can only think of 2 or 3 children, mostly teens, who had enough and wanted their parent prosecuted.

Prosecuting parents who have deliberately abused their children is fine by me, but going to the police saying "My mum and dad spanked me when i was naughty as a child, and i would like them punished" will likely get you laughed out of the police station or thrown into a nuthouse.

The last thing the Bourgeois state needs is an excuse to further monitor and get involved in our daily lives (Dont we as leftists argue against this interference?).

And the nanny state leftists, arguing for an end to spanking, are literally giving the Bourgeois ammunition to do just this!

By all means, prosecute the child/husband/wife beaters and sexual abusers, but prosecuting the parents who spank a naughty child is going a bit to far for my, and the majority of peoples, liking.

Answer me this, just how are you going to stop people from spanking their children?

You cant physically watch every single parent yourself (Unless you plan on going the 1984 route by introducing cameras in every household?), so what measures would you introduce to stop it?

If someone is found to have spanked their child, what will happen to them and who will be the ones punishing them?

I feel that this anti-spanking stance will alienate a hell of alot of people.

[Mujer Libre]

"Despite the fact that disciplining your child in that way doesn't work"

Where are you pulling these so called facts from?

Exactly, they are not facts at all. You can't just call something a fact and magically it becomes a fact.

And thats a fact ;)

Did you, or any other pro-corporal punishment people actually read the editorial I posted? It cites a number of studies that consistently showed that corporal punishment has significant, long-term negative outcomes.

What more proof do you need? Physical discipline is a short-term solution that causes lasting harm. It's lazy parenting and nothing more.

I also agree with Sentinel's response to VG1917- it's ridiculous to be such "revolutionary purists" that we don't actually want to take any steps to make people's lives better here and now. That said, I obviously think this issue would be best resolved by people themselves, rather than the state.

I don't understand how people think this issue is polarising. Pretty much everyone I've spoken to who is younger than 50 says that they would never hit a child...

[Jazzratt]

Spanking a child and abusing a child are two completely different things.

"I'm not a wife beater, it's just sometimes she needs a slap to show her who's boss".


Prosecuting parents who have deliberately abused their children is fine by me, but going to the police saying "My mum and dad spanked me when i was naughty as a child, and i would like them punished" will likely get you laughed out of the police station or thrown into a nuthouse.

And you don't see this as a problem? Is it only because they're kids and you therefore consider them the parent's property that you have this disturbing line. Imagine this applied in any other situation, including a carer who is looking after an adult of child level sagacity. Imagine if an individual given the responsibility over such a person was discovered to be smacking them around because they're defenceless.


The last thing the Bourgeois state needs is an excuse to further monitor and get involved in our daily lives (Dont we as leftists argue against this interference?).

God damn, no wonder the HU hate you - you sure do parrot others' arguments religiously. As was explained to vanguard, the laws he is opposing are laws against assault these are things we have in civilised society, to keep it civilised.


And the nanny state leftists, arguing for an end to spanking, are literally giving the Bourgeois ammunition to do just this!

Fine, if you say it is nannying to expect society to protect its defenceless citizens from assault, we should repeal all assault laws. Let's see how well you fare then, when you piss people off by shooting your ignorant mouth off.

As leftists we don't blindly attack the bourgeois state for everything it does, that's fundamentally dishonest. The point is that the existance of the economic system it upholds and the actions it takes to do so are anti-working class, but a number of the laws are just common fucking sense.



By all means, prosecute the child/husband/wife beaters

Fuck your nannying, I want to smack my partner a little.


and sexual abusers, but prosecuting the parents who spank a naughty child is going a bit to far for my, and the majority of peoples, liking.

Define "beating".
Define "spanking".
Illustrate the quantifiable difference, in terms of assault on a victim not completely able to defend hirself.


Answer me this, just how are you going to stop people from spanking their children?

The same way we prevent other proscribed behaviours.


You cant physically watch every single parent yourself (Unless you plan on going the 1984 route by introducing cameras in every household?), so what measures would you introduce to stop it?

The same way we prevent and investigate all cases of domestic violence.


If someone is found to have spanked their child, what will happen to them and who will be the ones punishing them?

Again, we already have an organ for this. Unless you're asking about a post revolutionary society - in which case they will be dealt with by the consensus of the immediately concerned population. "Punishment" will be most likely rehabilitative rather than violent or cruel (more concern shown for the cowardly fuck than shown to its child). If you wish to discuss the exact workings of a post revolutionary legal system, start a new thread.


I feel that this anti-spanking stance will alienate a hell of alot of people.

Fuck them, they hit kids.

[Le Libérer]

Spanking a child and abusing a child are two completely different things.

Prosecuting parents who have deliberately abused their children is fine by me, but going to the police saying "My mum and dad spanked me when i was naughty as a child, and i would like them punished" will likely get you laughed out of the police station or thrown into a nuthouse.

The last thing the Bourgeois state needs is an excuse to further monitor and get involved in our daily lives (Dont we as leftists argue against this interference?).

And the nanny state leftists, arguing for an end to spanking, are literally giving the Bourgeois ammunition to do just this!

By all means, prosecute the child/husband/wife beaters and sexual abusers, but prosecuting the parents who spank a naughty child is going a bit to far for my, and the majority of peoples, liking.

Answer me this, just how are you going to stop people from spanking their children?

You cant physically watch every single parent yourself (Unless you plan on going the 1984 route by introducing cameras in every household?), so what measures would you introduce to stop it?

If someone is found to have spanked their child, what will happen to them and who will be the ones punishing them?

I feel that this anti-spanking stance will alienate a hell of alot of people.You do have to define spanking. The state of La. says physical abuse includes spanking if there is type of mark left. Spanking includes with the hand, book, belt, extension cord, etc.
So Spartan did your mum ever leave a visable mark of any kind on you after she spanked you? She could have been proscecuted for child abuse.

[Axel1917]

I really don't understand why this thread is getting so many responses. Yes, I disagree with spanking, yes, there are countless studies that refute it and show negative effects, but how does complaining about it eliminate that frustration that often leads to it? The problem is that it does not.

While there is no official Marxist stance on it, I am confident that living wages, reduction of the working day, etc. will drive away the conditions that cause such punishment to be so common. Only socialist society can uproot the conditions that cause this kind of punishment to flourish (face it, it is a lot easier for a frustrated parent to smack a kid a couple of times than to actually use an effective disciplinary measure, so they do it anyway.).

It does not make sense to elevate this issue to high. To put such a non-class issue on a high pedestal is petit-bourgeois.

If you actually make this part of your programme, you will probably alienate 90+% of working parents and their natural allies (peasantry, urban poor) worldwide. The point is to eliminate capitalism, and I feel that this will naturally eliminate the conditions that cause this punishment to be so common.

To complain about this issue and to "make a solution now to it" is just like those people that complain about crime and the "need to make more jails and enforcement" without eliminating the root of most crime - poverty and alienation.

[Mujer Libre]

It does not make sense to elevate this issue to high. To put such a non-class issue on a high pedestal is petit-bourgeois.
Spoken like a true white, heterosexual man....


If you actually make this part of your programme, you will probably alienate 90+&#37; of working parents and their natural allies (peasantry, urban poor) worldwide. The point is to eliminate capitalism, and I feel that this will naturally eliminate the conditions that cause this punishment to be so common.
Bullshit. A large number of people actually don't think corporal punishment is acceptable.

Furthermore, what makes you think that a post-capitalist society will automatically be free of child abuse? Magic?


To complain about this issue and to "make a solution now to it" is just like those people that complain about crime and the "need to make more jails and enforcement" without eliminating the root of most crime - poverty and alienation.
Except gaols don't achieve anything positive, stopping people from beating children unequivocally does.

What you're saying is no different to saying "stopping men from beating up women is a short term solution- why bother?"

[Axel1917]

Spoken like a true white, heterosexual man....

Spoken like a true MIMite.


Bullshit. A large number of people actually don't think corporal punishment is acceptable.Perhaps in schools, but the majority of the people in the world don't have a problem with using it on kids in their homes, so my point stands. I would really like to see these statistics of yours that proves that most of the world is against smacking children (you will not find such things anywhere.).


Furthermore, what makes you think that a post-capitalist society will automatically be free of child abuse? Magic?No, but once the conditions are eliminated, such punishment will drop in popularity and it will be easier to outlaw it.


Except gaols don't achieve anything positive, stopping people from beating children unequivocally does.Yeah, good luck with your efforts on your alienating efforts!


What you're saying is no different to saying "stopping men from beating up women is a short term solution- why bother?"I was not aware children were a class.

No one is going to take you petit-bourgeois ideologists seriously. No one. There is a reason why you types never have, and never will make any revolutionary contributions. :rolleyes:

[apathy maybe]

"No one is going to take you petit-bourgeois ideologists seriously. No one. There is a reason why you types never have, and never will make any revolutionary contributions."

Just to jump in here. I can think of at least two different jurisdictions that have prohibitions against smacking ('cause it is assault...). So obviously someone takes these ideas seriously. Indeed, one of these same has introduced laws against smoking cars with children in the car. Oh dear, those petit-bourgeois...

As for revolutions. I personally count successful revolutions leading to a class-less state-less society. How many of those do followers of your, obviously proletariat, ideas have?

[blackstone]

You do have to define spanking. The state of La. says physical abuse includes spanking if there is type of mark left. Spanking includes with the hand, book, belt, extension cord, etc.
So Spartan did your mum ever leave a visable mark of any kind on you after she spanked you? She could have been proscecuted for child abuse.

My mom never left a visable mark, but maybe that because i have a darker complexion and bruises don't easily show. :blushing:

[blackstone]

Quote:

Its common almost a given that abuse children justify their parents right to abuse them. I saw it in almost every case I worked. I can only think of 2 or 3 children, mostly teens, who had enough and wanted their parent prosecuted.

If im not mistaken, spanking is not physical abuse.

[Jazzratt]

If im not mistaken, spanking is not physical abuse.

If I hit you for displeasing me it would probably enrage you and cause you defend yourself and/or retaliate. If someone is too small or weak to defend themselves or retaliate then surely you are abusing your power and by extension abusing them? In a civilised society this behaviour should be proscribed and prevented, after all there is no mystical force which causes hitting a child to be any different from hitting an adult.