Not true. Physical punishment has been proven to be no more effective than other forms of discipline. Most child psychologists do no recommend spanking as a form of punishment for children. If you grew up in a household where physical punishment was the norm, then I can understand why you might think that it's the most effective way to discipline a child, but it's not. In fact, it preconditions children to rely on violence.
The so-called "evidence" that supports this hypothesis is fundamentally flawed, and there is as much evidence (if not more) that suggests the contrary; that spanking your child better conditions them for reality. According to a study by Marjorie Gunnoe from my home town of Grand Rapid, Michigan, spanked children are often happier and more academically successful than children who have never been spanked, so long as they are not being spanked into their teen years (1, 2). Now, there are studies that seem to contradict these findings, but it turns out that many of them are based on results collected from teenagers who are still spanked, which usually only happens when proper discipline has not been established beforehand, and tends to inspire resentment rather than understanding (3). As it turns out, combined with proper parenting methods, spanking and corporal punishment can be useful in the home and (provided the parenting doesn't contradict it), in the school as well.
b..b...b...but I was only expressing my opinion like I have the right to do so. I'm not shoving my opinions down people's throats. My belief is that you can believ whatever you want as long as you do not force those beliefs on other people. For example, I don't believe in private education. But if I had a son/daughter and I thought private education was the best thing for them or they were old enough to decide for themselves, I would let them go to private school. I do not force my beliefs upon people. I was merely giving my opinion. Everyone has the right to both agree and disagree OK?
If you intended it as such, then I apologize for misreading what you wrote. I know a great many pacifists who seem to think that it's perfectly tolerable to try and force their beliefs on others.
https://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/familydevelopment/components/7266a.html
This "study," if you can even call it that (it's more a collection of rhetoric than anything), is highly biased and uses statistical lying to skew the facts.
"Many (if not most) of the studies which purport to find corporal punishment to be "beneficial"/effective (Larzelere) studied it as a way to stop or correct misbehavior. And it will; we don't question that."
The study I linked didn't study this at all; in fact, it studied how happy children were farther down the line, and showed that there was no statistically relevant reason to conclude that spanking hurts children, and that there is statistically significant evidence that shows that children are indeed happier.
"We don't know precisely where to draw the line between "acceptable physical punishment as discipline" and child abuse. NOTE: Robert Larzelere, one of the most frequently quoted supporters of spanking (among researchers), limits "acceptable corporal punishment" to two swats on the seat with an open hand."
Any reasonable person knows the difference between punishment and torture.
"Some 70% of child abuse cases were attempts to discipline through the use of physical punishment that escalated out of control. (Kadushin & Martin; Straus)"
This "fact" is a prime example of manipulating statistics. It doesn't tell, at all, how often physical punishment actually turns into abuse (a number I would imagine to be far, far lower than 70%; potentially less than 0.0001%). It relies on the shock value of such a high number to try and support the hypothesis that "physical punishment leads to abuse a statistically significant amount of the time," but this hypothesis isn't even tested.
"Although much corporal punishment is of low intensity and frequency, its range is wide and the most severe end is clearly abusive. A major problem, as noted above, is that one cannot easily specify where "appropriate" punishment fades into abuse. It is because of this difficulty of "drawing the line", that we have chosen to argue for NO hitting of children."
So we can't leave the decision up to reasonable people? If they can't be trusted with knowing the difference between proper punishment and torture, how in the world do you expect them to raise a child at all?
The paper does a good enough job of refuting (or not supporting) its own points for "short and medium-range consequences." The misuse of the (very few) statistics provided is obvious, but I'll spell them out anyway.
"72% of Goodhue county parents admitted that their children, at least sometimes, repeated the behavior for which they were spanked. More striking, 34% indicated this happens half the time or more."
This fails to take into account the recurrence rate for parents who do not spank their children, which could very well be higher.
"The basic reason for this, according to research, is that children of non-spanking parents tend to control their behavior on the basis of what is right or wrong; spanked children control their behavior out of fear—to avoid being hit. Instead of learning to differentiate between right and wrong, they learn to differentiate only what does and doesn't result in a spanking."
Research doesn't provide reasons, it provides facts. If this study did anything more than comment on the data and tell whether it rejected or failed to reject the null hypothesis (and perhaps offer a SUGGESTION as to why the data turned out the way it did), then the study itself is fundamentally biased.
"Pediatrician Dr. J. Donald Walcher points out that, in his experience, there is little effectiveness in trying to make any explanation at the onset of a disciplinary action."
I don't know about his experience, but I know about my experience. I was always aware why I was receiving punishment. Also, it seems to me this is a (flawed) argument against punishment in general.
"It is inconsistent (and confusing) to tell a child that inflicting pain and being violent is inappropriate and then to inflict pain to modify that child's behavior. How can a child possibly be sensitive to subtle nuances such as that inflicting pain is sometimes justified but sometimes not?"
This is what you're trying to teach the child! You're trying to teach them what actions are appropriate and what actions are not! It is up to the parent to get the child to understand why violence is tolerable in one situation (American forces in World War II, for example), whereas another situation is intolerable (the German forces in World War II).
"Perhaps the most frequent and powerful relationship demonstrated by research is that between physical punishment and aggressive acting-out of the child—both now as a child in relations with sibs, peers, parents, and others . . . and later as an adult in all their relations (but especially with spouse and children)."
If it's so frequent, then why can't the author find a single citation of this relationship?
"Several research studies have found that 40-50 percent of people, when asked how they felt when they were spanked, reported that they "hated the parent.""
I hated my parents when they were spanking me, too. You'd be crazy not to. You get over it and learn not to repeat your actions. Nowhere is there a reference that says that prolonged resentment is an effect, and thus the next two statements he makes are invalid.
"Research by Straus and many others has shown relationships between spanking and many undesirable outcomes"
And yet the study I linked contradicts this "fact," despite the author not setting out to prove or disprove a hypothesis related to it (she merely commented on a trend in the data). Given Straus' data set and the mistakes that I was able to point out, I'd open up the possibility that his study was poorly conducted, potentially due to bias on his part.
"Spanking as a sole or major mode of discipline throughout childhood makes it more difficult for parents to influence children later on, especially in adolescence, when physical force is no longer possible."
This is not the reason why spanking is not recommended past a certain age; it is because of the earlier-cited "resentment" (which was never properly explained, and only vaguely referenced as a way to support a ridiculous theory). Children older than 10 resent spanking and corporal punishment for a number of reasons; I personally felt that I was "too old" for spankings, and that it would be silly for my parents to spank me once I understood the difference between what was appropriate and inappropriate. Other forms of punishment for when I willfully screwd up still made sense, and were applied appropriately.
The statements I didn't address lacked any sourcing whatsoever and weren't worth my time to address.
