Reasons Not to Spank I respect people who have opinions different from mine, and I'm interested in discussing the arguments for and against the use of various discipline methods. I'd like to hear from those who disagree with me, for in-depth debate examining the validity of the various arguments. To me, the arguments against spanking are clear. Numerous scientific studies link spanking with undesirable effects, such as: increased misbehaviour of the child; mental illness; juvenile delinquency; the child growing up to become a spouse-beater, etc. The purpose of this discussion is not to make parents feel guilty. If people did what they believed best at the time, a lot of guilty feelings are neither appropriate nor useful. I believe that when parents learn the long-term effects of spanking, they will stop doing it because they want to do what is best for their children. I believe that calm, logical discussion and debate is useful, even though people with strongly-held beliefs rarely change their basic beliefs in such a discussion. Nevertheless, I think people learn things. Sometimes one shifts one's position slightly. Sometimes, without changing one's basic views, one gains an appreciation for the reasons why someone else believes differently. Definitions become clarified and weak points in arguments become apparent. Also, such a debate is a good place to lay out both sides of an argument where those who haven't yet decided can best see them in order to make up their minds. I'm also interested in discussing alternative discipline methods. My position is: -- Spanking is not necessary. -- Spanking is harmful. -- Any child can be raised well without spanking. -- Spanking tends to cause worse behaviour in the long run. If you would like to debate these points with me, in a respectful debate without personal attacks or insults, you can send email to me at an588@freenet.carleton.ca, with the word "discipline" in the subject line to get past my spam filter. We can then choose a forum for the debate: perhaps the alt.parenting.spanking newsgroup. Spanking is like smoking. Just as spanking actually does often induce a child to obey, smoking actually does make it easier for a person to breathe. But, in the long term, smoking leads to asthma and lung cancer, and spanking leads to an increase in behaviours such as lying, cheating and crime. Each of these activities creates, in the long term, a situation that makes it seem increasingly necessary for its short-term benefits -- but quitting is actually more beneficial. Spanking is not necessary. There are many systems of child discipline that don't require any spanking under any circumstances. People often bring up examples of life-threatening situations such as running into a busy street or touching a hot stove as justifications for spanking. However, the importance of these situations suggests the use of a discipline method more effective than spanking. Parents may feel like spanking after experiencing the adrenalin rush of fear for their child's life, but that doesn't mean it benefits the child. Methods such as Oscar the Orange and the Safe Play method have been found more effective than spanking in teaching children not to run into the street. Numerous scientific studies link spanking with effects such as being more likely to commit crime; lying and cheating; being more likely to be depressed or an alcoholic as an adult; being more likely to grow up to become a spouse-beater. In the past, people could explain away these studies by saying that those people were born that way and that it was their tendency to misbehave that caused them to be spanked more. However, a few years ago there were five important studies that could not be explained away in that way. The Straus et al. (1997) study looked at the amount of spanking and level of misbehaviour of a large sample of children, then looked at those same children two years later. The more they were being spanked at the beginning of the study, the less their behaviour improved over the two years. Even controlling for initial misbehaviour level (comparing children at the same level of misbehaviour at the beginning), the same result held. So, just as smoking opens up the lung passages and feels like a breath of fresh air in the short term, but in the long term is highly detrimental to healthy breathing, in the same way spanking, although it seems to lead to obedience in the short term, in the long term spanking actually causes larger amounts of misbehaviour -- including criminal behaviour. This is actually not such a surprising result. At the same time that spanking tends to cause an improvement in behaviour in one way, mostly short-term, it is also causing a worsening of behaviour in several other ways, often long-term. Spanking shows children a model of violence. Children tend to imitate their parents, so it's not surprising that after seeing their parents use physical pain to influence someone's behaviour, that the children later hit other children to punish them for breaking rules in a game etc., or hit their own parents, or grow up to be more likely to hit their spouse or their own children. Parents don't have a monopoly on punishment. Children also punish their parents -- often in ways they can get away with -- after their parents do things they don't like. Sometimes the punishment comes long after the parent's action that the child disliked. Have you ever thought about something that happened a long time ago that you're still angry about? I have. Children do that, too, and sometimes get back at the person. In light of this tendency or ability to punish, spanking tends to lead to misbehaviour in at least two ways. First, spanking tends to be perceived as severe or extreme. So it's more likely than a milder punishment to be something the child will want to get back at the parents for. Also, it's clearly personal: it's something the parent is doing to the child. Again, a candidate for revenge action, as opposed to, say, a consequence of having to clean up a mess, where it's the child doing something, rather than someone doing something to the child, and if it's a general family rule there might not be a specific person to take revenge against. So, children punish their parents for spankings and for other extreme punishments. At the same time, a spanking gives a child long-lasting information about how to push a parent's buttons. A spanking is usually a clear sign that a parent has been pushed past some limit; that the child's action has really bothered the parent. Children save up this information, and it often gets used when the child later wants to punish the parent for something; or to test whether the parent loves them; or when the child just wants to stir up some excitement. I believe those are the reasons why it was found (Embry) that toddlers who were spanked for running into the road were actually more likely to run into the road again than those who were not spanked for it. I can imagine them laughing, with a mischievous expression on their face, watching out of the corners of their eyes to see if anyone is noticing their bold action as they run into the street.