Study: Spanked Children May Grow Up to Be Happier, More Successful

Here's another one for the "water is wet" file.

Fox News:

Study: Spanked Children May Grow Up to Be Happier, More Successful

According to the research, children spanked up to the age of 6 were likely as teenagers to perform better at school and were more likely to carry out volunteer work and to want to go to college than their peers who had never been physically disciplined.
But children who continued to be spanked into adolescence showed clear behavioral problems.

                              Children’s groups and lawmakers in the UK have tried several times to have physical chastisement by parents outlawed, the Times of London reported. They claim it is a form of abuse that causes long-term harm to children and say banning it would send a clear signal that violence is unacceptable.

However, Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of psychology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, said her study showed there was insufficient evidence to deny parents the freedom to choose how they discipline their children.
“The claims made for not spanking children fail to hold up. They are not consistent with the data,” said Gunnoe. “I think of spanking as a dangerous tool, but there are times when there is a job big enough for a dangerous tool. You just don’t use it for all your jobs.”

                                                                        Research into the effects of spanking was previously hampered by the inability to find enough children who had never been spanked, given its past cultural acceptability.

Saw it in the news. Saw she presented it at a conference. Did not see where it was going to be published in a peer reviewed journal. We don’t know if her sample size, content, or method of study is sound. The one she did in 1997 is.

[quote="didymus, post:1, topic:182024"]
Here's another one for the "water is wet" file.

Fox News:

[/quote]

These days if you expect your kids to do their homework and refrain from murdering the neighbors it's considered child abuse. :rolleyes:

It is the boundaries aspect, not the physical aspect. I had boundaries and yes I am thankful for that.

I have never spanked my child and my parents never spanked me.

My son has boundries, he is well behaved and an awesome teenager.

I dont think spanking determines anything. Love and guidance does.

I spanked my children when they were naughty, and I have no problem with reasonable corporal discipline IF it is absolutely necessary. My kids have all turned out great and we are very close.
In retrospect, I wish I had not spanked them at various times when I was angry, but I don’t really regret giving them a few smacks on the behind when they misbehaved in a serious way (for instance, one of my sons hit my daughter in the face on purpose one time - we were very upset and my DH got after my son with a spanking; doesn’t sound logical, but he never did it again!).:shrug:

I dont think spanking determines anything. Love and guidance does.

Well put.

John

He who spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him correcteth him betimes.

Proverbs 13:24

Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell.

Proverbs 23:13-14

Who is wiser than God in child raising? :slight_smile:

A child who is not disciplined grows up into an adult who cannot discipline his own instincts nor his own children.

This is as a general rule, exceptions happen, but rules remain the same no matter. Hardship, as they say, builds character.

[quote="Stjudeprayforus, post:5, topic:182024"]
I have never spanked my child and my parents never spanked me.

My son has boundries, he is well behaved and an awesome teenager.

I dont think spanking determines anything. Love and guidance does.

[/quote]

I agree , but not everyone is the same, and it needs to be weighed on a child to child basis. Some children respond to being spanked because they do not respond to verbal guidance as some children do. Now don't get me wrong, beating children is wrong, and it should not be used in excess, and you can't just hit a kid and expect them to get it, you have to talk with them as well. I also see a problem with using spanking as a punishment per se, but rather as a reenforcement, kind of set in what you have told them. In my opinion it would seem like you would need to talk with the child first, then determine if further measures need to be taken, plus by doing this you will have calmed down as well, you don't want any kind of incident... (Love is always necessary)

The whole spanking controversy is a straw man. Delinquency is tied mostly to fatherlessness, not to the way the child was raised, as long as there was no outright abuse. But liberals don’t want to touch that issue with a 10-foot pole.

It is true there is a crisis of fatherhood in these times.

You are correct—kids are different and need tailored discipline. I don’t think anyone here is an advocate of beating, but some kids benefit from a pop or two on the seat when appropriate.

I do wish parents would act like parents, not buddies, and NOT in fear of their own kids’ reactions.

Growing up, I was spanked a couple times.. and so was my younger sister. And I'm pretty sure my older siblings were also disciplined that way when they were kids. Our father didn't beat us, but he gave us a sharp slap on our behind that left us crying, scared and never wanting to get in trouble every again. It taught us a lesson. I think it was an effective disciplinary technique.

My niece and nephews have never been spanked.. only verbally disciplined. And with them, that does absolutely nothing. Seeing how spoiled they have become and how much they get away with, I know that I don't want my future children to become like that. I will more than likely use a spanking if I have to.

A boss of mine said she spanked her grandson once, and he replied that he was never going to do anything to get another spanking ever again! :)

It is effective. But like some have said before, it's a child-to-child basis. Doesn't work for everyone. But it did work for me.

It really depends on the child. Some will burst into tears and crumple if they are even verbally rebuked, others just sneer at spankings.
It’s also age-related. Spanking a young child, or slapping them on the back of the hand when they try to touch a hot stove is one thing. Spanking a much older child would probably just backfire by making them resentful.

That’s not true. Everyone acknowledges the breakdown of the family unit in the inner-city as a serious problem. What liberals don’t want to do is to blame and punish single mothers, because that doesn’t accomplish anything. Conservatives want to waste time pointing at their imagined harlots, instead of trying to fix the problem.

The breakdown of the family is a problem everywhere, not just in the inner city. It results in crime, delinquency, heartache and mayhem everywhere it occurs. And that’s precisely what people do not agree on. There is the mistaken idea that family is only necessary for poor inner-city kids, but that money and pale skin solves the problem of missing fathers and mothers. It doesn’t. A rich, white boy growing up fatherless in a nice suburb is also more likely to end up screwed up in the head and criminal than his peers.

I don’t wish to punish anyone for vices (which is what you are alluding to, as extra-marital sex is a vice). My point is that the government should get out of people’s lives and stop rewarding good or punishing bad behavior. Good behavior has its own reward and bad behavior has it’s own consequences. We can still protect the children from their parent’s mistakes (that’s what adoption and foster care are for), but we should stop facilitating that bad behavior. As it is, we’ve merely replaced the welfare check with the child support check. Child support should only be available to divorced women (as part of the marriage contract), not to every woman who slept around and had babies by 3 different men. Supporting single mothers and shacking up has only led to more single mothers and shacking up. Back when society taught that such behavior was unacceptable, people didn’t engage in it, at least not to the extent that they do today. We are suffering from a culture of low expectations and moral relativity.

I personally know numerous women like that, and they receive a check in the mail every month from each father, courtesy of the federal government, and they live quite comfortably off that money. Every time they have another kid, they get another check. I love these women, but they do not understand that what they are doing is wrong. After all, every time they do it, they get rewarded for it.

Do we send checks to compulsive gamblers or crates of gratis gin to alcoholics? Why shouldn’t they suffer the natural consequences of their actions? The rest of us have to.

[quote="CatholicGerman, post:17, topic:182024"]
The breakdown of the family is a problem everywhere, not just in the inner city. It results in crime, delinquency, heartache and mayhem everywhere it occurs. And that's precisely what people do not agree on. There is the mistaken idea that family is only necessary for poor inner-city kids, but that money and pale skin solves the problem of missing fathers and mothers. It doesn't. A rich, white boy growing up fatherless in a nice suburb is also more likely to end up screwed up in the head and criminal than his peers.

[/quote]

Settle down. That's not my argument and I don't like to be accused of racism. I agree with you 100% that this is the case, but the problem is a lot more urgent in the inner-city. A rich kid growing up fatherless in a mansion could very well up in bad shape, but his entire neighborhood isn't collapsing around him. Entire neighborhoods in the inner-city are collapsing, and that's a serious problem. I'm also biased because both my parents grew up happy in the city, I like cities more than suburbs even though I live in a suburb, and I badly want cities to be great places where people want to go. For that reason, when I think about problems and solutions, my thoughts go first to the cities.

I don't wish to punish anyone for vices (which is what you are alluding to, as extra-marital sex is a vice). My point is that the government should get out of people's lives and stop rewarding good or punishing bad behavior. Good behavior has its own reward and bad behavior has it's own consequences.

All too often, good and bad behavior do not have their own consequences, at least not until the afterlife. Without steroid testing and recruiting rules, cheaters get ahead and win, while people who do things the right way find themselves fighting an uphill battle. Without laws against insider trading, cheaters get rich while the average person is playing a game to which he doesn't know the rules. Without regulations, liars get rich by fooling people

We can still protect the children from their parent's mistakes (that's what adoption and foster care are for), but we should stop facilitating that bad behavior. As it is, we've merely replaced the welfare check with the child support check. Child support should only be available to divorced women (as part of the marriage contract), not to every woman who slept around and had babies by 3 different men. Supporting single mothers and shacking up has only led to more single mothers and shacking up. Back when society taught that such behavior was unacceptable, people didn't engage in it, at least not to the extent that they do today. We are suffering from a culture of low expectations and moral relativity.

So what happens to the kids that you sacrifice? How many generations do you waste? And how does it promote a culture of high expectations for men to see their own actions as free of consequence?

I personally know numerous women like that, and they receive a check in the mail every month from each father, courtesy of the federal government, and they live quite comfortably off that money. Every time they have another kid, they get another check. I love these women, but they do not understand that what they are doing is wrong. After all, every time they do it, they get rewarded for it. Do we send checks to compulsive gamblers or crates of gratis gin to alcoholics? Why shouldn't they suffer the natural consequences of their actions? The rest of us have to.

The natural consequences of their action? What about the children? Your emphasis on punishment at the extent of fixing things is pretty skewed. And why shouldn't the men who slept with them suffer their natural consequences of their action, and have to support the life that they brought into this world? And why should childbirth be seen as a punishment.

You make reasoned and valid arguments, so I will address them one by one.

That's not my argument and I don't like to be accused of racism. I agree with you 100% that this is the case, but the problem is a lot more urgent in the inner-city.

I was not accusing you of racism. I was merely pointing out that my original statement is not universally acknowledged. There are many people who still do not believe that fatherlessness is a problem across the board. Rather they see it as a problem of minorities, including the poor or certain non-European ethnic groups. The fact is that the breakdown of the family is rampant everywhere, except among the college-educated (which is a relatively small portion of the population). And the effect is a negative one for each child, regardless of his other circumstances. The degree to which the effect is negative varies, but they all certainly suffer.

All too often, good and bad behavior do not have their own consequences, at least not until the afterlife. Without steroid testing and recruiting rules, cheaters get ahead and win, while people who do things the right way find themselves fighting an uphill battle. Without laws against insider trading, cheaters get rich while the average person is playing a game to which he doesn't know the rules. Without regulations, liars get rich by fooling people

You are confusing regulation with laws. Regulation means that you enter into a formal contract (such as a marriage, a driver's license, a firearms permit, or a listing on the stock market) and agree to abide by the rules of that contract. Breaching the contract (a crime of trespass) results in punishment, usually a fine (which is the legal basis of alimony) but possibly imprisonment (for instance, if you drive while intoxicated or publish faulty accounting claims). That is consistent, as nobody forced you to enter into the contract and you did so at your own risk and with full knowledge of the consequences.
My problem is with making a vice a crime so that you can be thrown in jail merely for an act you conducted which brought no harm to anyone other than yourself.

So what happens to the kids that you sacrifice? How many generations do you waste? And how does it promote a culture of high expectations for men to see their own actions as free of consequence?

This is the famous, "What about the children?" argument that gets thrown at libertarians on a regular basis. I throw it back. You are right! What about those poor, fatherless children whose mothers couldn't be bothered to keep their legs shut? Where is your sympathy for them?

Okay, that's just being facetious. The fact of the matter, is that the men's actions are already relatively free of consequence, which is why many men think birth control and abortion are just fine and dandy. Back in the day, if a man created a child out of wedlock he would be pressured (at gunpoint, if needs be -- hence the term "shotgun wedding") to marry the woman and "man up" to his responsibilities. If he did not do so, he'd be completely ostracized. If he still didn't marry her, then the woman would be ostracized. This discouraged both men and women from extramarital sex. This social policy, while it seems draconian today, made it clear: a father is essential and required and there is no substitute for him.

Nowadays, we say, "Send a check for $250 once a month and we'll call it quits." And if he doesn't have the money, we throw him in jail at taxpayer's expense. Since the Mancession began, our local newspaper has had a parade of men listed as "Wanted for non-support." How does that serve his children? By offering up a fee as a substitute to fatherhood, we have declared fathers as irrelevant. That is why so many women today think there is nothing wrong with single motherhood. That is why they say, "I don't need a man. I have my own money." We have made fathers worth 250 dollars a month.

Those men who are "manning up" today are doing so out of a sense of personal responsibility, not out of fear of the state. There are plenty of ways of accounting yourself poor so that you don't have to cough up the dough. But even those that want to be involved in their children's lives (and not just reduced to a check) are regularly impeded by the very mothers that plead weakness and poverty. They are turned away at the door (or married fathers are no-fault divorced) and told, "We don't need you. Just send the check." In reality, the money is less important to the children than the presence of the father.

Let that be a lesson to us all of the evil impact of unintended consequences.

I am not saying that these children and their mothers should sleep out on the street. Hardly. But that is what private charity is for. Government largess, unlike charity, fuels a sense of personal entitlement and therefore feeds the vice, rather than reducing it. The Catholic Church has always been generous, even to those who were suffering from their own stupidity or to those outside of the law (such as illegal immigrants today). It should continue to do so, and the government should get out of the way.

How did you come up with such a pack of lies?

Liberalism only makes the problems worse. It’s conservatives, those who cherish our Constitution, who do not wish to create generation after generation of helpless victims dependent upon Nanny Gubmint.

What liberalism does to the human spirit is unforgivable and tragic.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.