Is punishment an incorrect means to inculcate values in children?

Does the use of punishment enforce the parents' sense of ethics upon
their children?
If, instead of the use of punishment, children are encouraged to judge
and choose better
behavior patterns by encouraging them to think of the consequences of
their actions, would that not better prepare them to make judgements
and choices on a larger variety of subjects, on their own initiative?

wrote:
Does the use of punishment enforce the parents' sense of ethics upon
their children?
If, instead of the use of punishment, children are encouraged to judge
and choose better
behavior patterns by encouraging them to think of the consequences of
their actions, would that not better prepare them to make judgements
and choices on a larger variety of subjects, on their own initiative?


What do you think punishment actually does?

Kane

On 17 Dec 2005 wrote:


Does the use of punishment enforce the parents' sense of ethics upon
their children?
If, instead of the use of punishment, children are encouraged to judge
and choose better
behavior patterns by encouraging them to think of the consequences of
their actions, would that not better prepare them to make judgements
and choices on a larger variety of subjects, on their own initiative?


Why not use both?

Punishment Enhances Reasoning
"Another advantage of a reasoning-punishment combination is that it
enhances the subsequent effectiveness of reasoning when used by itself.
Three different analyses of my data showed that disciplinary reasoning
with 2- and 3-year-olds was ineffective unless it was backed up with
punishment periodically. The children whose behavior improved the most
over the next 20 months were those whose mothers frequently used reasoning
alone (i.e., without punishment), but also backed up the reasoning with
punishment when necessary. In contrast, the children whose behavior
deteriorated the most had mothers who frequently used reasoning alone, but
rarely backed it up with punishment."

http://parenthood.library.wisc.edu/L...Larzelere.html

Doan

wrote:
Does the use of punishment enforce the parents' sense of ethics upon
their children?
If, instead of the use of punishment, children are encouraged to judge
and choose better
behavior patterns by encouraging them to think of the consequences of
their actions, would that not better prepare them to make judgements
and choices on a larger variety of subjects, on their own initiative?

Chris Dugan, the originator of this ng many years back has addressed
these issues. So have others, but his words stand out with their
clarity. While this applies to corporal punishment and your question
seems to be inclusive of it as well as non-corporal punishment it
applies.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin5.htm

On the Amazon.com website, Christopher D. Dugan reviewed the book by
Murray A. Straus and Denise A. Donnelly called "Beating the Devil Out
of Them: Corporal Punishment in American Families and Its Effect on
Children." 5 He gave an excellent summary of recent studies into the
effect of spanking on children, both at the time and later in
adulthood. He wrote, in part:

"...in the longer run, spanking has no measurable beneficial
effects at all, and is associated with a variety of long term negative
effects. The more children are spanked, the more they assault siblings
and other children. The more children are spanked, the more their rates
of age-adjusted antisocial behavior increase over time. Spanking in
childhood is associated with higher levels of alcoholism, depression,
masochistic fantasy, and suicidal ideation later in life."

"As more family violence data accumulates, more evidence
accumulates in support of Straus's view of normative forms of violence
'spilling over' into criminal forms. Parents who spank their children
are significantly more likely to also physically abuse them than
parents who don't. Parents who spank their children are more likely to
physically abuse each other. And physically abused children are even
more likely to grow up to commit crimes against non-family members than
spanked children, who are in turn more likely to do so than non-spanked
children."

"The mounting tide of research on spanking resembles the growth of
research on the harmful effects of cigarette smoking. In both cases, no
single study settled the issue. Every study had its weaknesses and its
strengths. But when all of the available studies are viewed as a whole,
a grim picture emerges: of a widespread, culturally ingrained habit
which causes grave harm, bit by bit, by subtle increments."

"The parallels between smoking and spanking extend beyond the
similarity of research study designs. Both are addictive practices
justified by their practitioners in similar ways. 'I've smoked for
fifty years and I feel great!' 'I was spanked and it never did ME any
harm!' Bit by bit, the mounting evidence linking smoking with cancer
eroded much of the cultural denial. Straus's book is at once a
recognition of a similar trend towards popular identification of
spanking as a harmful, injurious act, and an influence furthering that
trend."

Spanking advocates and supporters wish to ignore this logical
supposition.

To me that goes to a pernicious fact about parentally applied
punishment. It does something to the picture of reality the child
carries into adulthood. In this case that pain, humiliation, even
injury both physical and psychological are "okay if mommy does it to
me."

I've never heard a varifiable case where a person who grew up without
the experience of being spanked and punished, but with supportive
gentle parenting, advocated for spanking.

On the other hand, I believe even here there have been instances where
those that were spanked as children and some that even used spanking
themselves with their children decried the practice and would not do
it, or stopped and would no longer do it.

Both the unspanked, all of them, and some of the spanked (the awakened,
honest, and courageous) have a clear sense of the harms inherent in
spanking and punishment.

The argument put forward that minimal spanking works fail on the
problems in the article cited above, that those that spank are known
statistically to abuse and to indulge in domestic violence...KNOWN and
well proven precursors to serious antisocial and criminal behavior.

The bottom line when you consider this is that we cannot determine
where the line is for each human being where they do not react to
punishment as abuse, and tip over into reactive criminality, and were
they do not, and have some small gain by being spanked.

As time passes, as Chris eloquently points out, the accumulation of
data and study will finally show us as surely as smoking study has,
that this practice is most definately dangerous for humankind
individually and collectively.

And all around the globe people are not waiting for some set point of
critical mass to be reached. They are oulawing it NOW, just as we used
electricity before we could fully understand it at the atomic level. We
just added another US state, PA no longer allows paddling in schools.

Those of use that have either been raised, or raised our children
without pain and humiliation have no trouble understanding Chris'
point.

Now for the rest of you ...

Q{} } ho ho ho ho

Reason 3: Because no-spanks aren't mulit-tasking.

Reason 2: Because no-spanks can't count to 2.

But the Number 1 reason why no-spanks can't use both methods is that
they don't have any children! They just want to tell everyone else how
to raise their kids.


Doan wrote:

Why not use both?

From Straus' own admission:

"Perhaps the most difficult methodological problem in research on the
effects of CP is posed by the the fact that child behavior problems lead
parents to spank. Thus the repeated finding that the more CP parents use,
the worse the behavior problems of the child does not necessarily show
that CP has harmful effects, or even that CP is not effective in reducing
misbehavior (as I erroneously argued in the past)."

Doan


On 18 Dec 2005 wrote:


wrote:
Does the use of punishment enforce the parents' sense of ethics upon
their children?
If, instead of the use of punishment, children are encouraged to judge
and choose better
behavior patterns by encouraging them to think of the consequences of
their actions, would that not better prepare them to make judgements
and choices on a larger variety of subjects, on their own initiative?

Chris Dugan, the originator of this ng many years back has addressed
these issues. So have others, but his words stand out with their
clarity. While this applies to corporal punishment and your question
seems to be inclusive of it as well as non-corporal punishment it
applies.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin5.htm

On the Amazon.com website, Christopher D. Dugan reviewed the book by
Murray A. Straus and Denise A. Donnelly called "Beating the Devil Out
of Them: Corporal Punishment in American Families and Its Effect on
Children." 5 He gave an excellent summary of recent studies into the
effect of spanking on children, both at the time and later in
adulthood. He wrote, in part:

"...in the longer run, spanking has no measurable beneficial
effects at all, and is associated with a variety of long term negative
effects. The more children are spanked, the more they assault siblings
and other children. The more children are spanked, the more their rates
of age-adjusted antisocial behavior increase over time. Spanking in
childhood is associated with higher levels of alcoholism, depression,
masochistic fantasy, and suicidal ideation later in life."

"As more family violence data accumulates, more evidence
accumulates in support of Straus's view of normative forms of violence
'spilling over' into criminal forms. Parents who spank their children
are significantly more likely to also physically abuse them than
parents who don't. Parents who spank their children are more likely to
physically abuse each other. And physically abused children are even
more likely to grow up to commit crimes against non-family members than
spanked children, who are in turn more likely to do so than non-spanked
children."

"The mounting tide of research on spanking resembles the growth of
research on the harmful effects of cigarette smoking. In both cases, no
single study settled the issue. Every study had its weaknesses and its
strengths. But when all of the available studies are viewed as a whole,
a grim picture emerges: of a widespread, culturally ingrained habit
which causes grave harm, bit by bit, by subtle increments."

"The parallels between smoking and spanking extend beyond the
similarity of research study designs. Both are addictive practices
justified by their practitioners in similar ways. 'I've smoked for
fifty years and I feel great!' 'I was spanked and it never did ME any
harm!' Bit by bit, the mounting evidence linking smoking with cancer
eroded much of the cultural denial. Straus's book is at once a
recognition of a similar trend towards popular identification of
spanking as a harmful, injurious act, and an influence furthering that
trend."

Spanking advocates and supporters wish to ignore this logical
supposition.

To me that goes to a pernicious fact about parentally applied
punishment. It does something to the picture of reality the child
carries into adulthood. In this case that pain, humiliation, even
injury both physical and psychological are "okay if mommy does it to
me."

I've never heard a varifiable case where a person who grew up without
the experience of being spanked and punished, but with supportive
gentle parenting, advocated for spanking.

On the other hand, I believe even here there have been instances where
those that were spanked as children and some that even used spanking
themselves with their children decried the practice and would not do
it, or stopped and would no longer do it.

Both the unspanked, all of them, and some of the spanked (the awakened,
honest, and courageous) have a clear sense of the harms inherent in
spanking and punishment.

The argument put forward that minimal spanking works fail on the
problems in the article cited above, that those that spank are known
statistically to abuse and to indulge in domestic violence...KNOWN and
well proven precursors to serious antisocial and criminal behavior.

The bottom line when you consider this is that we cannot determine
where the line is for each human being where they do not react to
punishment as abuse, and tip over into reactive criminality, and were
they do not, and have some small gain by being spanked.

As time passes, as Chris eloquently points out, the accumulation of
data and study will finally show us as surely as smoking study has,
that this practice is most definately dangerous for humankind
individually and collectively.

And all around the globe people are not waiting for some set point of
critical mass to be reached. They are oulawing it NOW, just as we used
electricity before we could fully understand it at the atomic level. We
just added another US state, PA no longer allows paddling in schools.

Those of use that have either been raised, or raised our children
without pain and humiliation have no trouble understanding Chris'
point.

Now for the rest of you ...

Q{} } ho ho ho ho

IOW, they are the new emperors and they hated it when you pointed out
that they have no clothes! ;-)

Doan


On 18 Dec 2005, Opinions wrote:

Reason 3: Because no-spanks aren't mulit-tasking.

Reason 2: Because no-spanks can't count to 2.

But the Number 1 reason why no-spanks can't use both methods is that
they don't have any children! They just want to tell everyone else how
to raise their kids.


Doan wrote:

Why not use both?

I am a no spank parent. I have raised children without spanking. One
has her own apartment, works full time, and is self-supporting. The
other graduated from Northwestern University, and is now an AmeriCorp
volunteer and living at home.

This no-spank parent raised children without spanking, as have many
others. This is the most giggle-hoot crap you have as yet posted on
this ng.

As I tell my students, think about what you write. Do you really mean
what you say? If you truly mean that no-spanks have no children, you
are mistaken and misguided.

LaVonne

Opinions wrote:
Reason 3: Because no-spanks aren't mulit-tasking.

Reason 2: Because no-spanks can't count to 2.

But the Number 1 reason why no-spanks can't use both methods is that
they don't have any children! They just want to tell everyone else how
to raise their kids.


Doan wrote:


Why not use both?

This is the same LaVonne that LIED repeatedly when I asked about studies
that show the non-cp alternatives are better than spanking under the
same statistical analysis. Now she is accusing others of lying? ;-)

Proof:

"Baumrind et al. (2002) cited several studies that have found
corporal punishment to be less associated with negative outcomes
than are other discipline techniques. Although this may be true,
just because other techniques are worse than corporal punishment
does not make corporal punishment any better."

That is what researcher Gershoff said. Is she wrong? ;-)

Doan


On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

I am a no spank parent. I have raised children without spanking. One
has her own apartment, works full time, and is self-supporting. The
other graduated from Northwestern University, and is now an AmeriCorp
volunteer and living at home.

This no-spank parent raised children without spanking, as have many
others. This is the most giggle-hoot crap you have as yet posted on
this ng.

As I tell my students, think about what you write. Do you really mean
what you say? If you truly mean that no-spanks have no children, you
are mistaken and misguided.

LaVonne

Opinions wrote:
Reason 3: Because no-spanks aren't mulit-tasking.

Reason 2: Because no-spanks can't count to 2.

But the Number 1 reason why no-spanks can't use both methods is that
they don't have any children! They just want to tell everyone else how
to raise their kids.


Doan wrote:


Why not use both?

One of the more curious things about no-spanks is that having raised a
child without spanking seems to be the crowning achievement of their
life. Another quirk is that they almost always brag about how they
never spanked their kid rather than that their kid never was spanked.
There really is a world of difference between a never-spanked kid and a
kid never spanked by one parent or the other.


Doan wrote:
This is the same LaVonne that LIED repeatedly when I asked about studies
that show the non-cp alternatives are better than spanking under the
same statistical analysis. Now she is accusing others of lying? ;-)

Proof:

"Baumrind et al. (2002) cited several studies that have found
corporal punishment to be less associated with negative outcomes
than are other discipline techniques. Although this may be true,
just because other techniques are worse than corporal punishment
does not make corporal punishment any better."

That is what researcher Gershoff said. Is she wrong? ;-)

Doan


On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, Carlson LaVonne wrote:

I am a no spank parent. I have raised children without spanking. One
has her own apartment, works full time, and is self-supporting. The
other graduated from Northwestern University, and is now an AmeriCorp
volunteer and living at home.

This no-spank parent raised children without spanking, as have many
others. This is the most giggle-hoot crap you have as yet posted on
this ng.

As I tell my students, think about what you write. Do you really mean
what you say? If you truly mean that no-spanks have no children, you
are mistaken and misguided.

LaVonne

Opinions wrote:
Reason 3: Because no-spanks aren't mulit-tasking.

Reason 2: Because no-spanks can't count to 2.

But the Number 1 reason why no-spanks can't use both methods is that
they don't have any children! They just want to tell everyone else how
to raise their kids.


Doan wrote:


Why not use both?