Parental discipline/spanking Minimum (5) pages content Title page, Reference list (APA style) Minimum (4) peer reviewed journal articles. I EPSCOHOST articles works. Present sides argument . I a side a conclusion.
When concerning parental discipline, there is much controversy regarding punishment and whether it should be corporeal or nonphysical. Considering that the contemporary society has progressed significantly in the recent centuries, it only seems normal for people to have recognized that spanking is detrimental both for their relationship with children and for the mental state of the children. This is particularly important when referring to infants, as they are unaware regarding the reason for their spanking and are unlikely to learn a valuable lesson as a result of being physically punished. It is certainly difficult to take sides in the debate, as both camps have generated theories that support or criticize the practice of spanking. All things considered, in spite of its immoral nature, spanking continues to be encouraged as a means to punish children and its supporters actually believe that it is one of the most effective methods of doing so.
In trying to motivate their behavior, some tutors claim that many children in point of fact want to be spanked. As a consequence, physical harm should be regarded as being less alarming and more beneficial for the children's physical and mental evolution. From their perspective, spanking "is God's idea -- it is an expression of love. One could almost be convinced that one is doing a child a favor by beating him" (Tauber, 1999, p. 46). Punishment most often comes as a result of tutors wanting to impose their respect over children when the latter put across lack of obedience. For many individuals, spanking a child that is barely in his or her teen years because he or she has behaved badly is perfectly natural, as this is apparently one of the best methods of teaching the child about the wrongness of his or her deed.
In physically harming their children, parents want to correct their behavior. However, this does not mean that most parents who do so are unaware of the limits of such punishment techniques. Their main intention is to have the child understand that he or she has made a mistake, but they are generally unsupportive in regard to chastisement practices that leave physical injuries on the children. Even with that, when considering the punished child's mental state, there are chances that he or she has been affected as a result of being subjected to physical harm (Davis, 1999, p. 100).
What is particularly worrying about spanking is that many individuals are unable to tell when they have reached the limit. For them, physical punishment can easily lead to abuse, considering that they cannot possibly measure the intensity of their act, given that it seems useless for them to physically punish a child without actually hurting him or her. A tutor is usually angry when he or she physically harms a child, thus meaning that it is less likely for him or her to fully appreciate the consequences of his or her actions (Grolnick, 2003, p. 36). Experts were relatively unsuccessful in discovering the difference between corporeal punishment and abuse "because (1) the specific culture determines what is abusive and (2) there is only meager data on the effects of mild to moderate spanking" (Davis, 1999, p. 100). Even when they are not really willing to harm their children, some parents do so unintentionally. Parents typically use emotional distancing and violence as a means to prevent their children from behaving badly. However, they are unaware that this can frequently have terrible consequences on the physical and psychological health of children.
Household violence involving parents hitting children occurs more often than most people believe that it does. The activity is less public particularly because it happens within houses and makes it difficult for victims to be able to put across their feelings in regard to their suffering. Also, because they consider it disgraceful to relate to their experiences at home, many children prefer to redirect their distress and transform it into aggression against their friends. This is principally because their tutors indirectly teach them that for someone to stop doing something annoying, it is perfectly normal for them to use violence as a means of correcting the respective person. Even when some parents use other methods of controlling their children at first and only when nothing else seems to work do they use violence, the message is basically the same -- violence is one of the most effective methods of punishment and correction.
While most people like to believe that spanking occurs only in families when one or both of the tutors are exceptionally cruel or when they are mentally ill, it actually takes place in normal households too, as tutors simply believe that it is perfectly normal for them to physically harm children with the purpose of punishing and correcting them. In comparison to women being physically harmed, spanked children did not really alert the masses. This is probably also because spanking is usually light and because it rarely involves severe injuries. Child protection workers are also apparently concentrated on examining visible injuries, as they tend to ignore cases when spanked children present no physical traumas.
Individuals supporting spanking as an effective method to punish and correct children are principally inclined to do so because there is no actual evidence pointing toward the belief that mild physical harm can have disastrous consequences. Even with that, research (Sears, Maccoby, and Levin, 1957, p. 260), has shown that children become increasingly hostile and aggressive consequent to being subjected to physical harm as a form of correction or punishment. Most people expect children to refrain from ever committing immoral activities after being punished violently. This is to a certain degree true, as a child "may gradually learn to fear the consequences of his own actions, and the particular acts that get most repeatedly punished may be inhibited" (Sears, Maccoby, and Levin, 1957, p. 260). However, considering that a child normally channels his or her fear into frustration, it is very probable for him or her to develop mental issues as he or she grows, considering that he or she will be continuously haunted by childhood memories when violence seemed to be the only answer and the most severe type of punishment. A tutor does not necessarily have to use physical violence in order to reach out to a child, as a non-permissive approach can be just as effective in correcting a child. Also, parents need to learn that punishment is not something done for their own comfort, as it is in reality meant to correct children's behavior and to prevent them from ever committing wrongdoings in the future.
Mothers who punished their children by using violence apparently reported that they did so because the children would display an increased determination to commit immoral acts as they grew. One can consider this situation to be owed to the fact that children had become accustomed to taking beatings whenever they did something wrong. Partly because they came to be immune and party because they were mentally traumatized because of being physically harmed, they came to put across unwillingness to behave in accordance to society's rules. All things considered, "the punishment by the mother bred counter-aggression in the child" (Sears, Maccoby, and Levin, 1957, p. 261), thus meaning that children who are subjected to physical harm are likely to expressed an ever-increasing passion toward behaving badly.
Tutors usually punish children by using physical violence because they consider that it is pointless to use conventional means of correcting individuals when concerning children. Surely, correction methods differ, but this does not mean that physical harm is more effective than other techniques. Individuals who…