>Your words exactly are "I rarely NEED to spank them." Which
>is another way of saying some times you NEED to.

You have to be careful not to skate on context here. My statement was in regard to the parameters I levied for their discipline. Not some self-ingrained need to spank. It's like saying "well, thankfully I haven't NEEDED to take their devices away from them due to punishment".

>And what folks are getting twisted is my position has nothing
>to do with the idea that "violence is not okay". My boys are
>growing up in Brooklyn. I need them to not be too soft to
>throw hands because they need to learn to be prepared to
>defend themselves and the ones they love. But that has
>absolutely nothing to do with a parent beating a kid for
>disciplinary purposes.

So let me ask you, how will your boys learn to 'throw hands'? And how are you going to teach them the discipline of when to apply this behavior and when not to?

>I also take issue the notion "Discipline can be learned
>without physical consequence but typically that is
>unrealistic."
>
>The military teaches discipline all day without beating
>recruits. Now you say your kid acts up and you want them
>doing push-ups like the army, that's cool too. But physical
>consequences does not have to equate to violence against your
>own kids.

And I ALSO teach discipline without beating my kids. That's the part that gets lost here. I never said spanking was my only, first or even a fairly consistent practice. The military also prepares soldiers for combat and in teaching soldiers how to apply effective methods, they have to engage in and be subjected to physical violence. There's no other way to learn it.

So my point stands, discipline, across the board as I see it necessary for their growth, is unrealistic without physical consequence. Just as you see it as something that will be needed for your boys to survive in Brooklyn, I see it necessary for my kids to survive in America.

>And from an objective point of view if we know that there are
>many good kids who did not have to be beaten to turn out that
>way then it is proven that violence is not necessary to raise
>a kid PERIOD.

Not necessary to child rearing but very unrealistic as you have just proven with your sentiment about wanting your boys to understand how to apply violence where necessary. America is violent, and understanding violence, IMO, means you have to be subjected to it as a negative to understand why it's something to be avoided and only applied in rare, appropriate circumstances. And to understand that your behaviors can expose you directly to violence if you're not careful to do what's necessary/right.

>That aside, I agree with a lot of what you are saying with
>regards to constantly question our approach to parenting. In
>fact, let that be my entire point!!!
>
>In light of what we know about how damaging beating can be to
>kids, all black parents should question our reliance on
>corporal punishment to discipline children. That's it.

This is why spanking is only a very rarely used tool for me and not the crutch upon which I base my parenting.

>Anyway, your sig shows a beautiful family so clearly you are
>doing something right.
>
>Peace God.

Thanks!