> A different slant on spanking
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> the field of psychology have reached something of a consensus on the subject of
> spanking.
If you are NOT an alert parent, or intelligent to form your own
opinions based on available data, you will swallow this swill because
it appeals to your failure to grow up...often caused by childhood
trauma.
> I refer here to a swat on the bottom with a hand, not hitting the
> child with any sort of object and no hitting hard enough to cause much more
> than a loss of dignity.
Well then we aren't talking about "spanking" as defined by spankers
themselves. In other words, this is a bundle of tripe about not
hitting hard enough to have effect.
> Thanks to numerous reports that have appeared in the
> popular media, it now seems as though there is overwhelming evidence to
> suggest that spanking is a highly detrimental practice which not only is
> largely ineffective, but also leads inevitably to some degree of emotional
> damage.
Yep. And it's being shown more and more to be true.
> Today, mothers and fathers are aware that any type of corporal
> punishment is likely to be viewed as child abuse by those who are authorities
> on the subject of early development.
Nonsense. There are those "experts" that do not agree at all, cowards
and fools the lot of them. They think spanking is just fine. Imagine.
Hitting a child is okay, but a dog not.
> Well, I guess that forces me to stand apart from the crowd.
Which shows the duplicitous nonsense in this article. With 90% of the
population being spanked, and obviously someone spanking them, the
much larger crowd no doubt agrees with him. He's not taking a heroic
stance, but in fact a popular one that is based on fear and cowardice
created by childhood trauma....the betrayal by their supposed
protector.
> In my opinion,
If it isn't obvious now that he is shading his position notice he used
"opinion," not professional judgement.
> this across-the-board condemnation of spanking is based more on personal
> attitudes than professional studies.
Nonsense. It is solidly based on both studies and personal
observations that have at least, if not more, chance of being
objective than his tripe.
> And whatever professional studies may be
> involved tend to lack a great deal of credibility due to either built-in
> biases or faulty research techniques.
All peer reviewed research is commonly so labeled. It's standard
proceedure. Often the criticisms themselves fail the test of
scientific method. One so-called "faulty research technique" mentioned
in a public criticism was because no potentially descructive
scientific test could be used...in other words children could not be
arbitrarily subjected of CP ethically.
Big deal.
> I have yet to see anything so
> substantial and convincing that it would cause me to jump on the anti-spanking
> bandwagon.
Blinders and bias does that to people.
> Most of the assumptions and assertions I've seen about the alleged negative
> effects of spanking on a young child's mind set are plagued by what I refer
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> head of a two-year-old; and most conclusions drawn as a result are highly
> likely to be grossly erroneous.
This I just love. It's trash, plain and simple. It's avoidance.
The adult can view being hit far more objectively than a child, with
understanding reasons, cause and effect circumstances that might have
precipitated the attack. AND HE OR SHE HAS THE LAW TO PROTECT THEM.
The child lacks all of these. Hence he has no recovery system in place
beyond those that are pathological or at least neurotic protections:
denial, minimizing, identifying with the attacker. Even a grown up, in
similar circumstances where they cannot escape their abuser can come
to identify with the abusers.
Patty Hearst comes to mind. POW turncoats. Even slaves that became
overseers themselves, some more brutal than the masters. It's a
common enough phenomena that this balony cannot deny.
As for the projection of adult beliefs onto a child, what? That they
are evil and need to be hit? THAT projection?
> With regard to the studies that appear to demonstrate the long-term
> detrimental effects of spanking, most that I've seen suffer from limited
> focus. For example, many report something like "85% of the inmates doing time
> on death row in a federal prison were spanked when they were young children."
Odd. Where are the older children figures? Why "many" when referring
to the studies that he has seen? Why not say, 15 studies, etc.? Just
babbling propaganda.
> What is not noticed, much less investigated, is that 85% of the graduates of
> Harvard Medical School were spanked when they were young children as well.
How many times? How hard? By who? For what reasons? Nothing of
scientific merit or even logic in that claim. It's a patent refusal,
the Banner of Droan, to dig any deeper than the simple empty claim,
isolated and unsupported by context.
> Meanwhile, my anti-anti-spanking position is not without solid support. As a
> researcher with the Harvard Preschool Project, I had the opportunity to
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> We had no pre-set notions. We merely observed what happened in families of all
> kinds.
No pre-set notions? Were was he raised, Mars?
> One of the things we discovered was that in two out of three families where
> children were developing into bright, happy, well-adjusted, responsible people,
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> of a toddler, a small spanking often results in a considerably better
> "education" than a prolonged discussion.
Where's the unspanked component? What kind of study of spanking is
this that claims superiority for itself that does NOT have a control
group?
> Now, I will also distance myself from the "spare the rod, spoil the child"
> crowd. After all, we found that one in three families managed to get through
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> circumstances, spanking is preferable to disciplinary techniques that just
> aren't working or no discipline at all.
No examination of the parents capacities. And a claim that is
unsupported by any proof from the study.
The same old crappola. "We know non-spanking discipline doesn't work
because we say so."
"We know that none at all doesn't work because we say so."
A "discipline" that doesn't work isn't the child's fault and does NOT
deserve the child being hit. It is the parent's fault for not taking
the time and not learning techniques that DO work.
It's the pretense, with the accused nonworking technique NOT being
named, that they don't work.
In what circumstances? Which technique was tried? Why wasn't another
NON-PUNITIVE technique tried.
All self fulfilling claims. The usual crappola.
> So please note that I am not recommending that all parents place spanking in
> their arsenal of child-- rearing techniques. On the contrary, I always urge
> mothers and fathers to take steps to avoid as many confrontations with their
> young child as possible, and then attempt to deal with those that inevitably
> occur with whatever non-corporal methods may reasonably be thought to have a
> genuinely educational impact.
The standard disclaimer. It's called, or will be eventually, "A
Droan."
Make up their own minds what they need, and if they decide it's
spanking then they, the experts on their own child, have to be right.
No matter the health of the child, the ignorance of the parent, the
levels of misinformation about children and their development.
> Nevertheless, I recognize there are situations where a spanking just may be
> the best thing for that particular parent to do for their particular child at
> that particular time.
Since it is a child there IS no such time or place. The only hitting
that is justifiable would be to protect one's self or another FROM an
attack by the child. Even then, at an early enough age, that would be
stupid because the child is unable to form cause and effect reasoning.
> So, if your little one starts to stick a fork in an
> electrical outlet and you slap his wrist, or if he let' s go of your hand so
> he can rush into heavy traffic and you give him a swat on the bottom as you
> pull him back, don't beat yourself up.
No, of course not. Just know that you have, according to research,
just taking a very high risk of reinforcing a repeat of the behavior.
Children are wired to overcome obsticles to their explorations. Nature
at work.
If he's too young to get it, then YOU must control his access, and if
he get's away, if you are going to be logical, SLAP THE TRUE
PERP......YOU!!!!
> And don't let the dirty looks you get
> from holier-than-- thou bystanders or the condemnations from pop psychologists
> on TV talk shows convince you that you've done irreparable damage to your
> child's psyche. Just make sure that the spankings aren't coming along too
> often or getting out of hand.
Oddly he is invoking the most common source for the promotion and
avocacy of SPANKING. Talks shows are big on it.
I love that last sentence. It's The Question, writ big, being
UNANSWERED YET AGAIN.
"Take my advice. Be cautious. Don't be excessive. Don't go over the
line. Never mind that I cannot tell you were the line is until you
have crossed it enough for me to recognize the damage you have
done.....maybe 10 years later."
> Otherwise, if you are a loving, caring, sensible parent, I would suggest that
> you keep in mind the following adage that was formulated by the late Dr. Louise
> Bates Ames, a wise, sweet, gentle woman who was the director of the Gesell
> Institute for several decades and regarded as one of the world's foremost
> authorities on early education and development: "If you plan on never spanking
> your child, you'll probably end up doing it the proper number of times."
If you follow through on your plan, that is. Spankers rarely do.
People regularly misunderstand this very obtuse (but wise in the
choice of words to keep from being commited) saying of Ms. Ames.
It would be, from a gentle person, a strong admonision NOT TO SPANK AT
ALL.
One of my pet peeves about those with the athority of advanced degrees
is the possibility they can divorce themselves so easily from moral
clarity.
When all is said and done it is illegal AND immoral to hit our peers,
but legal, and here defended as ethical, to hit someone less able to
defend themselves or to understand why they are being hit.
It would NOT stand if we were talking about animals, infant or adult,
but human children are denied this simple moral recognition.
Why?
It HAS to be a sickness of the mind caused by trauma, or a defect in
SOME human beings that hopefully will be bred out of us. I think
non-spankers should NEVER mate with those that support spanking, for
this very reason.
If we can't change'em let's outbreed'em. Whaddayah say folks? {;->
Thanks Droaner. We can always count on you to come up with something
as vapidly uncommitted, while advocating for the savagry represented
in hitting children, and totally nonsensical on the subject of
spanking.
How very 'scientific' of you.
Kane
> By Michael K. Meyerhoff, Ed. D.
>
> Michael K. Meyerhoff, Ed.D., is executive director of The Epicenter Inc.,
> "The Education for Parenthood Information Center," a family advisory and
> advocacy agency located in Lindenhurst, Illinois. His e-mail address is
> epicntrinc@waol.com.
> Meyerhoff, Michael K, A different slant on spanking. , Pediatrics for Parents,
> 01-01-2001, pp 8.