Child-beating Pastors Unfazed by Childrens' Deaths

[Gnu Ordure]

Gnu, I'm calling you out.  You didn't mention my own excellent post, and I mentioned wildebeest!  What does it take to please you man?   

 
I did notice your mention of wildebeest, Jetson, and I was feeling a little paranoid about it. So I decided to run away from it very fast.

 As you say:

If you notice, the species that use that survival method tend to be the ones in very large herds, where sheer numbers are the survival mechanism, as opposed to independent thinking strategies, and learning to overcome fear.  Wildebeest comes to mind.

You're entirely right. In Scaredy-cat Gnu World, any mildly perplexing event on the Veldt should be run away from as fast as possible until it's out of sight, and then forgotten about.

I admit that, as survival strategies go, it lacks a little dignity. But it works, so don't knock it.

There are other strategies. Not many people know this, but 200 years ago, we were formally known as 'mildebeest' - because we were beasts, and mild, y'know? But that was bad for business, it just encouraged the crocs and lions. So we hired a good PR firm and re-branded ourselves by inverting the 'm'. Suddenly we're wildebeest, the wild beasts of the Veldt. We're wearing leather jackets. We have big horns. We're wearing shades.

And the lions bought it.

Result.

[jetson]

Word! 

[Gnu Ordure]

Hi TruthOT,

You don't get it, do you? At least five people have tried to explain it to you, but you appear to trapped in your rationalization of your own childhood abuse, which you perpetuate in your actions as a parent.

Allow me an attempt to get through to you.

The starting point (A) is that when you were a child, you suffered abuse at the hands of those who had authority or power over you.

The end point (B), today, is that you believe that authorities must always be respected and obeyed - and particularly that children must always respect and obey their parents - and that parents are entitled to use violence, and the fear of violence, to enforce respect and obedience.

Do you agree with those statements, TruthOT? I'm basing A on your descriptions of your childhood:

In my family circle, whippin’ ass, spanking, corporal punishment, whatever you want to call it is and has always been pervasive. <snip> we also would allow ourselves to be entertained by causing our little brothers or cousins (5 to 7 years of age) to fight <snip> Some of the older kids that admittedly we were slightly afraid of and thought were crazy enough to hurt us as well would do despicable things like setting strays on fire <snip> we were basically unsupervised from down to dusk <snip> we had to go outside and break twiggs off of the tree to be used as a switch that our parents would use to whip us. I hated it when my mother would tell me that I was gonna get it when I got home <snip> Such a threat does seem a bit sadistic I would imagine. I know I definately felt dread when my momma promised me a whipping and it seems like the longest most torturous time from the moment she said I would get it until when we'd get home.

There we have examples of three of the four categories of child abuse: emotional abuse, neglect and physical abuse. And I'm truly sorry that you had to deal with all that stuff. 

I'm basing B on these statements:

For most of my life I bought into the idea that good parents from time to time will whip their kids in order to properly condition them and to teach them respect for those in authority over them. With this in mind, any form of disrespect directed towards a teacher, parent or guardian, etc. is immediately punishable by an ass whippin’ to help insure that such behavior will not ever be employed again.<snip>In my community one of the worst things a child can do is “talk back” to an adult <snip>  if any of my kids speaks to me, my wife, or an authority figure disrespectfully and out of turn wrongfully, they will be dealt with “corporally” <snip> they should respect, revere, and even fear their parents as well as other authority figures in their lives <snip> There are times when they will need to do things or not do things simply because I said no.

So do you agree with my two statements, TruthOT?

First you suffered cruelly in childhood at the hands of authority, now you teach that your authority is always right and must be respected, and you're prepared to be cruel to back it up.

Do you see the contradiction there? Do you see what you've done to resolve it?

First, you've identified with your abusers, and blamed yourself instead of them. Many abused children do this as a survival strategy; they find it preferable to believe that their ill-treatment is their fault, because the alternative explanation, that they are actually at the mercy of cruel monsters, is too terrifying to consider. So they think that their parents are good and right, while they themselves are bad and wrong. They may then grow up and repeat the cruel behaviour of their parents, in the sincere belief that these methods are good.

By being brought up in an authoritarian culture, you've become authoritarian. Authority is good, in and of itself. Authority must be obeyed. Disobedience or disrespect of authority by children, the worst crime, must be punished with violence.

This is bullshit, TruthOT. It's bullshit because of the simple fact that sometimes, people in authority abuse their power. As I'm sure you know. You said that children should respect, revere, and even fear their parents as well as other authority figures in their lives. But only if they deserve respect - and some don't.

If a priest or a teacher attempts to sexually abuse a child, should the child obey and respect this authority figure? Should people respect and obey corrupt police officers, or judges, or politicians?

In which case, why are you teaching your children to obey authority? By doing so, you actually leave your children susceptible to abuse - because some authorities are corrupt.

What you should be teaching your children is the concept of bodily integrity - the idea that their bodies belong to them, and that nobody can touch them unless they concur. Which includes teachers, priests, doctors, relatives, friends and yes, parents. Touching someone who doesn't want to be touched constitutes assault. Try puttng your arm around a police officer in a friendly fashion while you're getting a ticket. You would quickly find that that constitutes assault.

Children should learn to say 'no' as soon as possible. Sometimes the 'no' should be overruled, and an explanation provided.

Otherwise it should be respected. Children have rights. As do adults.

Kids should be told and shown that you are disciplining them because you love them.

Here's the thing, TruthOT: abused children don't really care about the rationalizations of their abusers.

They just want the abuse to stop.

[nogodsforme]

^^^^^What u said. 

[Truth OT]

Hi TruthOT,

You don't get it, do you? At least five people have tried to explain it to you, but you appear to trapped in your rationalization of your own childhood abuse, which you perpetuate in your actions as a parent.

Allow me an attempt to get through to you.

The starting point (A) is that when you were a child, you suffered abuse at the hands of those who had authority or power over you.

The end point (B), today, is that you believe that authorities must always be respected and obeyed - and particularly that children must always respect and obey their parents - and that parents are entitled to use violence, and the fear of violence, to enforce respect and obedience.

Do you agree with those statements, TruthOT? I'm basing A on your descriptions of your childhood:

There we have examples of three of the four categories of child abuse: emotional abuse, neglect and physical abuse. And I'm truly sorry that you had to deal with all that stuff. 

So do you agree with my two statements, TruthOT?

First you suffered cruelly in childhood at the hands of authority, now you teach that your authority is always right and must be respected, and you're prepared to be cruel to back it up.

Do you see the contradiction there? Do you see what you've done to resolve it?

So according to you and the likeminded I was abused as a child and because (in my mind), of the apparent normalcy of that abuse when faced with people that view what I experienced as abusive and wrong, I rationalize why it was good and defend it against being wrong despite the fact that such “abuse” is indefensible.
Does it sound like I get now?

Truth is, I’ve gotten your points all along, I just totally disagree with MANY of them. First of all, I was never abused. Do I believe that at times the punishments and discipline I received was excessive and not helpful as far as teaching me or guiding me; yes I do. As opposed to being punished or disciplined, oftentimes I would have “gotten it” by simply being told what to do or what not to do and then having an explanation as to the “whys” of it all given to me that met my satisfaction and everything would have been gravy and no punishment would have been necessary to get my compliance unless of course I disagreed with their explanation’s logic. After all, just because I was their child didn’t mean that they had the right to make me do things that I didn’t want to do or threaten me with punishment if I didn’t comply with their parental demands. My civil rights were violated as I was free after all………

On a serious note, as much as I hate many rules and believe that rules are for the societal deviants and the ignorant or stupid of our number, I do believe that the overwhelming majority of the time that authorities are to be respected and obeyed. Children especially should submit to the authority of those entrusted with their care. Parents and other authorities have the innate right, because of their role and responsibility to use the best measures available to them to properly rear the kids entrusted to their care. Should they be able to bludgeon their kids mercilessly or abuse them on a whip? Of course not, but they should be free to discipline and train their kids as they see fit recognizing that there is a difference between punishments and spankings (things that can be done out of love and concern) compared with punches to the face, choking, and verbal abuse.

So, as a child I was subjected to those that had authority over me and since childhood I have believed that authorities must be respected (whether I agree with them or not) and the rules set in place by them should be obeyed in most instances. I do not teach nor do I believe that authority is always right. I do teach though that authorities, whether right or wrong should be respected. Authorities can be wrong and in those cases it is foolish and can even be immoral to obey it.

First, you've identified with your abusers, and blamed yourself instead of them. Many abused children do this as a survival strategy; they find it preferable to believe that their ill-treatment is their fault, because the alternative explanation, that they are actually at the mercy of cruel monsters, is too terrifying to consider. So they think that their parents are good and right, while they themselves are bad and wrong. They may then grow up and repeat the cruel behaviour of their parents, in the sincere belief that these methods are good.

By being brought up in an authoritarian culture, you've become authoritarian. Authority is good, in and of itself. Authority must be obeyed. Disobedience or disrespect of authority by children, the worst crime, must be punished with violence.

This is bullshit, TruthOT. It's bullshit because of the simple fact that sometimes, people in authority abuse their power. As I'm sure you know. You said that children should respect, revere, and even fear their parents as well as other authority figures in their lives. But only if they deserve respect - and some don't.

If a priest or a teacher attempts to sexually abuse a child, should the child obey and respect this authority figure? Should people respect and obey corrupt police officers, or judges, or politicians?

In which case, why are you teaching your children to obey authority? By doing so, you actually leave your children susceptible to abuse - because some authorities are corrupt.

Your psychological evaluation of me leaves much to be desired Gnu. First off, your blame game analysis is overstated. The times I got whippings, I NEVER thought it was my fault. Secondly, I never felt that I needed to employ a “survival strategy.” People who do not feel safe employ such strategies; I always felt safe, protected, and loved, and never felt abused either physically or emotionally. I totally trusted my mother and was convinced by her actions that she consistently had my best interests at heart and placed those interests above her own interests. Where I’m from we call that a mother’s love, not ill-treatment of a “cruel monster.” Finally, I thought my folks were generally good and right and I thought the same about myself. I never viewed us as being on opposing sides where one was good and the other was evil. We, my family, in each of our eyes was considered a unit working towards the same ends that had a structure in place that authority and the bulk of responsibility towards reaching that ends to the parents. Sometimes they got out of line and sometime I did as well, the main difference between us was that they had the authority to “order my steps” by enforcing disciplinary action.

As far as authority goes, it behooves a person to have a healthy respect for authority. Having an attitude of general defiance can lead a person into thinking it’s okay to make some messed up life decisions and finding them at the mercy of those authorities they never respected. So, teaching children to obey and submit to authority is not bullshit, it’s prudent. We disagree on the aspect of only giving respect where it is deserved. I believe that respect need not be earned and that as people, we ought to respect others simply because it is the right thing to do and bigger than the subjectivity of that belief, being a respecting person is a reflection on you, your family, etc. In my house I teach that people are to be treated well because that is how WE treat people regardless of whether they deserve it or not.
As I said earlier, children are generally not stupid. They can see and understand the fact that the unscrupulous who are in positions of power can abuse their authority. In these cases they have enough sense to know that though they should still show respect, they need not obey and allow the authority to steer them down the wrong path.

What you should be teaching your children is the concept of bodily integrity - the idea that their bodies belong to them, and that nobody can touch them unless they concur. Which includes teachers, priests, doctors, relatives, friends and yes, parents. Touching someone who doesn't want to be touched constitutes assault. Try puttng your arm around a police officer in a friendly fashion while you're getting a ticket. You would quickly find that that constitutes assault.

Children should learn to say 'no' as soon as possible. Sometimes the 'no' should be overruled, and an explanation provided.

Otherwise it should be respected. Children have rights. As do adults.

Kids should be told and shown that you are disciplining them because you love them.

Here's the thing, TruthOT: abused children don't really care about the rationalizations of their abusers.

They just want the abuse to stop.

As far as the concept of teaching bodily integrity, I will basically agree if we are speaking of a sexual context. However, if I let my kids involve themselves in an activity where someone is responsible for them performing and behaving, that person or those persons should have the authority to discipline them if they violate stated rules or guidelines. 

Kids don't need to be taught to say "no", that's usually the 1st word they begin using with any regularity. They need to be taught to critically think.

You aren't giving kids enough credit Gnu. To many kids, explanations do matter significantly. For me, not getting an explanation in some instances once I got older would have likely resulted in me not allowing my mother to go through with a punishment.

[Traveler]

...Kids don't need to be taught to say "no", that's usually the 1st word they begin using with any regularity. They need to be taught to critically think...

Kids need both. Kids have shown over and over and over again, that they have trouble saying no to people who have authority over them. Teachers, coaches, ministers, parents, other relatives ... kids allow these people to abuse them because they can't say no to those people. They've been taught by society that they're to be obeyed. So when one of them says this is a "special love" they give in to it. This is a bad thing. As for critical thinking, the brain takes time to develop, and although I don't recall when critical thinking is possible, you don't come out of the womb having the capacity for it. A child needs protection and simple mechanisms to protect them until they're capable of critical thinking. And they need the confidence to assert their rights.

[nogodsforme]

Many people who are abused don't recognize it as abuse. Whatever your family/community does is normal, and you just accept it. Most abused folk never go into therapy or self-help programs or any of that. Most probably never come to terms with what was done to them as children. Beatings and whippings--or worse-- were just part of childhood.

But you can often see the results in their behavior--repeating the abuse of others, depression, alcohol and drugs to control the distress, dysfunctional relationships. And justifying what your childhood abusers did as correct, deserved and if not loving and caring, at least character-building. I was the same way until my late 20's.

So many times have I discussed this topic with other black people and heard, "Well, I got the strap, paddle, belt, switch, ironing cord, etc and I turned out all right." And, "If I don't discipline my children properly they will just end up wild hooligans." 

I have actually had black parents tell me that white kids can be raised without physical violence but that will just spoil black children because they will have to live in a tougher world. WTF? How many people end up in gangs, being criminals and going to prison because they were not hit often enough? Please.

When I tell other black parents they should not hit their kids, I get huge blowback. It is like I have said that we should turn our kids over to wolves to raise. How can we guide or train our kids if we can't hit them with a belt, or at least threaten to do it? My argument is that we are so harsh on our kids because of the need to assert power and authority over someone weaker.

If I have to control you by force, it means I have lost power. It is like being a slavemaster over a slave--think of the kind of environment where it is acceptable or appropriate to use physical pain or fear of it to get someone else to behave the way you want. Would you want to be in that kind of environment as an adult? No. Not cool.

It is possible to raise kids (even black kids!) without hitting or threatening. You can set up your home, life and car so as to minimize the opportunities for your kids to screw up, for starters. Stuff as simple as moving attractive breakables out of reach for a few years, having some crayons and paper in the car, tucking a tiny surprise toy in the purse for the wait at the dentist or doctor, heading off the tantrums at the store ("You can mention that you like something but if you beg for it or touch it you will definitely not get it. If you cooperate we will get a little treat to share. Let's think of three things we might get for a treat. ")

I have never hit my kid, and she is not an easy child-- she is her mother's daughter, after all. But planning beforehand how to handle situations has worked very well.[1]

I see parents out with small kids who behave like they have never taken a child to a doctor appointment or store or DMV before in their lives. Of course 4-year olds can't sit for half an hour with nothing to do. Of course they will find some way to entertain themselves and will make any available object (or person) into a toy. And they will get into trouble, the parent yelling and smacking the kid's hands. Everyone is stressed out and upset.

Instead of all that, why not give them a piece of paper and a pencil and tell them to trace around their hands and then take off their shoes and have them trace their feet. Take a pen and draw a face on each of their fingers and have the kid tell you a story about the little people.....Sometimes my daughter and I started having too much fun in public and my husband had to tell us both to behave! 

My mantra for restless kids is: Distract them, don't hit them.

1.	I have had to give up on the idea that she should treat me with the kind of "respect" ie fear that I was taught. I don't want her to treat me like a scary boss, ie never "talk back". But I have emphasized that she should speak to me the way she would want me to speak to her.

[Truth OT]

NoGods, you make some good points. I especially like the idea of structuring settings that minimizes opportunities for misbehavior. I also agree that it would be wrong to physically lash out at a child for acting up in public when the child has never been taught how to act in public. In such cases, it is the parent that ought to be scared of getting a beating.

A dirty little secret that a lot of older black parents like mines (they're in their 70's) don't admit publically is that for the most part, they believed that a lot of white parents were not good parents and actually had bad ass kids that they could control. I have heard mothers talking on the phone with their girlfriends and saying things like:

- "My child is crazy if she thinks she go be embarrassing me in public and talking back to me telling me what she ain't go do like them white kids do to their parents."

I think a lot of folks in my culture are ignorant to the fact that black or white, the average folks aren't really all that different. Not all or even most white kids are belligerant towards their parents, bar their parents from entering their rooms as if their parents aren't the ones that pay the bills, or are overtly rebellious. Such are just steriotypes that are believed by a large number within the black community. 

If I have to control you by force, it means I have lost power. It is like being a slavemaster over a slave--think of the kind of environment where it is acceptable or appropriate to use physical pain or fear of it to get someone else to behave the way you want. Would you want to be in that kind of environment as an adult? No. Not cool.

Controlling another is something that is generally frowned upon, but at times mandated. Using force is a lazy or last resort tool in my mind. Generally, psychological manipulation tactics are employed and who's to say that such tactics are any less harmful than the threat of a physical price?
My conditioning has greatly influenced my "respect" for the physical means of behavior control. Not only was such a mechanism pervasive in my culture, but being that I had been an athlete my whole life, it was further reinforced. Physical pain was employed everyday as a motivator and it worked like a charm!

[nogodsforme]

People so often seem to think that other groups, races, etc are somehow getting away with something. White kids get away with disrespecting their parents, doing drugs and spending money; white parents get away with absent parenting and lax discipline. Black kids get away with failing in school, having sex and being hoodlums; black parents get away with neglect and child abuse. Etc.

Actually, everyone is pretty much trying to do the right thing. And for the most part we do. That's what holds everything together. Most of the time, most people mostly do right.

[Truth OT]

People so often seem to think that other groups, races, etc are somehow getting away with something. White kids get away with disrespecting their parents, doing drugs and spending money; white parents get away with absent parenting and lax discipline. Black kids get away with failing in school, having sex and being hoodlums; black parents get away with neglect and child abuse. Etc.

Actually, everyone is pretty much trying to do the right thing. And for the most part we do. That's what holds everything together. Most of the time, most people mostly do right.

Ignorance and acceptance of oft unsubstantiated biases has proven to be a great divider.

[nogodsforme]

Another Beautiful Kumbayah Moment
--brought to you by those devil-worshipping baby-eating goat-fornicating atheists at WWGHA.

[Mr. Blackwell]

Please accept my apologies for the lengthy delay. I have found it difficult to find many studies on the positive effects of spanking. It seems all the science has been bent towards disproving the prevailing conventional wisdom and not the other way around. It is difficult for me to view the lack of comprehensive studies, by the scientific community, in support of spanking as a natural unbiased phenomena. It has also been difficult for me to keep the scope, of my understanding of the issue, limited to the issue of child care without trying to relate it to bigger social issues. Check that, it is impossible to keep the scope of the conversation limited only to the psychological impact on the child without taking into consideration the overall impact of our decisions on society as a whole.

There has been a long steady campaign initiated by educated *elites* and supported by the state  designed to erode parental authority not just in the US but in Europe as well. Starting in the US in the middle of the 1800's

Influence over children and education shifts from parents to government authorities (C 82-83):
? “Throughout the second half of the nineteenth century, education reformers, bureaucrats and teachers’ organizations pushed to increase their powers” over children and public schools.
 
? California State Superintendent of Public Instruction writes, “The child should be taught to consider his instructor, in many respects, superior to the parent in point of authority … [T]he vulgar impression that parents have a legal right to dictate to teachers is entirely erroneous.”
 
? Wisconsin Teachers Association asserts that children are the property of the state.

[1]

The separation of parental authority was further deepened by such child rearing advice that mothers should maintain a certain level of emotional detachment from their children lest they become too needy.[2] J.B. Watson recommended that the world would benefit from extinguishing pregnancies for twenty years while enough data was gathered to ensure an efficient child-rearing process.[3]

By the 1950s, young parents increasingly relied on childrearing professionals like Dr. Spock to understand how to raise children.    Dr. Spock opposed such reliance, saying:
 
"In the 20th century parents have been persuaded that the only people who know for sure how children should be managed are the child psychiatrists, psychologists, teachers, social workers and pediatricians—like myself.  This is a cruel deprivation that we professionals have imposed on mothers and fathers. . . . We didn’t realize, until it was too late, how our know-it-all attitude was undermining the self-assurance of parents. . . . And because this is a forward-looking, innovative country, there has always been less respect for the wisdom of the older generation."

In 1857 "professionals" decided that the way the older generation educated their youth was insufficient despite all the progress that was achieved and advances that were made during the previous 200 years and founded the National Education Association. 127 years later  the The National Commission on Excellence in Education releases its report, “A Nation at Risk,” declaring America’s “educational institutions seem to have lost sight of the basic purposes of schooling, and of the high expectations and disciplined effort needed to attain them,” and warning of a “rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people.”

At this time I would like to draw your attention to Sweden. They banned all forms of corporal punishment in 1979.

Anti-spanking laws are proposed and passed with the hope that they will create a “cultural pillover” of non-violence, and a society that does not need correction.  For instance, when Italy’s Supreme Court declared spanking unlawful, it said the very expression “correction of children” was both “culturally anachronistic and historically outdated.” While such lawmaking may seem harmless, even commendable, the empirical data indicate that a spanking ban is a grave mistake.  With spanking bans have come increased rates of child abuse, aggressive parenting, and youth violence. Indeed, criminal records suggest that children raised under a spanking ban are much more likely to be involved in crime than other children. This makes sense.  To function well in society, children need to learn that misbehavior has negative consequences. But not every child learns this the same way. If one child learns best about misbehavior through physical punishment, he should receive a spanking.  If another learns this best through mental punishment, she should get a timeout. To keep any helpful discipline method from a child may restrict his ability to mature, and could make him an unnecessary burden on society. Yet many people want to deprive children of spanking, even though the most sound research suggests it is not harmful, and is often more helpful than other common discipline methods. On average, spanking seems to reduce aggression, defiance, and antisocial behavior better than mental punishments like timeout, reasoning, privilege removal, threats, verbal power assertion, ignoring, love withdrawal, or diverting.

My contention is that CP is abusive because of the psychological harm which it often causes, not because of the physical harm,<snip>...it seems reasonable to at least tempmporarily cease this apparently harmful behaviour and investigate further.

What is the psychological harm of isolating children in "time-out" sessions? Hard to say...it's even harder to find scientific studies about the negative effects of "time-out" than it was to find scientific studies which examined the positive effects of spanking. In fact...I couldn't find any. There are experts who advise against using psychological punishments such as time-outs. There arguments are just as persuasive as yours. Susan Stiffelman asserts that Time-outs work. Sort of. They work because unless a child has become hardened and aloof, the experience of being separated from a parent’s comforting presence is unpleasant at best and intolerable at worst. But they come at a price, and eventually they stop working --because they violate one of the three primary drives of a child’s brain: the need for close and secure attachment.

So, should we also suspend time-outs until we have a better understanding of what impact that punishment has on developing young minds? All forms of punishment have a negative psychological impact. If spanking does not cause any physical "damage" then it is in the same category as all the rest is it not?

Or, you could produce evidence that the benefits of CP outweigh the possible harm i.e. you could justify CP, not just personally but generally. You haven't attempted to do this, as you said you would. You haven't made your case at all.

Back to Sweden. From the Introduction

In 2005, a group of thirteen-year-old Swedish boys began terrorizing a family by threatening to kill The family’s son, forcing the mother’s car off the road and ripping open her rear door, publicly humiliating them, damaging and stealing their property, emptying and sabotaging their mailbox, brandishing planks at them, and surrounding them with weapons. Over the next two years, the harassment became so intolerable that the father shot at the group of teens, killing one. Were such a killing to occur in the U.S., the popular reaction would have been, “How can we prevent this from happening again?” In Sweden, however, youth violence and aggression has gotten so out-ofcontrol that the reaction was, “Shoot another [one].” Sadly, many policymakers fail to realize how Swedish laws have contributed to growing youth violence, and consequently, to public resentment of Swedish youths.

And his conclusion

Before October 2007, no more than 10,000 people had ever marched on Sweden’s capital. But after yet another teenager was killed by Swedish teens (this time at a birthday party), an unprecedented 12,000 people swarmed the streets of Stockholm to “say no to violence.” Many others conducted companion marches throughout Sweden. Candles were lit, a moment of silence was held, and thousands mourned over the increasingly common sight of Swedish children killing each other. “Violence is more common today than it was ten years ago. . . . [N]o one should be surprised if 13-year-olds soon bear guns.”
Today, six out of ten Swedish children feel vulnerable at school, and just as many have been victims of youth violence. This is consistent with the dramatic rise in youth violence since Sweden banned
spanking. The very spanking ban that was supposed to help them seems to have betrayed them. And yet, we don’t talk about how many parents either do not or cannot maintain control when physical discipline is banned. We don’t talk about how such parents tend to resort to helpless, aggressive parenting techniques, and even child abuse. Therefore, we don’t talk about how children “are no more protected [under spanking bans] than they were before . . . .” Similarly, we don’t say how the most friendly, stable, and competent children come from “authoritative” families—families that raise children with both love and firm guidance. We don’t say how the most sound, comprehensive research suggests that firm guidance includes at least occasional spanking. And we don’t say how such physical discipline has shown no harmful effects on children.

Think about this for a moment. Just a little over 30 years ago Sweden enacted laws they thought would protect children from violence and lead to a more peaceful society. Now they are more desperate than ever to stem the flow of random acts of violence. Bear in mind that parents do not spank their children for exhibiting good social behavior.

So I stand by what I said. Maybe I should qualify it a little: all CP is wrong because it carries an unacceptable risk of causing long-term psychological harm. There is plenty of evidence to support that position.

Lets talk about risk. In conjunction with efforts by experts in the field of child psychology Michigan has launched a campaign to warn of the dangers of co-sleeping with infants in an effort to reduce the number of SIDS cases in their state. See their ad...



The website www.phdinparenting.com has a humorous but rational response to the campaign.



What are the extremes you are willing to go to, Gnu, to protect children from any and all harm?

Also, there are two issues here. One, the issue of how we personally should treat our children, and two, what we think the law should be (in our respective societies)...<snip>...
So you personally would not behave as he did (and for your information, he struck his daughter about 15 times with equal venom over the following five minutes), and you think that it 'constitutes assault', by which I infer you mean that such behaviour should be criminal.

If so, we're agreed on both those points.

Yet you believe that some violence is acceptable. So your problem is how to distinguish between acceptable violence and unacceptable violence. How exactly do you define that line - personally or legally?

That is the crux of the problem isn't it? Where do we draw the line? Obviously I agree that abuse is bad and leads to anti-social behavior and psychological problems which ultimately effect all aspects of society. However, you view ALL forms of corporal punishment (regardless the reason or method) as *abuse*, whereas I don't. I don't even consider the method I use as particularly violent.

I'm sure that judge believed that he was acting righteously, yet you think his actions constitute assault. Can you explain the exact difference beteween his actions and yours? Bear in mind that the judge could well claim that his actions caused no 'significant injury" - the bruises and weals would heal in time - so he would say that he was administering CP, not being Physically Abusive.

Well, firstly, I don't consider what I do as "righteous". The exact difference is that he yelled, cursed, used a belt, and hit her repeatedly as he continued to threaten her. When I have spanked my child it has been no more than two swats on their behind with my bare hand and did not yell or cuss or threaten. Afterwards I calmly explained to them why I spanked them. These two actions (mine vs. the Judge) are worlds apart.

Yet you couldn't even watch it, JayB. What does that tell you?

I can't stand to see children being assaulted even by a loving parent who believes they are acting in the child's best interest is what it tells me.

There is more I wanted to say but it shall have to wait. I hope this came out coherently enough.

1.	http://www.cblpi.org/ftp/School%20Choice/EdHistory.pdf
2.	http://parenthood.library.wisc.edu/Larzelere/Larzelere.html
3.	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Watson

[jetson]

jayb...we need to move in a better direction as humans when it comes to child protection and safety.  And we are doing just that, as technology improves.  We are saving children's lives because we are getting better at using technology in cars, for example. 

The business of co-sleeping being dangerous - is a load of pure crap.  And it sounds to me like you have been swept up by some conspiratorial bullshit around the safety of children.  In other words, rather than face the very real and damaging effects of physically beating children, as many parents still do, you went down the path of looking into how the less physically violent alternatives could be just as bad?

Of course there will be anecdotal examples of challenges in pretty much everything we do as parents to help raise our children.  But in the end, we are improving, vastly.  The more we cling to ancient ritualistic and social pressures from the past, the harder it is to let go, and start treating our children as human beings, who deserve nothing less than our love and attention as they grow.  Hitting them, for any reason other than literally self-defense against the bigger, stronger children is one thing we can simply eliminate without consideration of the history of corporal punishment on children.  Hitting them is a pointless and harmful alternative.

I'm confused as to why you chose to argue against the alternatives to hitting?  It reminds me of when a creationist tries to tear down the theory of evolution, instead of simply proving that creationism is a better theory.

[screwtape]

Physical pain was employed everyday as a motivator and it worked like a charm!

I that find to be a tragically ironic statement coming from a black man. 

Do you think the casual attitude you describe Black Americans' as having about violence in the home goes back to the violence employed against them as slaves?  Has violence-as-control become a part of Black culture, unconsciously?

[Mr. Blackwell]

I'm confused as to why you chose to argue against the alternatives to hitting?  It reminds me of when a creationist tries to tear down the theory of evolution, instead of simply proving that creationism is a better theory.

I was trying to do both. Gnu's concern is for the psychological harm it causes the child. All forms of punishment cause psychological harm. So should we then cease using all forms of punishment? Many people say yes. I haven't made up my mind yet. And according to the evidence I referenced, spanking is superior to other forms of punishment. So much so that the rate of violent crime in Sweden has increased dramatically since they banned spanking outright.

The conversation becomes more dynamic as a result. We can't just focus only on the impact of the child. There is more to consider.

[Truth OT]

Physical pain was employed everyday as a motivator and it worked like a charm!

I that find to be a tragically ironic statement coming from a black man. 

Do you think the casual attitude you describe Black Americans' as having about violence in the home goes back to the violence employed against them as slaves?  Has violence-as-control become a part of Black culture, unconsciously?

This quote you referenced was not about black culture, but rather the culture of being a participant in athletics where you are consistantly pushed to your physical limits and rewarded/threatened daily with physical pain. The threat of a punishment or the reward of not having to endure additional physical pains served as powerful motivators in that setting.

I can't really speak to the influence of slavery and the slave mentality. I do believe it is reasonable to conclude that a remnant of that mentality can be found in the black culture, but being that we are so many generations removed fom slavery, I think using it as the culprit is scapegoating something that is only a small contributor to what is pervasive today.
There's not a "casual attitude" about violence in the home in the black community generally speaking. In fact, as in non ethnic communities, violence is greatly frowned upon in the black home. (It does appear from what I can see that minorities and ethnicities are more likely to employ violence for some reason). Black folks just generally believe that parents ought to have their kids fully under control and feel that many whites allow their kids to have too long of a leash and tolerate way too much attitude and back talk. 

[albeto]

Black folks just generally believe that parents ought to have their kids fully under control and feel that many whites allow their kids to have too long of a leash and tolerate way too much attitude and back talk.

I find this in the christian homeschooling community to be a priority as well.  The idea of control for the safety of the child is an enormous fear for many christians (especially the born-again type who thrive on emotion, and the "future" includes eterntiy).  If the goal is to raise a child to adulthood with the skills to be independent, self-sufficient and generally respectable as well as emotionally satisfied and mentally healthy, there are different ways to go about doing that.  Control is one way but it carries with it a lot of secondary lessons learned (like how to manipulate others effectively).  Control is coercive by nature.  It can be no other way.  Physical or emotional control is about appeasing the parent's fear.  Teaching a child how to solve problems effectively and socially appropriately requires a different tactic and is more time intensive, but we know the benefits and we respect the child's well-being now rather than ignore it as a kind of rationalization to pursue the lesser of two evils.  I think the "attitude" and "back talk" are subjectively identified by one who expects more control, but I also think it's a testament to an adult who refuses to coerce a child just because they can.

[jetson]

albeto - interesting points.  I want to add some personal opinions.

What is a parent's "duty" to a child other than feeding them and protecting them from harm?  I don't want to derail too much, but I believe that part of the problem we have as humans, is in recognizing that a newborn is an independent person, and does not "belong" to anyone.  Rather, as parents, we should look for ways to nurture our children's ability to take care of itself by teaching it how to think.  I know that babies are fragile, and cannot physically survive on their own, but they are capable of far more than many parents would consider, in the learning department.

We need to find better ways to help our children learn about who we are socially, and how we work together to make our societies as good as we can.  And in my opinion, control is antithetical to accomplishing that goal.  It teaches children that control is how its done, and many of us have learned that control does nothing for the person being "controlled".  It only temporarily satisfies the person who thinks they are in control.

[albeto]

I don't want to derail too much, but I believe that part of the problem we have as humans, is in recognizing that a newborn is an independent person, and does not "belong" to anyone. 

I suspect this idea of belonging isn't unique to Christians but we sure do accept it without question as a society (a person "belongs" to god whether or not they admit it, the potter owns the clay and all that).  The idea of stewardship is strong in the US because of this long-term vision of well-being (heaven or hell), but the idea that a child is an independent person really is quite ignored isn't it?  I wonder how much comes from the reformed theology that came over the pond with the first immigrants that suggests people are born is such a state of depravity they simply cannot be trusted, and self-control is learned only through experience of being controlled. 

It only temporarily satisfies the person who thinks they are in control.

I think that's exactly the issue right there and darn if it doesn't feel like something is getting done.  Not unlike prayer. 

[curiousgirl]

Jay, I wanted to point out an article about another study that discusses the effects of spanking. My bolding below:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1983895,00.html

Among mothers surveyed in 20 cities when their children were both 3 and 5 years old, nearly half (45.6%) reported not spanking their 3-year-olds in the previous month, 27.9% reported spanking once or twice that month, and 26.5% reported spanking more than twice. As 5-year-olds, the children who had been spanked were more likely than the nonspanked to be defiant, demand immediate satisfaction of their wants and needs, become frustrated easily, have temper tantrums and lash out physically against other people or animals.

 
The reason for this may be that spanking sets up a loop of bad behavior. Corporal punishment instills fear rather than understanding. Even if children stop tantrums when spanked, that doesn't mean they get why they shouldn't have been acting up in the first place. What's more, spanking sets a bad example, teaching children that aggressive behavior is a solution to their parents' problems.

I find it strange that your source said that spanking reduces aggression and defiance, when this study says that it actually increases it.

This study is a reputable one, as it was published in the journal Pediatrics. Here is a link to the study:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/5/e1057.full.pdf

[Mr. Blackwell]

I find it strange that your source said that spanking reduces aggression and defiance, when this study says that it actually increases it.

This study is a reputable one, as it was published in the journal Pediatrics. Here is a link to the study:

I saw that article as I was researching all this and I find it strange as well. The source I used, and the meta analysis he cited for his report are also reputable, cover more time and include more people for a more comprehensive look at the problem.

[curiousgirl]

Jay, you said this earlier:

It seems all the science has been bent towards disproving the prevailing conventional wisdom and not the other way around. It is difficult for me to view the lack of comprehensive studies, by the scientific community, in support of spanking as a natural unbiased phenomena.

Now, do you think that rather than implying that the scientific community is biased, you could admit that you could possibly be wrong about spanking being positive? After all, there really are numerous studies that conclude that spanking has negative effects. I highly doubt that people are making that up.

[albeto]

Now, do you think that rather than implying that the scientific community is biased, you could admit that you could possibly be wrong about spanking being positive? After all, there really are numerous studies that conclude that spanking has negative effects. I highly doubt that people are making that up.

What a perfect example of the value of scientific methodology v. personal experience to explain nature. 

Spot on, cg

[jetson]

Jay, you said this earlier:

It seems all the science has been bent towards disproving the prevailing conventional wisdom and not the other way around. It is difficult for me to view the lack of comprehensive studies, by the scientific community, in support of spanking as a natural unbiased phenomena.

Now, do you think that rather than implying that the scientific community is biased, you could admit that you could possibly be wrong about spanking being positive? After all, there really are numerous studies that conclude that spanking has negative effects. I highly doubt that people are making that up.

I was rather surprised by this conclusion from jayb.  I did not expect the "science conspiracy" approach.

[Traveler]

I've done just a tiny bit of searching on the Swedish studies, and admit to not getting very far yet. I'm preparing for t-day dinner and a show and so on, so am rather busy.

I have a number of questions about it though. Is making spanking illegal all they looked at? What about the parents? Were they properly trained in alternate methods of child-rearing? Were the parents nervous about government intervention, causing an uncomfortable emotional climate in the home? Did this destroy the parent's confidence that they knew what was ok and what wasn't? What I'm trying to say is that eliminating spanking BY ITSELF, without proper education about alternatives, might create an atmosphere of chaos or uncertainty among parents who know no other way. That uncertainty seems more likely to cause childhood problems then the non-violence itself. I was raised in a non-violent home. Quite frankly, I was a very sensitive kid. Still am, I suppose. I'be been told it's my artistic temperament.  I firmly believe that if I'd been spanked it would have crushed my spirit.

[curiousgirl]

Jay, one of the researchers (Catherine A. Taylor, PhD) in the study I provided actually won an award for this study:

http://www.savirweb.org/assets/312_ctaylor82010.pdf

Honors and Awards
2010 Faculty of 1000 Medicine: “Mothers' spanking of 3-year-old children and subsequent risk of children's aggressive behavior, Pediatrics, 2010” F1000 rating
(6.0) which means landmark article within a sub-specialty or an important article across the specialty. (F1000 Identifies and evaluates the most important articles published in Medicine based on the recommendations of a Faculty of over 2000 peer-nominated leading researchers and clinicians)

In other words, that research is held in high regard by the scientific community.

[jetson]

In other words, that research is held in high regard by the scientific community.

But that wouldn't matter much if one thinks it's all a conspiracy!

[Truth OT]

albeto - interesting points.  I want to add some personal opinions.

What is a parent's "duty" to a child other than feeding them and protecting them from harm?

This is the big question indeed! Are parents overstepping the boundaries of their rights as parents when the attempt to control and manipulate their children into thinking a certain way or becoming a certain type of person? In other words, how much parental influence is too much influence?

[curiousgirl]

Albeto and Jetson, I am glad that you agree with me. I should think that the scarcity of studies that conclude that spanking is positive should cause Jay to question spanking as a good method of discipline. After all, we rely upon science every single day (flu shots, cell phones, etc), and to suddenly question it is illogical.