People who won’t lay hand or switch on bare bottom embrace a completely different parenting philosophy than those who will.
< snark >
Do you regard the physical discipline of children as a “dirty word”? Are you also a Darwinist?
Yeah, I thought so.
While the pairing of these views is not surprising, it IS ironic. After all, evolutionists claim that humans are so-called animals; yet, “can you think of an animal that doesn’t at times use violence?” Even though human babies are *NOT* monkeys, they are “violent, disagreeable little creatures.”
Permissive parents would have us believe that we need only “reason” with our children when they misbehave. Common sense – backed up by new research being reported by The New American magazine and Fox News - says that such an approach will fail every time. As one “cursory observation of babies and toddlers informs,” children require physical discipline.
It’s just logical.
Think about it.
If it’s true that individuals can be ”reasoned” out of destructive behavior, why not just eliminate our military? (Think of all the money we could save!)
And, what about criminals like bank robbers? Can we simply cajole such individuals into compliance? Or, do we need policemen to apply force and put them behind bars where they belong?
Clearly, terrorists, bank robbers and children would be running rampant in a world run by liberal ideologues. Oh, wait. They are… and it is. :(
< / snark >
Tip of the hat and crack of the switch to: The New American
But if I spank my kids, how will they ever grow up to be good bank robbers and be able to finance their terrorist activities?
Nance
I’m more concerned about all the animal beating that must be going on, to domesticate and keep K-9 bomb sniffers, therapy horses and other service animals in line and doing our bidding as they obviously are, even though it’s not in their nature.
OTOH, at least they aren’t dragged to church and made to behave in abominably unnatural-to-animal-life ways, as unfortunate “raw humanity” is — speaking of which, if raw humanity is animalistic and hasn’t fully become human yet, maybe this attitude justifies reproductive biology at the truly raw developmental level (early cell division a couple of weeks after conception, say?) and we ought to point that out?
You can’t reason with a zygote. Don’t let it push you around.
I hope this doesn’t get me smacked, but….
It is harder to use reason and logical consequences to parent. I happen to think spanking is the lazy parent’s go-to response. I say that, and at the same time admit that I was spanked as a child (although I loved my parents then and now — though they are deceased now). I also admit that I spanked my then pre-school aged son once, instantly regretted it, and have not yet forgiven myself for resorting to it in the first place.
Reading that article makes me a bit ill. Upon further looking, I discovered that the institution funding the study, Calvin College, is a fundy college in Michigan. They have a vested interest in spreading the gospel according to Pearl. What a crock of shit.
I’m in Audrey’s club of parents spanked as children by their own parents (who they loved and are now deceased) but sick at the thought of raising their own children that way.
I’d like to think there’s a natural human progression (as opposed to regression) in each generation being more enlightened and doing less hitting, shaming, controlling and indoctrinating than was done to them. I’m not a grandmother yet but the idea that my children will someday progress beyond my parenting best is a GREAT one imo, not cause to feel they are betraying me . . .
Hi Lynn! Great post.
This is a messy subject. My three children are all grown now, were (almost) never spanked, and are all good, kind, productive people with no more than the usual quota of issues and problems. Between them, they have three high school diplomas, 2.5 college degrees, 2.5 jobs, 0 criminal records, 0 unwanted pregnancies and 0 STDs. (When I can convince the final one to move out, they will all be perfect, IMHO.)
Only an idiot thinks you can “reason” with a baby or a toddler. However, it does not follow that using violence is the way to raise children. Small children do need to be restrained from time to time, and given plenty of age-appropriate opportunities to learn that actions have consequences.
I suppose that the occasional swat on the backside is unlikely to do serious long-term damage, but there are many problems with this. For one, some people use studies based on mild physical disipline to justify severe beatings (why do these folks so often seem to turn out to be religious conservatives?)–. For another, I am not aware of any study that demonstrates the superiorty of mild physical discipline over intelligent and consistently-applied non-violent measures. I strongly suspect that the “odd swat” theory of discipline is proportionately just as bad as a severe beating, but that (being mild intead of horrific) the bad results are too minor to be measurable. Finally, I am opposed to teaching children that violence should ever be the first resort for anything, or the subsidiary lesson that might makes right.
Bottom line, spanking, at best, probably doesn’t do anything positive, but has negative effects that vary from negligible to severe.
Tom C.
Good observation. :) You’d think that if spanking was so darned effective, the practice wouldn’t be so limited to one segment of the population.
On occasion, I’ve mentioned that one of the more interesting I found while attending my first Christian homeschooling conventions is the lavish attention given to defending spanking (and condemning homosexuality). Often, discussion of academics took a back seat to the preoccupation with child discipline, especially as it related to the same themes from the article.
JJ:
I’d like to think that, too, JJ. That’s my problem with “timeless” scripture verses that put a grinding halt to that process. :(
And of course “timeless” really just means newly ignorant, very spiritually immature if not downright foolish. I don’t think that’s what the teachings about coming like a child to Jesus were meant to impart, were they? If Christian fundamentalism is quite literally meant as itentional ignorance and spiritual stunting for the individual and the whole of human creation, then let’s call it what is is openly and be done with it!
All this depressing talk of devolution made me remember this classic quote Young Son chose to describe how he sees that mindset:
Audrey:
Good points, Audrey. The reasoned approach also requires perspective, self-control and maturity that not everybody has. Most spanking parents seem to use hitting as a “go-to response” or a “first resort” (as Tom put it) or a way to vent anger.
So many interesting points, JJ.
And, you probably noticed the irony in the New American article, too:
So, even while citing the “science” (quotes, his) that backs up the author’s itentionally ignorant beliefs, he exalts “common sense” – confirmed by Bible verses, of course – over science. All while crawling crablike toward darkness.
Somehow, I missed that post about Young Son. You have such extraordinary children, you know. :)
You have such extraordinary children, you know.
Why thank you! I imagine that comes mainly from being treated as extraordinary? ;-)
Most spanking parents seem to use hitting as a “go-to response” or a “first resort” (as Tom put it) or a way to vent anger.
But this article was so disturbing because it wasn’t that. It was like a Limbaugh or Robertson screed put together in cold, calculating political fashion to justify the unjustifiable and make human the inhumane.
OP: I could be daff (lord knows I have been told lol) but that made absolutely no sense what so ever…