He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
Proverbs 13:24
From The Daily Mail:
Young children who are smacked by their parents grow up to be happier and more successful than those who have never been hit, research claims.Assuming the research is accurate, and considering how vague the term 'smack' is, I would imagine it implies that using physical discipline when necessary is more effective in the long run than being permissive. After 6 years old, the age of the child requires stronger physical punishment that will invariably have a negative effect down the road.
It found that children who are smacked before the age of six perform better at school when they are teenagers.
They are also more likely to do voluntary work and to want to go to university than those who have never been physically disciplined.
But the study also revealed that children who are smacked after the age of six were more likely to exhibit behavioural problems, such as being involved in fights.
This is how the study was done:
Professor Gunnoe questioned 2,600 people about being smacked, of whom a quarter had never been physically chastised.Another defense of physical discipline:
The participants' answers then were compared with their behaviour, such as academic success, optimism about the future, antisocial behaviour, violence and bouts of depression.
Teenagers in the survey who had been smacked only between the ages of two and six performed best on all the positive measures.
Those who had been smacked between seven and 11 fared worse on negative behaviour but were more likely to be academically successful. Teenagers who were still smacked fared worst on all counts.
But psychologist Aric Sigman said: 'The idea smacking and violence are on a continuum is a bizarre and fetished view of what punishment is for most parents.Read the whole thing.
'If it's done judiciously by a parent who is normally affectionate and sensitive to their child, our society should not be up in arms about that. Parents should be taught to distinguish this from a punch in the face.'
Considering the permissiveness that seems to be the norm today in raising children, the only impression an article like this is likely to make is negative. By the same token, even those who agree and even advocate physical discipline agree it should be used judiciously.
As for myself--if I was comfortable with the idea, I wouldn't be using the term "physical discipline" now, would I?
Technorati Tag: Spanking and Corporal Punishment.
4 comments:
Letter of the law or spirit of the law?
The vast majority of professionals agree that child buttock-battering isn’t healthy. A marginal few (mostly religious fundamentalists as those at Calvin) think that child bottom-slapping is good. They use the same selective literalist interpretation of the Bible as was used to justify “witch”-burning, depraved torture methods for those accused of sin and heresy, slavery, racism, wife-beating, oppression of women and a host of other social ills.
Child buttock-battering vs. DISCIPLINE:
Child buttock-battering (euphemistically labeled "spanking","swatting","switching","smacking", "paddling",or other cute-sounding names) for the purpose of gaining compliance is nothing more than an inherited bad habit.
Its a good idea for people to take a look at what they are doing, and learn how to DISCIPLINE instead of hit.
I think the reason why television shows like "Supernanny" and "Dr. Phil" are so popular is because that is precisely what many (not all) people are trying to do.
There are several reasons why child bottom-slapping isn't a good idea. Here are some good, quick reads recommended by professionals:
Plain Talk About Spanking
by Jordan Riak,
The Sexual Dangers of Spanking Children
by Tom Johnson,
NO VITAL ORGANS THERE, So They Say
by Lesli Taylor M.D. and Adah Maurer Ph.D.
Most compelling of all reasons to abandon this worst of all bad habits is the fact that buttock-battering can be unintentional sexual abuse for some children. There is an abundance of educational resources, testimony, documentation, etc available on the subject that can easily be found by doing a little research with the recommended reads-visit www.nospank.net.
Just a handful of those helping to raise awareness of why child bottom-slapping isn't a good idea:
American Academy of Pediatrics,
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
Center For Effective Discipline,
Churches' Network For Non-Violence,
Nobel Peace Prize recipient Archbishop Desmond Tutu,
Parenting In Jesus' Footsteps,
Global Initiative To End All Corporal Punishment of Children,
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
In 26 countries, child corporal punishment is prohibited by law (with more in process). In fact, the US was the only UN member that did not ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Part of the problem I had with the article is that it was not clear what kind of punishment it was referring to and the degree to which the parent resorted to it.
People used to think it was necessary to "spank" adult members of the community, military trainees, and prisoners. In some countries they still do. In our country, it is considered sexual assault if a person over the age of 18 is "spanked", but only if over the age of 18.
For one thing, buttock-battering can vibrate the pudendal nerve, which can lead to sexual arousal. There are multitudinous other physiological ways in which it can be sexually abusive, but I won't list them all here. One can use the resources I've posted if they want to learn more.
Post a Comment