Spanking Controversy Pt III - The Research Is In

Twenty years ago, there might have still been grounds for debating the pros and cons of spanking. Now the research is in, the brain scans of adults who were spanked can be compared to brain scans of those who were not spanked. You can find all of this stuff online. It's pretty amazing.

The main arguments against these findings can be found on religious forums, where people always bring up the bible quote, "spare the rod, spoil the child". I wonder why they don't use the bible quote that says, "If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, ... then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders ... They shall say to the elders of his town, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us.' Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death."

We see what the Old Testament says, now let's see what research and observation says:

"Brain scans show structural and biochemical changes that affect social behavior:

• Cell death in the anterior cingulate gyrus affects a child's ability to moderate fear and to empathise. Changes in the brain's pathways affect a child's ability to manage stress and being more prone to being impulsive, aggressive and/or anxious. Long term changes to the adrenaline systems in the brain affect the ability to think clearly. Impairment in the brain stem has been linked to ADHD, depression and impaired attention. It also leads to more aggression and irritability. 

• decrease in size of the corpus callosum causing manic shifts in mood states

• reduced amygdala and hippocampus resulting in depression, irritability and hostility; and poor memory function

• affects the GABA system making a child feel unsafe and constantly living in a state of alarm"

Spanking inflicts damage that causes precisely what spanking claims to prevent.

"I was raised with spanking, and I turned out fine". So everyone says flippantly.

But, I sometimes wonder if I might have been an even better person without that spanking and dominance.

What if I was treated in childhood as the rational, curious, and peaceful human being I've always been?

The main thing I recall about getting spanked is my bitterness about the unfairness of being spanked.

I most vividly recall the few times when I was spanked or punished unfairly. That made the biggest impression on me.

The unfairness of lashing out. The meaninglessness of it. The loss of respect it gave me for adults in general.

"Violence (abusive words, threats of violence, or even withdrawal of affection in the form of "time outs") inflicted by their closest relatives and caretakers has a long-lasting and horrifying effect. These children grow up with the idea that, when another person's behavior is displeasing to them, violent acts or words against that person are appropriate ways to deal with feelings of displeasure. In short, members of each adult generation tend to reproduce in their interpersonal relationships, the violence which they experienced in their childhood."

"Aggressive children often become aggressive adults, who often produce more aggressive children, in a cycle that endures generation after generation.

Corporal punishment always figures prominently in the roots of adolescent and adult aggressiveness, especially in those manifestations that take anti-social form, such as delinquency and criminality."

"Mistreatment of children, beginning at infancy, perpetrated by parents and other primary caregivers, is what infects children with the virus of violence.

In much the same way that it interferes with the bonding between child and parent, it stunts the child's ability to become socially integrated with the larger law-abiding community. It handicaps the child with a lifetime supply of anger. It makes every future irritation seem a mortal attack,

every delay of gratification a personal insult. It models for the child no essential problem-solving skills, but instead, selfishness, aggression, rage, tyranny. It makes escape by means of alcohol and drugs appear an option irresistible to many. The worse, and the earlier the mistreatment, the more severe the outcome."

These are all quotes from psychologists who have done work researching the roots of criminal violent behavior.

The complaint will be that these doctors are mostly talking about severely abused children, and that "light spanking" is not the same thing. 

But, "light spanking" or "heavy spanking" is only a difference in degree, not a difference in type. Like, we're not talking about full-blown cancer, it's okay to have just a little bit of cancer. A little bit of cancer doesn't really hurt that much.

My question is, "why not try love and reasoning"? 

There are all kinds of websites online that are dedicated to raising children without ANY violence or threats.

Peace & Love,

Rick

PS - There is a growing mountain of scientific evidence for avoiding all spanking, even so-called "paddling" or "swatting".

Lots of non-violent parenting groups out there.

Parent Effectiveness Training

Spanking Controversy Pt II

A pat on the butt is at least 4 things to a child;

1. Most importantly, it is a withdrawal of love or at least a threat of such withdrawal. 

That's a scary thing to a child whose life literally depends on primary care givers.

2. It is a threat of greater violence to come, if they don't blindly (obediently) follow the adult's wishes and whims.

3. It is a shutting down and discouragement of rational discussion. A lesson that frustration justifies force. A lesson that rational discourse and search for compromise is only useful up to the point when impatience calls for forceful "action".

4. It is a lesson that they don't need to learn their boundaries, because someone else will always be there to swat them when they go too far. They learn the opposite of self-control and empathy for others. By stopping wild behavior with irrational hitting, future wild behavior is reinforced. And they learn to self-attack instead of self-control. The seeds of self-hatred are sown.

Children should be taught to control their behavior using their own intelligence and judgment. Children should not be taught to "be obedient".  Obedience is a large part of what is wrong with the world.

I'd rather err on the side of being "too gentle" and "too reasonable" than making the mistake of teaching children that force and threats of force are acceptable options for settling disputes and misunderstandings.

I know the argument, "children are hard to reason with, so you have to use a bit of force for their own good and safety". Then why don't we give a little whack to a retarded person to get them to respond to our wishes or reasoning? For his own good. Why don't we use a little whack for grandma when she is acting a little crazy? For her own good. How about a little whack from your boss when you resist or hesitate to follow his confusing orders?

If it's proper and useful for you to swat a child to "get his attention", why don't we encourage kids to swat us when they want something and we won't listen? Why is it okay for us, but wrong for them? Kids get the message that we don't know we're sending: It's right for us because we're bigger, smarter, stronger, and richer than them. So, because kids get this lesson, they grow up and start to use force and manipulative bullying behavior as soon as they get bigger, smarter, stronger, and richer. 

Why, when kids are expressing frustration, anger, impatience, or disrespect - why is it okay for us to swat them instead of spending time figuring out the causes of their negative feelings? Why can't they "paddle" us when we are angry, frustrated, etc? If the argument is that we are responsible for the children and they are not responsible for us, that is so very correct. And that responsibility dictates that we act with all the intelligence, love, and respect we can muster. And when we are at our wits end we ought to blame ourselves, not the child. 

Children do not choose to have you as a parent, you are the one who chose to have a child. There is absolutely no ground to stand on when culture says, "children should honor and love their parents". Baloney. You can't command true love and respect. Like anyone else, parents have to earn love and respect. The reasonable and moral rule is the exact opposite of what is commonly taught. Parents have an obligation to love, respect, and care for their children until the age when they can take care of themselves. Because the parents chose the child, the child did not choose the parents. Parents have no excuse that they are "too tired" or "too busy" to learn how to give proper care and love to their children. Kids are busy too. They are busy learning about life. What's more important, your trip to the grocery store, your phone call conversation, ... or your child's healthy mental development? You owe your child your time and patience, not the other way around. I repeat; you chose them, they didn't choose you.

"I don't have time to use logic and love, it's easier to give a quick little swat". This is weird reasoning. If you get to have the excuse that you are too busy, too tired, too distracted, etc., to take time to carefully figure out the root of a child's bad behavior, then you have no right blaming a child for anything they do. They also are tired, busy, distracted, ... If it's a good excuse for you, then why not for them? AND it's not their fault; it's your fault if they never were given the tools and training and EXAMPLE of how to act differently. 

It's barbaric to blame children for their lack of understanding and patience. You are responsible for everything they have learned, for better or worse (even if they learned it from cartoons, movies, daycare, school, or "popular culture").

Popular Culture is the last place to go for this kind of knowledge. Popular Culture is a purveyor of mistakes, lies, and made-up crap. (The biggest lie is that we ought to revere culture and never question the "wisdom" it passes down.) You have to see what actual evidence has been found and studied.

Emotional Physical Development Of Children Who Get Paddled

The ideas that I am encouraging here are inspired by Stefan Molyneux at FreeDomainRadio.com

Spanking Controversy Pt I

A friend of mine defended spanking on her Facebook page, so I had to reply.

She wrote back to me after I said, "all spanking is wrong, period".

okay I can tell your really serious about this and....maybe I shouldn't have said the word spanking, is swatting on the butt a spanking??guess it depends on one's definition..I think a swat when all else fails doesn't hurt and it gets my grandson's attention...

I replied:

Yes, I am serious about this. I doubt if any other topic is more serious. Wars, depressions, murders, rapes, all criminal behavior and social problems in the "adult" world stem from negative experiences in childhood. You look at a jerk in the bar or an idiot co-worker, you are seeing the scars of childhood. You look at wars and corporate greed, you are seeing the effect of a long causal chain that starts with the evils inflicted on children who grow up with dark shadows in their brains. 

When we look at ourselves and the times we disappoint ourselves, we are looking at our own scars from things we learned in childhood. NOT just things consciously taught and not just from parents, but from peers, teachers, baby-sitters, books, movies, and TV. It's a cultural meme that we are up against, and it's permanently etched on our brains. We need to raise a new generation that is free of the "might makes right" meme.

The Institute for Psychohistory

http://www.psychohistory.com/

The Psychohistory website examines the childhood experiences of evil tyrants and war-mongers throughout history. Guess what? From Stalin to Hitler to Pol Pot to Saddam Hussein, from the World Wars to the modern-day Mid-East wars, ... all have deep roots traced back to culturally-approved aggression towards children. We need to evolve beyond this horror.

I have no argument with the short-term "usefulness" of using a swat to get a kid's attention. We know that this works in the short run. But what are the long-term consequences? Are we teaching the child to be even more sneaky and evil? 

Are we teaching the child to swat other children who don't fill their desires? 

Are we teaching children that utility (convenience and usefulness) trumps morality?

Utilitarian arguments replacing moral arguments is how we get all kind of horrors and atrocities throughout history and throughout our present world.

If you read up on this, you'll find that the research numbers on adult violence rooted in childhood trauma DOES NOT find a distinct line between actual "beating" and "light paddling". The line is blurry. You're making a huge presumption to declare that light paddling doesn't hurt, when the research actually points in the other direction. Yes, children are more likely to grow into violent criminals if they experience more violent abuse at a younger age, but there is a fuzzy line dividing "light paddling" and "violent abuse".

If a swat doesn't hurt, why don't we use swats on our husbands, wives, friends, and co-workers? Is it because we can reason with adults? So, if a living creature has a problem with reasoning, we need to resort to swats? What do animal trainers say about swats? What about dealing with brain-damaged adults, or demented and forgetful oldsters? Should we hit them to "guide them" or "get their attention" when they are disobedient or troublesome?

You and I are in no position to have an opinion on this until we study into it quite deeply. I'm just getting started myself. I suggest that you read up on this, and trace the roots of this cultural attitude that says "swatting children is harmless". We also need to track down some good research that has studied into the long term effects of using force on children.

These same arguments have been going on for centuries. It used to be okay to slap or do whatever to someone of lower class. Slowly, we started to recognize that no person has any right to use any aggression against others, except when lives and property are directly threatened. First the lower classes had their rights recognized, then slaves, then women, and now we're working on recognizing children's rights. Funny "strange" that the most helpless humans are the last to be liberated and have culture recognize their right to be respected not threatened. "The husband by the old law, might give his wife moderate correction . . . in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his apprentices or children."

Spanking Leads To Child Aggression And Anxiety, Regardless Of Cultural Norm

10 Reasons Not to Hit Your Child | Ask Dr. Sears

Cities are Cesspools of Socialism?

I got a fiery reply to my offhand Facebook comment that "Cities are cesspools of socialism". I thought I would share my rejoinder.

I wasn't judging city people, I was judging city government. I'm a happy anarchist, looking forward to the day when humans live in a voluntary society based on non-violence, creativity, and free association. (Not that I think I'll see it in my lifetime, but maybe my children's children's children.) I don't put all city people in one basket, and I don't put all small town people in the same basket. There are great people no matter where you go. There also are nasty, brutish, bitter people in every city and every small town. There are opportunities in big cities that are unavailable in small towns, but there are opportunities in small towns that aren't available in big cities.

The US dollar is on the verge of hyper-inflation and possible meltdown. And cities will quickly become disaster areas when food service, water, sewage, trash service, police, fire, and electricity become unreliable because the politics and money that keep all of that running become unstable. I study economics, history, science, politics, and philosophy enough to know that the US empire cannot continue. The more politicians keep propping it up with wars, taxes, laws, cops, jails, guns, bombs, and debt, the harder it will fall. And state and city governments will fall as well. We won't be immune out here in the woods, but we're not totally dependent on government largesse, the way a city is. That's all I was talking about.

"I would prefer a socialistic approach to a capitalistic one, don't you concur?"

I prefer a sociable approach. And socialism is anti-social and violent. I prefer freedom. I don't like politicians pointing guns at my head or threatening to do so.

"After all, if we lived in a communist or socialist country, all of its citizens would be provided for. All would have gainful employment, shelter, food and clothing."

That's what the promise says, but history, logic, and morality say otherwise. I don't mind you living in a socialist society if you choose, but please let me choose to opt out. Socialism and communism are no problem until they use guns to force everyone to conform to their system.

"Instead we live in a capitalistic Republic where profits are put ahead of people."

The "capitalist republic" we live in is a fiction. Both of those words are filled with false premises. The word "republic" is a fiction because I supposedly have "representatives" but they are under no legal or contractual obligation to actually represent my wishes or needs. All government is a fiction in that way; We are obligated to the state, but the state is not obligated to us. The word "capitalist" is also a fiction, because Karl Marx misused the word when he coined it. All "capital" refers to is the tools you use to provide your product or service. So "capitalism" refers to a business which puts money from profits back into its tools and buildings in order to improve products and services. We don't live in a "capitalist" system. The right word is "mercantilism". Mercantilism is a system where politicians take money by force from some of the people and give it to their preferred big donor corporations. A mercantilist system syphons money from the less politically-connected "little guys" in order to fund fat cat politically well-connected donors.