A slant on spanking

A different slant on spanking

By: Meyerhoff, Michael K Volume: 19 Number: 8 ISSN: 07306725
Publication Date: 01-01-2001 Page: 8 Type: Periodical Language: English

Perspectives on Parenting

If you are an alert parent, you probably have surmised that professionals in
the field of psychology have reached something of a consensus on the subject of
spanking. 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. 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. 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.

Well, I guess that forces me to stand apart from the crowd. In my opinion,
this across-the-board condemnation of spanking is based more on personal
attitudes than professional studies. 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. I have yet to see anything so
substantial and convincing that it would cause me to jump on the anti-spanking
bandwagon.

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
to as "adultomorphism." The experience is interpreted through the mental and
emotional processes of an adult - mental and emotional processes that are
entirely different than those employed by a young child. It is highly
inappropriate to project one's own thoughts and feelings into the heart and
head of a two-year-old; and most conclusions drawn as a result are highly
likely to be grossly erroneous.

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."
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.

Meanwhile, my anti-anti-spanking position is not without solid support. As a
researcher with the Harvard Preschool Project, I had the opportunity to
participate in the most comprehensive and extensive study of early development
ever performed. Furthermore, I had the opportunity to look at experiences
that produced "optimal" outcomes as well as those that produced "problems."
We had no pre-set notions. We merely observed what happened in families of all
kinds.

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,
the kids were spanked from time to time - especially in the period from about
18 months to three years of age. The spankings were not frequent, nor were they
brutal, and they never involved paddles, switches, belts, or any other such
equipment. However, a swat on the behind or a slap on the wrist was not an
uncommon occurrence.

What we learned is that discipline is a critically important part of promoting
optimal development, and that effective discipline during this particular
period is quite difficult. In order to teach a child to be personally safe
and respectful of others, it is necessary to "speak" to the child in a
"language" he truly understands. And given the limited cognitive capacities
of a toddler, a small spanking often results in a considerably better
"education" than a prolonged discussion.

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
even this difficult period without spanking. Clearly, depending upon the child
and the circumstances, it is possible to be effective with other-than-corporal
procedures. But it is equally clear that with a lot of children in a lot of
circumstances, spanking is preferable to disciplinary techniques that just
aren't working or no discipline at all.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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."

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
.

Meyerhoff, Michael K, A different slant on spanking. , Pediatrics for Parents,
01-01-2001, pp 8.

Doan wrote in message ...
A different slant on spanking

By: Meyerhoff, Michael K Volume: 19 Number: 8 ISSN: 07306725
Publication Date: 01-01-2001 Page: 8 Type: Periodical Language: English

Perspectives on Parenting

If you are an alert parent, you probably have surmised that professionals in
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
to as "adultomorphism." The experience is interpreted through the mental and
emotional processes of an adult - mental and emotional processes that are
entirely different than those employed by a young child. It is highly
inappropriate to project one's own thoughts and feelings into the heart and
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
participate in the most comprehensive and extensive study of early development
ever performed. Furthermore, I had the opportunity to look at experiences
that produced "optimal" outcomes as well as those that produced "problems."
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,
the kids were spanked from time to time - especially in the period from about
18 months to three years of age. The spankings were not frequent, nor were they
brutal, and they never involved paddles, switches, belts, or any other such
equipment. However, a swat on the behind or a slap on the wrist was not an
uncommon occurrence.

What we learned is that discipline is a critically important part of promoting
optimal development, and that effective discipline during this particular
period is quite difficult. In order to teach a child to be personally safe
and respectful of others, it is necessary to "speak" to the child in a
"language" he truly understands. And given the limited cognitive capacities
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
even this difficult period without spanking. Clearly, depending upon the child
and the circumstances, it is possible to be effective with other-than-corporal
procedures. But it is equally clear that with a lot of children in a lot of
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
.




Meyerhoff, Michael K, A different slant on spanking. , Pediatrics for Parents,
01-01-2001, pp 8.