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.

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 11:04:22 -0800, Doan wrote:

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.

So far, just going down the Droany path. There may be SOME such
articles in the popular media but that is faaaar outweighted by the
massive but unnoted because it is so common (90%) that mention
spanking as a good experience in their lives. And many books and
articles supporting the practice of spanking.

This is a typical apologist piece of tripe long seen for what it is:
shallow, tradition and superstition based, and factually unsupported.

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, now we are cooking. This appeal to authority, when in fact this
is simply a more slickly writen piece of spanking compulsives
propaganda is right up there with, "but cops hit perps" analogies.

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.

A blatant lie. Sad.

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.

The usual nonsense. The only thing really missing is the experimental
model typical to medical research, where the subject is sacrificed,
trauma and autopsy wise.....we simply cannot subject children or
families to such tests.

If all social science studies were forced to this standard, there
would be no research done. In fact over the years when hard WAS noted
in such study models ethicists and scientists alike curtailed those
models.

I have yet to see anything so
substantial and convincing that it would cause me to jump on the
anti-spanking
bandwagon.

Of course. Yet another, as admitted, opinion piece.

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."

As are, by what I refer to concerning the practice of spanking
compulsivism. It is "adultmorphism;" the assumption the child is like
a little adult and thinks, feels, and understands as an adult does so
will have the same responses for the same reasons to the experience of
pain applied by a trusted other.

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.

That argument alone destroys the pro spank viewpoint.

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.

It certainlly is and certainly does. Unfortunately, just as you
Droany, this author gets it entirely ass backwards in an effort to
preempt the arguments of the anti spanking advocates.

It's typical, but very poor, attempt to turn the argument of the other
side on its head...preemption has been noted since Socrates and
earlier.

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.

That is for lack of subject destruction and is a constant in all
current and recent social science research.

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."

R R R R ...don'tcha love it. Did you read this before you posted it,
Droananator?

This lays the lie to the 85% claim. FEWER are spanking in the death
row population than the general public, which you and your spanking
compulsives is claimed to be 90% or MORE? R R R R

Oh dear, now I've gotten the hiccups...all your fault, Droaner... {;-

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.

I have NEVER seen this , and I've been doing this for many more years
than I've been here....from the age of 19 onward with hardly a break.
There is no 85% figure anywhere at all, except by virtue of a subject

NOT reporting one way or another. So the remaining 15% in both
populations, death row inmate and Harvard Medical School, could have
been or could not have been spanked. Talk about junk science.

And no, the similar experiences of the two subject groups is so noted.
Where do you get these flights of fancy, Droany?

The point missed and avoided and run from by you, and this author, is
that as a spanking compulsive parent you risk your child going EITHER
way by spanking, since the threshold for abuse is unknown until one
has crossed it.

You have at the maximum, if we are to believe him, a 15% chance of an
unspanked child on death row...and that figure isn't establish by any
research I've ever been able to find. More often it is noted that an
unspanked person cannot be found in the violent portion of the prison
population and we know...or you think you do...that 90% of THAT
population is also spanked...minimum

What is ignored is that if spanking WORKED, the prisoner on death row
population would be over represented with the UNSPANKED.

The fact they are the same suggests, to any thinking social scientist,
that something is at work here that is unaccounted for.

And being one myself, I know that it is the variable threshold for
abuse....and of course the fact that Harvard Medical School grads
almost NEVER come from the strata of society that death row inmates
come from.

I've always advoctated the $60K or so a year spent to send a first
time offender to prison would be better spend on a Harvard education.
Thanks for pointing this out....R R R R R R R

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.

A human being raised by human beings, a supposed social scientist is
claiming he and they had NO pre-set notions? Were did you find him,
Droaner? He's already run out more that a couple.

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.

And they followed these children for coming up on 40 years as I have?
Sure.

And they had an equal number of unspanked children for
comparison...sure.

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.

In the immediate sense. No one has ever claimed in this ng or among
other professionals that a hit won't immediately stop unwanted
behavior. That is a given.

It only proves that brutality works in the short run, that humans are
tough, and you can ease and dilute ALL KINDS OF PAIN AND LOSS if you
are these for the child in nurturing ways as well.

It does NOT prove that NOT spanking is less effective or harmful, and
no study has proven it to be so.

Embry laid the ghost on that.

Now, I will also distance myself from the "spare the rod, spoil the
child"
crowd.

Of course he will, as that would be courting exposure by flirting with
honesty.

It's exactly the same "science" that Baumrind practiced when she
stripped the more severely spanked children from a tiny sample so that
her outcomes would reflect low levels of spanking...the same
dishonorable and stupid bias you have when you claim that a parent can
avoid crossing the line by going 5 miles an hour..(light taps on the
butt).

Baumrind ignored that spanking, for purposes of study, must study ALL
the forms and intensity that PARENTS CLAIM is spanking...or it is no
study of "spanking" at all. Just a tiny subset called tapping.

This isn't alt.parenting.tapping-on-the-butt-with-no-objects newsgroup
and that is for a reason....Chris knows, as all intelligent, none
deluded humans know that "spanking" isn't limited to a tap on the
clothed but with a gentle hand.

What dishonorable twits.

You are trying your damnest, after years of defending the broadest
range of spanking behaviors, now that your a little butt has been
caught in The Question, to reframe and redefine spanking so you won't
have to answer The Question honestly.

Morally you leave considerable to be desired, Droaner, but that we
have always known.

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.

R R R R ... he buries his own argument...don'chalove it?

The parent is being told by this that there are some chidlren so
powerful, so evil, so in control of the parent, and conditions that
are so unmanagable that one may just HAVE to spank. ...

The Devil's Spawn Parenting Handbook should cover that quite well.

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 listing of the techniques. Want tah bet the aren't nonpunitive?
They are just OTHER punishments that are equallly ineffective....and
the age range he is talking about includes the time that parents are
supposed to supervise, modify the environment, and redirect the child
for maximum develpment with minimum risk....and this yahoo, and you by
posting it, are recommending throwing that away...and WHY?

To preserve the illusion there aren't plentiful parenting NONPUNITIVE
techniques that DO work, but parents are ignorant of them.

Instead of supporting teaching of an adequate repertoire what do we
have? Yet another junk science defense of spanking compulsions.

So please note that I am not recommending that all parents place
spanking in
their arsenal of child-- rearing techniques. On the contrary,

These caveats are mindless twittering dodges just like yours,
Droananator. And ther are public masturbation to make the thug thinker
feel good about himself, even while he defends pain and humiliation as
a teaching tool for children too young to comprehend what is happening
to them. Or even how to avoid the pain without some compensatory
neurotic reaction...such as fearful withdrawal, or rage on hold for
the teen years. .

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.

Male bovine excrement. There NO behaviors of children that cannot be
efficiently and effectively moderated of even complety redirected with
non punitive methods. It is NOT hard to learn EXCEPT for the barriers
created by one's OWN spanked childhood experiences...and normally
intelligent courageous people that won't let their childhood implated
fears and biases stop them from truly loving their children and
escaping this kind of mumbo jumbo punishment think can do.

http://sandradodd.com/s/proof

http://sandradodd.com/s/pressure

http://sandradodd.com/s/why

Experience vs junk science....PARENTS MAKING UP THEIR OWN MINDS

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.

Spanking is never the best thing no matter the circumstances. This is
an attempt to excuse ignorance of non-punitive methods, and out of
control parents.

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, just know that it very likely to NOT stop him from doing what YOUR
failure to supervise caused.

In fact that it may instead inspire the child to try again.

We have, as humans, a built in compulsive desire to explore our
environment that we will hurt ourselves on PURPOSE even when we are
grown UP to have that exploratory experience.

And even with adults, self managing, they know to not fight it but to
modify the circumstances for safety or at least to divert themselves.
That IS one of the reasons we marry. Sex with one is safer.

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.

Plentiful Patronizing Platitudes from an "expert" that has provided
not a whit of any proof beyond his own observations and opinions as
his exhalted position should require him to do for believability.
Shades of Diana Baumrind.

"I'm an expert. Trust me, and my opinion."

But possibly he could answer The Question, or a portion. How much is
"too often" and what is "getting out of hand" in terms of frequency,
intensity, and The Line you stop at before you get there......sans
references to already gone-over-the-line and damaged spanked child.

None of this nonsense of "just don't hurt them." Parent want to at
what point to stop BEFORE THE CHILDREN ARE HURT.

Ring him up and ask. I'll be he could give me a better run for my
money than you have, playground boy.

Otherwise, if you are a loving, caring, sensible parent,

Please point out those that think they are NOT.

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

Well, isn't that nice, and very special, but of course has no
referrance in these times that make a bit of sense to current parents
of small children. How rudely patronizing and what psychological
manipulation.

for several decades and regarded as one of the world's foremost
authorities on early education and development:

I have to ask, what does it take to be labeled a foremost world
authority at anything, and who are some of the world's idiots that
have held the title?

"If you plan on never spanking
your child, you'll probably end up doing it the proper number of
times."

She must have been very old to mouth such nonsense. And it must have
been rather a long time back when other options were in short supply.

It should have been said, "If you commit to never spanking your child
you will be inspired to learn how to parent them non-punitively...and
there is more than enough knowledge to do so brilliantly and
successfuly."

Did anyone aske her "the proper number of times?"

She may well have meant zero, if you really PLAN, not just idly wish.

So I took the trouble of looking her up...

http://tinyurl.com/33xh5
From Amazon:
1 out of 5 stars Not Very Enlightening, June 1, 2003
Reviewer: Kenneth LaFrance (see more about me) from Cotati, CA USA

and quotes from the book:

Ames on the subject of spanking;
http://tinyurl.com/323e6

Speaking of planning, as in commiting:

I planned from age 19 and I had my first child at 22, to NOT spank.
and I was short on non-punitive methods. So I muddled along trusting
myself and used mostly, from my heart and my feelings, non-punitive
methods. I discovered in 1975 the first of what became a series of
sources for those kinds of parenting methods. And parenting turned
into a joyfilled sleighride from then on.

Others have made it...I gave the URLs earlier.


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.

Gee, yah don't think he might have just a teensy weiny bias in favor
of spanking, now do yah?

http://tinyurl.com/3gucv

R R R R ....good one Droany.....yet another fall flat on your butt
exhibition.

I post from parents experience, supposedly YOUR bias, and you post,
apparently in reply, someone that is from someone professionally
invested in better parenting....what you THINK is my bias....R R R
R...what a maroon.

See yah next Wednesday.

Be there, with YOUR FARE, or be square.

Kane

Just as expected, I threw out a bone and the Kane9 barked! :-)

Doan


On 21 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 11:04:22 -0800, Doan wrote:

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.

So far, just going down the Droany path. There may be SOME such
articles in the popular media but that is faaaar outweighted by the
massive but unnoted because it is so common (90%) that mention
spanking as a good experience in their lives. And many books and
articles supporting the practice of spanking.

This is a typical apologist piece of tripe long seen for what it is:
shallow, tradition and superstition based, and factually unsupported.

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, now we are cooking. This appeal to authority, when in fact this
is simply a more slickly writen piece of spanking compulsives
propaganda is right up there with, "but cops hit perps" analogies.

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.

A blatant lie. Sad.

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.

The usual nonsense. The only thing really missing is the experimental
model typical to medical research, where the subject is sacrificed,
trauma and autopsy wise.....we simply cannot subject children or
families to such tests.

If all social science studies were forced to this standard, there
would be no research done. In fact over the years when hard WAS noted
in such study models ethicists and scientists alike curtailed those
models.

I have yet to see anything so
substantial and convincing that it would cause me to jump on the
anti-spanking
bandwagon.

Of course. Yet another, as admitted, opinion piece.

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."

As are, by what I refer to concerning the practice of spanking
compulsivism. It is "adultmorphism;" the assumption the child is like
a little adult and thinks, feels, and understands as an adult does so
will have the same responses for the same reasons to the experience of
pain applied by a trusted other.

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.

That argument alone destroys the pro spank viewpoint.

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.

It certainlly is and certainly does. Unfortunately, just as you
Droany, this author gets it entirely ass backwards in an effort to
preempt the arguments of the anti spanking advocates.

It's typical, but very poor, attempt to turn the argument of the other
side on its head...preemption has been noted since Socrates and
earlier.

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.

That is for lack of subject destruction and is a constant in all
current and recent social science research.

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."

R R R R ...don'tcha love it. Did you read this before you posted it,
Droananator?

This lays the lie to the 85% claim. FEWER are spanking in the death
row population than the general public, which you and your spanking
compulsives is claimed to be 90% or MORE? R R R R

Oh dear, now I've gotten the hiccups...all your fault, Droaner... {;-

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.

I have NEVER seen this , and I've been doing this for many more years
than I've been here....from the age of 19 onward with hardly a break.
There is no 85% figure anywhere at all, except by virtue of a subject

NOT reporting one way or another. So the remaining 15% in both
populations, death row inmate and Harvard Medical School, could have
been or could not have been spanked. Talk about junk science.

And no, the similar experiences of the two subject groups is so noted.
Where do you get these flights of fancy, Droany?

The point missed and avoided and run from by you, and this author, is
that as a spanking compulsive parent you risk your child going EITHER
way by spanking, since the threshold for abuse is unknown until one
has crossed it.

You have at the maximum, if we are to believe him, a 15% chance of an
unspanked child on death row...and that figure isn't establish by any
research I've ever been able to find. More often it is noted that an
unspanked person cannot be found in the violent portion of the prison
population and we know...or you think you do...that 90% of THAT
population is also spanked...minimum

What is ignored is that if spanking WORKED, the prisoner on death row
population would be over represented with the UNSPANKED.

The fact they are the same suggests, to any thinking social scientist,
that something is at work here that is unaccounted for.

And being one myself, I know that it is the variable threshold for
abuse....and of course the fact that Harvard Medical School grads
almost NEVER come from the strata of society that death row inmates
come from.

I've always advoctated the $60K or so a year spent to send a first
time offender to prison would be better spend on a Harvard education.
Thanks for pointing this out....R R R R R R R

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.

A human being raised by human beings, a supposed social scientist is
claiming he and they had NO pre-set notions? Were did you find him,
Droaner? He's already run out more that a couple.

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.

And they followed these children for coming up on 40 years as I have?
Sure.

And they had an equal number of unspanked children for
comparison...sure.

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.

In the immediate sense. No one has ever claimed in this ng or among
other professionals that a hit won't immediately stop unwanted
behavior. That is a given.

It only proves that brutality works in the short run, that humans are
tough, and you can ease and dilute ALL KINDS OF PAIN AND LOSS if you
are these for the child in nurturing ways as well.

It does NOT prove that NOT spanking is less effective or harmful, and
no study has proven it to be so.

Embry laid the ghost on that.

Now, I will also distance myself from the "spare the rod, spoil the
child"
crowd.

Of course he will, as that would be courting exposure by flirting with
honesty.

It's exactly the same "science" that Baumrind practiced when she
stripped the more severely spanked children from a tiny sample so that
her outcomes would reflect low levels of spanking...the same
dishonorable and stupid bias you have when you claim that a parent can
avoid crossing the line by going 5 miles an hour..(light taps on the
butt).

Baumrind ignored that spanking, for purposes of study, must study ALL
the forms and intensity that PARENTS CLAIM is spanking...or it is no
study of "spanking" at all. Just a tiny subset called tapping.

This isn't alt.parenting.tapping-on-the-butt-with-no-objects newsgroup
and that is for a reason....Chris knows, as all intelligent, none
deluded humans know that "spanking" isn't limited to a tap on the
clothed but with a gentle hand.

What dishonorable twits.

You are trying your damnest, after years of defending the broadest
range of spanking behaviors, now that your a little butt has been
caught in The Question, to reframe and redefine spanking so you won't
have to answer The Question honestly.

Morally you leave considerable to be desired, Droaner, but that we
have always known.

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.

R R R R ... he buries his own argument...don'chalove it?

The parent is being told by this that there are some chidlren so
powerful, so evil, so in control of the parent, and conditions that
are so unmanagable that one may just HAVE to spank. ...

The Devil's Spawn Parenting Handbook should cover that quite well.

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 listing of the techniques. Want tah bet the aren't nonpunitive?
They are just OTHER punishments that are equallly ineffective....and
the age range he is talking about includes the time that parents are
supposed to supervise, modify the environment, and redirect the child
for maximum develpment with minimum risk....and this yahoo, and you by
posting it, are recommending throwing that away...and WHY?

To preserve the illusion there aren't plentiful parenting NONPUNITIVE
techniques that DO work, but parents are ignorant of them.

Instead of supporting teaching of an adequate repertoire what do we
have? Yet another junk science defense of spanking compulsions.

So please note that I am not recommending that all parents place
spanking in
their arsenal of child-- rearing techniques. On the contrary,

These caveats are mindless twittering dodges just like yours,
Droananator. And ther are public masturbation to make the thug thinker
feel good about himself, even while he defends pain and humiliation as
a teaching tool for children too young to comprehend what is happening
to them. Or even how to avoid the pain without some compensatory
neurotic reaction...such as fearful withdrawal, or rage on hold for
the teen years. .

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.

Male bovine excrement. There NO behaviors of children that cannot be
efficiently and effectively moderated of even complety redirected with
non punitive methods. It is NOT hard to learn EXCEPT for the barriers
created by one's OWN spanked childhood experiences...and normally
intelligent courageous people that won't let their childhood implated
fears and biases stop them from truly loving their children and
escaping this kind of mumbo jumbo punishment think can do.

http://sandradodd.com/s/proof

http://sandradodd.com/s/pressure

http://sandradodd.com/s/why

Experience vs junk science....PARENTS MAKING UP THEIR OWN MINDS

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.

Spanking is never the best thing no matter the circumstances. This is
an attempt to excuse ignorance of non-punitive methods, and out of
control parents.

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, just know that it very likely to NOT stop him from doing what YOUR
failure to supervise caused.

In fact that it may instead inspire the child to try again.

We have, as humans, a built in compulsive desire to explore our
environment that we will hurt ourselves on PURPOSE even when we are
grown UP to have that exploratory experience.

And even with adults, self managing, they know to not fight it but to
modify the circumstances for safety or at least to divert themselves.
That IS one of the reasons we marry. Sex with one is safer.

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.

Plentiful Patronizing Platitudes from an "expert" that has provided
not a whit of any proof beyond his own observations and opinions as
his exhalted position should require him to do for believability.
Shades of Diana Baumrind.

"I'm an expert. Trust me, and my opinion."

But possibly he could answer The Question, or a portion. How much is
"too often" and what is "getting out of hand" in terms of frequency,
intensity, and The Line you stop at before you get there......sans
references to already gone-over-the-line and damaged spanked child.

None of this nonsense of "just don't hurt them." Parent want to at
what point to stop BEFORE THE CHILDREN ARE HURT.

Ring him up and ask. I'll be he could give me a better run for my
money than you have, playground boy.

Otherwise, if you are a loving, caring, sensible parent,

Please point out those that think they are NOT.

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

Well, isn't that nice, and very special, but of course has no
referrance in these times that make a bit of sense to current parents
of small children. How rudely patronizing and what psychological
manipulation.

for several decades and regarded as one of the world's foremost
authorities on early education and development:

I have to ask, what does it take to be labeled a foremost world
authority at anything, and who are some of the world's idiots that
have held the title?

"If you plan on never spanking
your child, you'll probably end up doing it the proper number of
times."

She must have been very old to mouth such nonsense. And it must have
been rather a long time back when other options were in short supply.

It should have been said, "If you commit to never spanking your child
you will be inspired to learn how to parent them non-punitively...and
there is more than enough knowledge to do so brilliantly and
successfuly."

Did anyone aske her "the proper number of times?"

She may well have meant zero, if you really PLAN, not just idly wish.

So I took the trouble of looking her up...

http://tinyurl.com/33xh5
From Amazon:
1 out of 5 stars Not Very Enlightening, June 1, 2003
Reviewer: Kenneth LaFrance (see more about me) from Cotati, CA USA

and quotes from the book:

Ames on the subject of spanking;
http://tinyurl.com/323e6

Speaking of planning, as in commiting:

I planned from age 19 and I had my first child at 22, to NOT spank.
and I was short on non-punitive methods. So I muddled along trusting
myself and used mostly, from my heart and my feelings, non-punitive
methods. I discovered in 1975 the first of what became a series of
sources for those kinds of parenting methods. And parenting turned
into a joyfilled sleighride from then on.

Others have made it...I gave the URLs earlier.


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.

Gee, yah don't think he might have just a teensy weiny bias in favor
of spanking, now do yah?

http://tinyurl.com/3gucv

R R R R ....good one Droany.....yet another fall flat on your butt
exhibition.

I post from parents experience, supposedly YOUR bias, and you post,
apparently in reply, someone that is from someone professionally
invested in better parenting....what you THINK is my bias....R R R
R...what a maroon.

See yah next Wednesday.

Be there, with YOUR FARE, or be square.

Kane

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 19:45:21 -0800, Doan wrote:


Just as expected, I threw out a bone and the Kane9 barked! :-)

Just as expected.

I responded to the content of your post, and instead of resonding in
kind, you choked.

Couldn't handle my responses, eh?

Do you know why your "fun with" me is up?

I do.

Wednesday, February 25th, 8 am

Kane

On 21 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 19:45:21 -0800, Doan wrote:


Just as expected, I threw out a bone and the Kane9 barked! :-)

Just as expected.

Yup! :-)

I responded to the content of your post, and instead of resonding in
kind, you choked.

LOL! I couldn't laugh enough. :-)

Couldn't handle my responses, eh?

Nope! ;-)

Do you know why your "fun with" me is up?

Only when you stop posting. ;-)

I do.

Wednesday, February 25th, 8 am

Is that the Rapture? :-)

Doan

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 21:52:52 -0800, Doan wrote:


On 21 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 19:45:21 -0800, Doan wrote:


Just as expected, I threw out a bone and the Kane9 barked! :-)

Just as expected.

Yup! :-)

I responded to the content of your post, and instead of resonding in
kind, you choked.

LOL! I couldn't laugh enough. :-)

Couldn't handle my responses, eh?

Nope! ;-)

Do you know why your "fun with" me is up?

Only when you stop posting. ;-)

There is one other way.

I do.

Wednesday, February 25th, 8 am

Is that the Rapture? :-)

Depends on you. It's your Rapture."

Either way.

Doan

Kane out until Wednesday, February 25th, then it's Doan out.

On 21 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 21:52:52 -0800, Doan wrote:


On 21 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 19:45:21 -0800, Doan wrote:


Just as expected, I threw out a bone and the Kane9 barked! :-)

Just as expected.

Yup! :-)

I responded to the content of your post, and instead of resonding in
kind, you choked.

LOL! I couldn't laugh enough. :-)

Couldn't handle my responses, eh?

Nope! ;-)

Do you know why your "fun with" me is up?

Only when you stop posting. ;-)

There is one other way.

I do.

Wednesday, February 25th, 8 am

Is that the Rapture? :-)

Depends on you. It's your Rapture."

Either way.

Doan

Kane out until Wednesday, February 25th, then it's Doan out.


Run like a dog, Kane9. ;-)

Doan

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 22:00:39 -0800, Doan wrote:


On 21 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 21:52:52 -0800, Doan wrote:


On 21 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 19:45:21 -0800, Doan wrote:


Just as expected, I threw out a bone and the Kane9 barked! :-)

Just as expected.

Yup! :-)

I responded to the content of your post, and instead of
resonding in
kind, you choked.

LOL! I couldn't laugh enough. :-)

Couldn't handle my responses, eh?

Nope! ;-)

Do you know why your "fun with" me is up?

Only when you stop posting. ;-)

There is one other way.

I do.

Wednesday, February 25th, 8 am

Is that the Rapture? :-)

Depends on you. It's your Rapture."

Either way.

Doan

Kane out until Wednesday, February 25th, then it's Doan out.


Run like a dog, Kane9. ;-)

Where. I have no escape hatch as you do.

In fact I closed all possibly ways out for myself, publically to you.
You do three things and I'm on. That traps me, and opens escape
hatches for YOU.

I notice you couldn't resist the temptation and are gather for the
spring....right out the hatch.

I offered to respond to your challenge to debate the Embry street
entry study. I asked for only three conditions. You've not met them.

Easy too. All they take is honesty. If you don't want to, or can't
meet met them we won't just automatically assume you ran.

We'll ask others to help decide.

Want to ask them if I'm running?

Want to ask them if you are?

I'll also ask them if they think you are a fit opponent to debate and
if they wish to address you any longer in this ng.

Hey, some may not be able to resist your baiting and dodging, but I
can easily, after I've used them and you up....and February 25th isn't
far away.

Do as you wish...
Be my guest.

My door is open to you, your hatch is closing. Two ways out, which
will you take?

Doan

Yes, I know you are.

And YOU just took the bait. I know what you can't resist answering.

Kane

Barking like a dog again, Kane7!

Doan

On 21 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 22:00:39 -0800, Doan wrote:


On 21 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 21:52:52 -0800, Doan wrote:


On 21 Feb 2004, Kane wrote:

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 19:45:21 -0800, Doan wrote:


Just as expected, I threw out a bone and the Kane9 barked! :-)

Just as expected.

Yup! :-)

I responded to the content of your post, and instead of
resonding in
kind, you choked.

LOL! I couldn't laugh enough. :-)

Couldn't handle my responses, eh?

Nope! ;-)

Do you know why your "fun with" me is up?

Only when you stop posting. ;-)

There is one other way.

I do.

Wednesday, February 25th, 8 am

Is that the Rapture? :-)

Depends on you. It's your Rapture."

Either way.

Doan

Kane out until Wednesday, February 25th, then it's Doan out.


Run like a dog, Kane9. ;-)

Where. I have no escape hatch as you do.

In fact I closed all possibly ways out for myself, publically to you.
You do three things and I'm on. That traps me, and opens escape
hatches for YOU.

I notice you couldn't resist the temptation and are gather for the
spring....right out the hatch.

I offered to respond to your challenge to debate the Embry street
entry study. I asked for only three conditions. You've not met them.

Easy too. All they take is honesty. If you don't want to, or can't
meet met them we won't just automatically assume you ran.

We'll ask others to help decide.

Want to ask them if I'm running?

Want to ask them if you are?

I'll also ask them if they think you are a fit opponent to debate and
if they wish to address you any longer in this ng.

Hey, some may not be able to resist your baiting and dodging, but I
can easily, after I've used them and you up....and February 25th isn't
far away.

Do as you wish...
Be my guest.

My door is open to you, your hatch is closing. Two ways out, which
will you take?

Doan

Yes, I know you are.

And YOU just took the bait. I know what you can't resist answering.

Kane

Doan wrote in message ...
Barking like a dog again, Kane7!

Doan

http://tinyurl.com/yqxr6