Spanking is like milk: It does a body good — or at least a mind. No, this isn’t the conclusion of traditionalist parenting expert Dr. James Dobson but the finding of a study conducted by psychology professor Marjorie Gunnoe at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. FoxNews.com reports on the story, writing, “According to the research, children spanked up to the age of 6 were likely as teenagers to perform better at school and were more likely to carry out volunteer work and to want to go to college than their peers who had never been physically disciplined.”

This may come as a relief to parents who don’t wish to spare the rod, but have been accosted with numerous studies stating just the opposite. But how do we reconcile these contradictory findings? Well, perhaps the answer is that the previous scientific studies weren’t very scientific. Fox points out that, in the past, such research was lacking because it was difficult in more traditional times to find subjects who had never been spanked. In contrast, Professor Gunnoe included 2600 such individuals in her study.

I had always identified this as the fatal — but furtive — flaw in contemporary analyses of corporal punishment’s effects. To provide just a little anecdote in this regard, I remember once seeing the very libertine Dr. Drew Pinsky on television addressing a certain woman’s psychological problems. She had said that she derived sexual excitement from being humiliated and provided some quite salacious details. Well, Pinsky’s response was to ask if she had ever been struck as a child, to which she answered in the affirmative. He then in effect said, “Aha! You see, I knew it.” The problem was that this show aired at least 10 years ago and the woman was approximately 25 years old, so the days of her “trauma” were about 30 years back. Now, how many people growing up then never, ever — not even once — endured corporal punishment? You might as well have asked her if she had ever eaten carrots and then blamed her problems on beta carotene exposure.

We should bear this in mind when hearing claims used to justify anti-spanking laws, such as the prohibitions they have in Sweden and certain localities in the United States. Professor Gunnoe says that such claims are untenable and just don’t accord with the data.

Yet there is a larger truth about these contradictory studies: in reality, you can find research to justify any position you might take. This is why we must never, in the name of “science,” dispense with what G.K. Chesterton called “that forgotten branch of psychology”: common sense.

Thus, while I believe in corporal punishment (I like a soldier who knows how to maintain discipline) and am sympathetic to Gunnoe’s study, I’ll be consistent and say that the most obvious interpretation of it is insufficient to reveal the truth. For instance, the failure to spank your children is not just a difference, but a symptom. People who won’t lay hand or switch on bare bottom embrace a completely different parenting philosophy than those who will.

The difference is not just that they won’t apply the rod — it’s that they lack what I call a “rod mentality.”

That is to say, to such parents, discipline is often a dirty word. They tend to be overly permissive, set poor examples, be inconsistent in moral guidance and not teach responsibility. They are unlikely to view themselves as absolute authority figures but, rather, will treat the family as a democracy (without a constitution). They are more apt to want to be buddies than parents to their children.

Common sense tells us some other things as well. For one thing, we often hear that corporal punishment is damaging because it “teaches violence,” a nonsensical assertion if ever there were one (I completely refute this notion here). It is ironic, too, given that those who promote this idea are generally evolutionists who believe man to simply be a highly evolved animal. After all, can you think of an animal that doesn’t at times use violence? Animals use it in defense of self and territory, to kill prey, to win females, and sometimes simply because they’re angry. Hey, even Bambi is guilty. I read a while back about a deer that attacked a man, impaling the fellow with his antlers. Yet, evolutionists would have us believe that somehow, magically, man is the only “animal” who ended up with the Gandhi gene while “evolving” in this violent world.

Of course, in reality, as even cursory observation of babies and toddlers informs, it’s more like the Attila the Hun gene. When they have tantrums, they will often lash out, hitting, biting, and pulling hair. Hey, they will cry and scream without that behavior being modeled for them, either.

Despite this, some would have us believe that parents can control these often violent, disagreeable little creatures without occasional recourse to physical action themselves. These experts tell us that if you have to resort to such a tactic, there is something wrong with your parenting ability. This is an interesting theory. If it is valid, we can save ourselves a heck of a lot of money.

Why not just eliminate our military, for instance? If man can ever and always be reasoned with, there is no need for an entity whose purpose is, in part, to violently impose our will (rightly or wrongly) on others.

Then, if a man breaks the law and resists arrest, won’t the police use violent action to take him into custody? Why should this be allowed? Can’t they just talk to him, reason, and cajole him into compliance? Maybe he just needs to know he’s being listened to.

Oh, this doesn’t make sense? OK, then what do you do when a child “resists arrest”? What happens when the answer to “Go to your room” is “NO!” and the answer to “You’re grounded” is also “NO!”? If force is sometimes necessary with the mature beings known as adults, why would it not be with the raw pieces of humanity known as children?

And if we can’t answer that question without a study, it only proves that, lamentably, reason does not always prevail.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (10)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Child buttock-battering vs. DISCIPLINE:, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Letter of the law or spirit of the law?, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Bonnie said:

New study "discovers" an old truth "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes." - Proverbs 13:24 "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him." - Proverbs 22:15 "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell." - Proverbs 23:13,14 "The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame." - Proverbs 29:15 I'll take the word of God over that of a "vast majority of professionals".

January 06, 2010

Flu-Bird said:

It works No matter all the idiotic gobeldygook we heard from modernday child syocobabble pinheads old fashioned corpral punishment works and despite that dim-bumb who tried to introduce that stupid bill to ban corpral punishment a few years ago

January 06, 2010

..., Lowly rated comment [Show]

Paladin said:

... vlt, the flaw is in your thinking. Just because parents put their children on a 'no spank' list doesn't necessarily mean they oppose corporal punishment. The only thing it means for sure is that they didn't want the school administering it. I'm a good example by the way. My mother did hit me. But she didn't want the schoolteachers doing any such thing. Try not to be so foolish next time.

January 07, 2010

..., Lowly rated comment [Show]

bTk said:

A Better Place... The kids in Gunnoe's study were asked specifically whether they remembered being struck on the bottom with an open hand. Now, in the strict baptist community that I grew up in no kid of any age was ever 'spanked' with two or three swats from an open hand. We got fifteen minutes with the belt, which amounted to something between thirty and over a hundred licks, and if you didn't jump around like your feet were on fire and bawl like you were dying the whole entire time you got hit harder and harder until you did. It ALWAYS left welts and bruises and since we were not supposed to be able to stand still for them, they were scattered evenly anywhere from the back of the knees to the nape of the neck. If you were too quiet you'd get the kind of white-hot licks that would leave two-inch wide friction burns and big water blisters with layers of skin peeling off. And it was understood that if the belt occasionally landed on edge and left a foot long bleeding laceration, that was the kid's fault for moving around too much. If you studied the grown kids from my church and family we could "prove" that almost every one who was "spanked" turned out to be a drug addicted and mentally ill sociopath. And that would be about as fair and accurate to those of you who think three pats on a toddlers butt is a 'spanking' as Gunnoe's research is to me and everyone I grew up with. I understand the difference in perspective, but seriously ya'll; the world is not worse for everybody since our civilization has started limiting parent's rights to use corporal punishment. You may have had a great childhood in the 'good old days' but that was definitely not the case for all of us. I hope this research leads to parents realizing that you don't need to break your kid down with fear and pain in order to set limits. Lets hear it for pats on the bottom...

January 08, 2010

Hitting Children is Okay?, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Florida Warren said:

Where and whn did you grow up? Quote: Brad Chapin said: Hitting Children is Okay? It's an interesting world where people feel okay even thinking about hitting children, let alone writing it down on a web-page. I'd be embarassed. ----- You must either be under 25 years old or grew up in Neverland, Brad. Everyone I knew growing up in the 1950s and 60s received some form of corporal punishment if they misbehaved. There are two types of individuals in this world: Those who know that actions have consequences and those who think they can do as they please without ever having to face the music. Ultimately, some sort of physical discipline must be available, if only as a backup to enforce other forms of discipline. Otherwise, why obey? "Go to your room." "No." "Take a time-out in the corner." "No!" Why should a child do as he's told, unless at some point, a little unpleasant "consequence" is administered?

January 12, 2010