90% of parents spank kids "at least occasionally": LA Times

In a slow week for news, the Los Angeles Times opinion page yesterday published a "pro/con" argument on spanking.

We've already heard the fire-and-brimstone consequences of striking a child for reasons of either frustration or discipline (or both), so we'll start with  an excerpt from the "pro" argument, written by Robert Larzerere, left, a professor of human development at Oklahoma State:

In disciplining children, parents should do everything as kindly and gently as they can first. They should try to understand a child, make sure the child understands what is expected of them, use reasoning and find an adequate nonphysical consequence, like a "timeout" or taking away privileges. But if the child won't cooperate, some kids — at least some of the time — need something more forceful to back it up.

This is where backup spanking comes in. It involves two swats of an open hand to the rear end, and parents should affirm a love for the child afterward. Research finds this to be most effective with 2- to 6-year-olds.

 And here's an excerpt from the "con" argument, by Murray Straus, left, director of the family research lab at the University of New Hampshire in Durham:

...spanking ...undermines the relationship between parent and child. It's part of American mythology that spanking is not a big deal and that kids take it in stride, but that isn't what the research shows. Even among kids who say that parents have the right to spank — and most do — it's still a traumatic experience.

Spanking also violates a child's right to grow up free from being assaulted. Just imagine that someone twice or three times as big as you starts hitting you — that's the way kids describe it. It's fearful. Studies have shown that the more kids get spanked, the higher the child's score on a post-traumantic stress syndrome test.

Editor's note: Neither professor appears to be the age of a parent of a child under, say, 12 -- and neither is a woman (and so, presumably, never had full-time responsibility for a child/children). "Trauma" is exactly what you want a two-year-old to experience when he is disciplined for running out into the street. 

Comments

[michael cargal]

So doctors can't talk about cancer unless they have recently had it themselves?

[Wendy Lestina]

Well, there's some validity to that comment, however facetiously it was intended. This link leads to an excellent essay, by a doctor, that touches on the consequences of that theme: http://zocalopublicsquare.org/thepublicsquare/2011/11/30/how-doctors-die/read/nexus/.

Re: A couple of well-timed and well-placed swats on the rear: Reasoning with a two-year-old who refuses to put down a 140-year-old Staffordshire dog while visiting, and who instead, throws it to the ground in a tantrum while the mother continues her "why we don't do that" speech...may be the current parental guidelines, but it does the child a serious disservice in social development.

[Jillian O'Connor]

i don't understand advocating the controlled backup spank? the incident has already passed, you have verbally corrected the child gently and firmly, you are not angry anymore so the heat of the moment is not an issue. it seems like the problem has been addressed. what is the point of the backup spank? just to show that physical force is still your privilege as the more powerful party?