Thoughs on Spanking Bans
Sparked by Caifornia spanking legislation.
Perhaps Dan Collins is right when he says: "If spanking is outlawed, only criminals will ... spank."
And I agree pretty strongly with Naftali who writes...
I reacted when I first saw this issue brought up in the blog-sphere. Shortly afterwards, though not in connection with my reaction, I saw in the comments to blogs several defenses for such a ban amounting basically to the following argument: ‘Since I have never spanked my child, and since he or she is now a gainfully employed, law abiding adult, I know that the power to spank a child is not a necessary tool for child raising and that therefore it should be removed on the grounds that it is abusive to children.
But since the bill in question that first time around was a fringe offering, and as I felt that further attempts to ‘defend’ my right to employ what has throughout history been an acceptable tool for use in the raising of children serves to legitimize the claims of those who wish to deprive me of it, I chose not to respond to that argument nor to others equally specious.
This time around I will similarly not engage this wickedly harmful, power grab of an argument.
All I will say to the modern man, who sees a child not growing into an animal and winding up self supportive epitomizing parental ’success’, ” I will rebel before I allow you to condemn my children and the children of my people to modern man mediocrity through limiting my ability to educate.”
That was what I was going to respond when I first read Dan’s post. Then I read his link.
Now the limited aim of this bill–not “hitting a child under 3 in the face or head”–makes this issue more complicated and, for this very reason, more dangerous.
Though I have never hit my children, most of whom are under three, in the face or the head, nor can I conceive at this time of any circumstances under which I would find it wise to do so, nonetheless, I want no one but G-d to place categorical limitations on my power when it comes to the raising, protecting, and the sustaining of my children. ....
Of course now, some will crow about the child abuse ‘epidemic’. To them I will simply say that the epidemic that is the sorry modern state of ‘raising, protecting and sustaining one’s family’ is of far more concern to me than a child abuse epidemic that, frankly, I do not believe exists. And one might remind these noble do-gooders, as some have already, that some of the more severe behaviors spelled out in Lieber’s bill already are banned under state child-abuse laws.
But there is more. You see these know it all, do gooders get it:
There is no telling where this issue (not this bill) will end, but I”m fairly certain as to where it’s headed. Beware, and never overestimate the common sense of modern
man.
But since the bill in question that first time around was a fringe offering, and as I felt that further attempts to ‘defend’ my right to employ what has throughout history been an acceptable tool for use in the raising of children serves to legitimize the claims of those who wish to deprive me of it, I chose not to respond to that argument nor to others equally specious.
This time around I will similarly not engage this wickedly harmful, power grab of an argument.
All I will say to the modern man, who sees a child not growing into an animal and winding up self supportive epitomizing parental ’success’, ” I will rebel before I allow you to condemn my children and the children of my people to modern man mediocrity through limiting my ability to educate.”
That was what I was going to respond when I first read Dan’s post. Then I read his link.
Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, has re-introduced a bill designed to crack down on hitting a child under 3 in the face or head.
Now the limited aim of this bill–not “hitting a child under 3 in the face or head”–makes this issue more complicated and, for this very reason, more dangerous.
Though I have never hit my children, most of whom are under three, in the face or the head, nor can I conceive at this time of any circumstances under which I would find it wise to do so, nonetheless, I want no one but G-d to place categorical limitations on my power when it comes to the raising, protecting, and the sustaining of my children. ....
Of course now, some will crow about the child abuse ‘epidemic’. To them I will simply say that the epidemic that is the sorry modern state of ‘raising, protecting and sustaining one’s family’ is of far more concern to me than a child abuse epidemic that, frankly, I do not believe exists. And one might remind these noble do-gooders, as some have already, that some of the more severe behaviors spelled out in Lieber’s bill already are banned under state child-abuse laws.
But there is more. You see these know it all, do gooders get it:
“We want to build on the groundwork that was laid last year,” Lieber said. “Last year we started out with 95 to 100 percent of reaction being negative. Once people
found out what we were trying to do with the bill, that was reduced to 85 percent negative. So we want to continue to move the discussion along.
There is no telling where this issue (not this bill) will end, but I”m fairly certain as to where it’s headed. Beware, and never overestimate the common sense of modern
man.
A few years ago I observed a relatives son (about 3 yrs old) slap a young girl's face. His mom promptly walked over and slapped his face. Not hard enough to be painful, nor enough to leave a mark, but her son realized the humiliation of what he had done. That isn't a tactic I would use, but see it as effective if done without malice and gently, as in this case, and I see no problem with it.
Outlawing spanking, slapping or other parental discretions will not stop child abuse in the slightest. OTOH having the state looking over our shoulders as we raise children holds a lot of danger and abuse by those in authority that think raising children should be done only in a certain way. Their way.
Also @Dean's World by Naftali
