In Britain yesterday, radio listeners heard senior Labour MP and former education minister David Lammy suggest that rioting is the result of anti-spanking rules.
It's called smacking in Britain, and Lammy told a London radio station: "Many of my constituents came up to me after the riots and blamed the Labour government, saying: 'You guys stopped us being able to smack our children'."
The riots he refers to were the ones that broke out this summer across England, when thousands of "youths" looted and firebombed and marauded through the cities of Manchester, Salford, Liverpool, Nottingham and Birmingham. And the way the Labour party "stopped" parents from smacking was with a 2004 law that "specified that parents were allowed to smack their offspring without causing the "reddening of the skin" and left decisions to social workers over whether or not parents had overstepped the mark," according to an article this morning in The Guardian.
Until 2004 the standard was "reasonable chastisement" and a judge had final say.
How to control British youth has been the subject of fierce debate since the riots, and this is not the first time the idea has been raised that if only parents could whup their kids, peace might be restored. After yesterday's broadcast, Lammy told the Guardian that he didn't mean to imply a direct connection between the smacking ban and the riots -- but he didn't do much to discount such a connection, either.
Perhaps the law went a little overboard, he suggested. "It is up to parents to determine the way they want to help their children navigate boundaries and how they define right and wrong, it is not for the state to define that for them," he told Guardian reporter Alexandra Topping. "The state is not there on the 15th floor of a tower block, where there may be drug dealers and violence and families may be struggling. He added: "This is not about abuse, not about hitting or about violence, and it certainly isn't about domestic violence."
And he told The Express the next day that poor families particularly needed this discipline method in their arsenal, because they didn't have so many of the other options available to more well-to-do marents. Reporter Padraic Flanagan writes:
Mr. Lammy, 39, said it was easier for middle-class parentst to control their children as they could afford private schools, which have tougher discipline than state schools, and could pay for hobbies and activities.
Oh, I see. Rather than find a way to lift a family out of poverty, or improve discipline and order in the schools, or provide activities and hobbies to poor children the job of the government is to make it easier for parents to hit their kids?
Mr. Lammy has said that he has "very occassionally" spanked his own sons, who are three and five. That puts him in the same group as most Americans. (Twenty-three countries have banned hitting children; the US is not one of them.) Dr. Robert Needlman, the author of the newest edition of Dr. Spock's Guide To Baby and Child Care (which happens to be this blog's book club selection this month) says that about 85 percent of parents in the U.S. say they spank their children "sometimes", in spite of what Needlman calls "extensive evidence" that it does not improve a child's behavior and that it can "teach a child that the larger, stronger person has the power to get his way, whether or not he is in the right."
We are not just talking about a study or two. Psychologist Elizabeth Thompson Gershoff, for one, published a review of 62 years of research, analyzing 82 separate spanking studies and found that while there is lots of evidence that spanking works in the very short term (ie "I threaten you, and you do what I say") it has no positive impact, and a good deal of negative impact, on long term behavior ("ie "When I am not standing there threatening you then you will continue to do as you please.")
Spanking, experts repeatedly warn, is an act of frustration, not education. There are better ways, on both sides of the Atlantic.
What works for you, that doesn't require laying a hand on your child? Tweet your advice to @HuffPostParents using hashtag #Idontspank or leave your answer in the comments.
Excuse: Spanking isn't like a beating. Perhaps you'd like to explain that to children who were beaten to death by their parents who lost control over their rage.
Excuse: If you don't spank your kids they'll have no respect for authority. Only a cowardly authority figure needs to hit someone who can't defend themselves.
Excuse: I was spanked as a child and I turned out fine. Why just the threat of a spanking put me straight. You're not "fine" if you think violence is normal. Parents who threaten kids are overgrown bullies. Passing on the cycle of hitting as "normal" isn't admirable.
Excuse: We have to hit kids because without it, they have no respect. You give no respect you get none. Respect doesn't hurt. Love doesn't hurt.
Excuse:I've explained things over and over and my kid just doesn't get it so I'll hit it into them. What's your idea of explaining? Name calling, threatening, constant criticizing, commanding like a tyrant? Gee, I can't imagine why the kid can't 'get' it.
Interesting how 'brave' parents feel hitting kids yet panic when they're threatened by the kid calling authorities. Truth or not, kids have no other defense. You're not that special that threats can't be turned against you. Kids who aren't hit aren't "spoiled". They're normal.
When my son was a toddler, I spanked him once. He immediately turned around and slapped his baby brother and said "He was naughty!" I learned that what I was teaching him was that might makes right, it's appropriate to lash out at someone smaller and weaker than you. I tried 'time-outs'. They worked wonders, although they are harder to enforce and longer lasting, more work for the parent than a spanking.
You HAVE to start these lessons and a form of discipline when they are toddlers and 3-5 minutes staring at a wall to calm down actually works. This is when they are forming a lasting world view, especially regarding their relationship to you as a parent. If you start when they're teens, it's WAY too late.
I don't think any anti-spankers are anti-discipline. There are other forms of discipline that work, and IMHO, work better.
p.36 Dobson recommends painful squeezing of the trapezius muscle on the neck to obtain "instant obedience." Dobson does this to a teenager on p. 41, as well as hitting him.
. . .
p.57 Dobson says "sick and deformed" children can be hit too.
. . .
On p.64 Dobson recommends using "switches" and "paddles" to hit children.
On p.65 Dobson recommends starting whipping at age 15-18 months, and "there is no magical time at the end of childhood when spanking becomes ineffective."
p.66 Dobson recommends hitting a toddler when he "defies his parents' spoken commands!" He says to hit toddlers when having a tantrum, and when a toddler "hits his friends." Toddlers should be "taught to obey." Toddlers can be given a "firm rap on the fingers."
. . .
p.68 Spank children if their bedwetting is an "act of defiance."
p.70 If a child cries more than a few minutes after being spanked, hit them more.
p.72 Spanking should not be "too gentle."
p.74 Dobson recommends a child should respond to a hitting playmate by hitting back.
. . .
p.108 Dobson says "With most children, tantrums are a form of challenging behavior that can be eliminated by one or more appropriate spankings."
p.115 Don't pick up crying infants right away, to minimize "reinforcement of their tears."
what a wonderful person!
The claim that kids are more violent now is also false http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3053333&page=1
The quoting from the bible is from proverbs which was written by Solomon of all people who was hated by his own people for taxing and torturing them and who raised and son even more hated by his own people, so oppressive that they nearly killed him and drove him from his own country. Great example.
"Spare the rod and spoil the child " quote is not from the bible but from jonathan swift who wrote it as satire.
I cannot believe how many lazy parents are here who's only defense is that it "works" to hit someone smaller than you. Pathetic.
The flames can start now but you have ZERO leg s to stand on. All the research is against spanking. Large numbers of countires outlaw it but of course we are so much smarter than they are because our society is much more violent than theirs. I wonder why.
Say what you will but find such behavior/practice to be a sad refelction of those parent who practice it.
I was caned every year I was in (British, state) school (11-17 yrs) and my Dad also used to whack my legs if I did real wrong, and I never once felt that I didn't deserve it.
Eventually I stopped getting caught by stopping doing the things that got me whacked.Simple as that.
I never threatened her with the cops again. XD
Also, don't use your hand (kids should not be afraid of our hands). Get a flat wooden spoon, and use it on the fleshy part of the butt. It will sting, but will not cause any permanent damage (rounded spoons cause welts). If it doesn't make him cry, you didn't do it right. If it leaves a welt, you did it too hard.
Our goal is not to punish but to change not only behavior, but attitude. When a child knows there are real boundaries AND that he is consistently loved, he will be happy, obedient and well adjusted.
The crime rate in London is irrelevant to this discussion.
I am astounded at the number of people herein who defend spanking by using anecdotal evidence, and ignore the research. It is like the guy who says smoking must be OK because his grandmother smoked two packs a day since she was 12, and now, in her eighties is still jumping rope.
The truth seems to revolve about, 1) the right to discipline with a hand, strap, or stick your children (and for some, any children), and 2) the efficacy of spanking as a deterrent of future anti-social behavior and such.
To address the issue, most pro-spankers tell glowing stories about themselves or their kids being spanked, yet reach adulthood as little angels or perfect citizens with neatly folded corners. Well, self delusion is alive and well it appears. What they omit is all of the other circumstances that contribute to character formation; they lay it all on the spanking and fear of parents… seriously?
And the real point of chuckles here is that most appear to – after they beat their chests for the right to beat their kids – they then down play the number and/or severity of the spankings. One guy claimed he spanked his two boys when young, only twice, and then, apparently because they were so fearful of being spanked, all they needed was a hard look to persuade them to “quickly” behave.
Or… (continued in reply)
You do make me wonder: I opt to not beat my kids into submission, and you conclude I believe I live on a planet with perfect people who always mind... seriously? Then, you missed the point of the comparison; it was not to juxtapose spanking with smoking, but to compare (lord I don't believe I have to spell this out for an adult), the useless and potentially injurious nature of anecdotal testimony use to support general conclusions, as is seen in a major portion of the “for” spanking comments.
For future reference, needing to point out sarcasm, means it didn’t work. Besides, you assumption was not accurate, as it was not about my pretending … just kidding, (added if the humor rolled of you as did the logic of the comparison.)
I’ve no interest in who is better or worse, but, as for being biased… OK, I admit a bias toward raising kids free from the violence other parents feel is necessary to maintain control. Did I always have control of my kids? No. Do spanking parents? If you respond “yes,” you’re living on a different planet.
I would ask that you read my continuation – if Huff gets around to posting it – and hopefully you will have a better picture of my position. So far you have only seen part of it.
But, if you don’t… have a pleasant day anyway.
Lawson
Or…
They blame society’s ills on the dearth of spanking; difficult to accept in that most people apparently continue using it as a primary means of control; the argument is simply specious on its face.
Additionally, the definition of “spanking” seems fluid, therefore difficult to discuss in a crowd. So for clarity; I am anti-spanking, but support the concept of “action interruptus” (cool name for a smack on the butt) when danger, redundancy, or severe disrespect is observed - to me, that falls short of spanking and is better placed into the category of a means to focus attention.
No sane person seriously suggests kids be “caned” or otherwise similarly punished, but many apparently do want the option to determine the level and manner of physical impact, choice of implement, and frequency of application… all in the name of instilling fear and that oh so logical result, love and respect.
In the end, a child’s future adult behaviors are dependent more on the concepts of right and wrong given voice by multiple influences during the formative years. Spanking is of little consequence when the other facets of parental and social input are well done and well received.
The support of spanking is a myopic view so often spewed about by those who refuse release from cycles of generational ignorance, or are content to ignore the complexity and interrelated nature of parenthood today.
Respectfully,
Lawson Meadows