I'm sure that by now most Americans have heard about California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber's upcoming bill to outlaw spankings in California, but for those of you who haven't I'll give you a quick synopsis. Ms. Lieber has promised to introduce a bill outlawing the spanking of children under three or four -- I've seen conflicting reports on the exact age. Violation of this law would be a misdemeanor offense, with a maximum penalty of $1000 fine and 1 year in jail. As you can imagine, this proposal has drawn a lot of attention from people on both sides of the issue. Part of me wonders if she's not doing this just for the publicity, but that's not my point. I want to discuss the issue. Right up front, I will say that I disagree with her position.
Proponents of this proposal assert that spanking teaches kids that it's okay to hit in anger. I will concede that point, but only to a certain extent. If, as a parent, you spank your kid out of anger and frustration, then yes, it can teach that violent anger is acceptable. But I want to point out a few counter-points.
Look, mankind has survived and evolved for thousands of years with spankings. The no-spanking idea didn't even start becoming popular until the 1950's at the earliest. Who are these bleeding-heart liberals to say that thousands of years of parenting is immoral and wrong?
Spanking should not be used as a first level of punishment for every minor infraction, but I have experienced firsthand (both as the parent and as the child) that sometimes spanking is the only remaining option... the nuclear option if you will. Picture this: I'm a parent and my child is misbehaving. I tell the kid that what they're doing is unacceptable and that they must stop, yet they continue with the unacceptable behavior. I explain that if the behavior continues, I will put the kid in time-out. Nothing changes and I put the kid in the corner, at which point the kid simply walks out of the corner and continues doing whatever. I put the kid back in the corner, and he refuses to stay there. Okay, I take away his favorite toy, but he simply throws a temper tantrum. My point is, eventually there needs to be a nuclear option... something the kid cannot overcome. Spanking is this option.
Like I said, you can't use spanking as the first line of defense, and you probably shouldn't spank the kid because you're frustrated yourself. But if you say to the kid "Look, if you don't do what I expect, then I'll spank you," this isn't physical punishment out of anger. This is a logical consequence of unacceptable behavior, explained beforehand. If spanking is done right, it's something that you need to do infrequently, and only when the child is very young.
The philosophical support of spanking is only part of my rationale though. There's also the practical aspect. How would such a law be practically enforced? Our prisons and courts are already overcrowded by rapists, murders and drug abusers. How are we possibly going to support the additional burden to our legal system and our prisons? Furthermore, there are already plenty of laws on the books against child abuse -- bona fide child abuse. Look, don't we need to focus on the real abuse? I'll tell you this... I'll pit my kids' (who, by the way, are old enough that spanking is no longer an appropriate punishment) manners, psychological health and overall well being against any non-spanked kid, any day of the week. Simply put, spanking works.
Governmental interference has already screwed up this society enough. Keep your laws off of my family.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment