Tuesday, January 05, 2010

Smacking Your Children Can Be A Boon: Another Myth Busted

Oh yes, Cultural Marxism has crept into your private lives; even how you discipline your children. I remember corporal punishment at school; it seemed effective, and for the most part, didn't leave any psychological scarring. But this didn't stop the libbies from striving to have it banished from polite society.

Now don't get me started on genetics; I believe most screw ups have a strong genetic component, but generally, society is better off when people know what the boundaries are; that there are consequences to actions.

For this reason, I have always been an advocate for the timely smacking of children. And it now seems research is starting to bear his out; well a lot of us could have confirmed that, because it is common sense. Another myth being busted. Which makes me think; reintroduce the cane, and firm discipline, and you may just see the matriculation rate rise. A good snot klap could probably help our troglodytic student populace realise the most from your bad genes.

Research has shown that smacking your kids makes them brainier. Could there be any sweeter music to the ears of harassed parents counting the seconds until schools reopen after the torture of Christmas togetherness?

According to research from Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of psychology at Calvin College in the US State of Michigan, children smacked before the age of six perform better at school when they are teenagers. They are also more likely to do voluntary work and to want to go to university than their peers. Forget moving to that must-have catchment area, all the little blighters need, apparently, is a skelp around the legs.

The Prime Minister himself has admitted that at school he was thrashed with the Lochgelly Tawse, a Scottish instrument of torture comprising a leather strap with the business end cut into a number of tails. He may be facing redundancy in the spring, but he has certainly had moments of glory. And he does have a PhD in history from the University of Edinburgh, where he was enrolled aged just 16.

Yes, 16. Imagine it. If we genuinely believed that smacking would get our loafing teenagers off the sofa a full two years early, we’d be happy slapping every 15-year-old in the land on a daily basis, with the blessing of Ofsted.

On a personal note, I must own up to smacking my seven year-old for the first time about six months ago, and it marked an unforgettable watershed. Instead of patiently reasoning with her, explaining my position, empathising with hers and generally treating her as a sentient being with inviolable human rights, I raised my hand in sheer anger.

Boy, did it feel good. Frankly, I’d recommend it to every mealy-mouthed, middle-class parent who finds themselves bullied into a corner by their tyrannical tweenager. Stuff those fudgy compromises: I’m in charge, whack! Get to bed, whack!

It only took one short, sharp but very big shock to make her realise that I am her boss, even though she protested: “You’re not, God is, and Santa”.

Like a lioness swiping at her irritating cub, the incident was over in seconds, unlike the nightly arguments that drive my husband insane and do none of us any good. And now I learn that I’ve boosted her IQ to boot – how loving is that?

I don’t actually intend to smack my child again, but nor can I categorically rule it out. Let’s just say I don’t want to – but I might need to – and I certainly won’t be swayed by “research” from Calvin College, in Michigan, which bills itself as a Christian College that offers “an engagement with God’s world” as part of its core curriculum.

The trouble with the whole smacking debate is that it polarises parents into saints or sinners; neglectful liberals or pious disciplinarians; sadists or saps. To claim that hitting children increases their intelligence, drive or likelihood of a 2:1 at a Russell Group university is as nonsensical as declaring that not hitting children turns them into directionless misfits destined for failure.

Any approach to child-rearing taken ad absurdum will invariably end in disaster. All Victorian society expected of children was obedience. These days we seem to expect anything but obedience, as we curry favour with our toddlers and bend over backwards to be liked rather than respected. Either route leads to domestic hell in a handcart.

If there’s a secret to bringing up a successful – and by that I mean a happy, enthusiastic and kind – child, it’s probably love, sensitivity and clear boundaries. Occasionally those boundaries might require a little, ahem, emphasis, but it beggars belief that walloping a two-year-old can really be extrapolated into a direct improvement of their life prospects.

Corporal punishment is banned in 20 European countries including Spain and Germany; in Britain “reasonable chastisement” in the home is permitted as long as it doesn’t leave a mark – on their body, if not your soul – which sounds just about vague enough to cover every contingency.

But truth be told, you can assemble a Wallace-and-Gromit-style thwacking contraption or you can let your kids run riot. You can smack them or not smack them. The results, I’m sad to say, will be exactly the same – just ask Philip Larkin.

14 Opinion(s):

Anonymous said...

Like I've always said:

A hiding a day keeps the naughtiness away!

Anonymous said...

This article is from "The Telegraph" and is thus part of the controlled MSM.

Let's examine the contents closer.

Paragraph 1-3
Our friend from ILuvSA giving us a suitable introduction.

Paragraph 4-5
Telegraph article starts by stating that research has shown that a hiding is good for a child.

Paragraph 6 = Example of the prime minister.


Paragraph 7 = Creating doubt

Paragraph 8 = Giving a personal example of having used corporal punishment on her own child and that it was done in sheer anger, as opposed to the correct? way.
(creating more doubt)

Paragraph 9-10
Defending her decision to use corporal punishment.

Paragraph 11
Start of the same as paragraph 9-10, but ends with an open ended question, namely: "How loving is that?"
(back to creating doubt)

Paragraph 12
Here she says she might or might not smack her child again, but THAT THIS RESEARCH WON'T SWAY HER.
(This is the part where the mentioned research is subtly negated, thus the subtle message is that as she won't be influenced by it, so you too must ensure that you are not influenced by it.) She also takes a swipe at religion. (How can you be religious and smack your kids?) Monster. hahaha

Paragraph 13-14
Here she goes on the offence and openly attacks the findings of the research.

Paragraph 15
Having successfully discarded the research as rubbish, she substitutes her own ideas coming back to the same words the non corporal punishment crowd uses, implying that parents that hit their children are less loving etc.
She also briefly enforces that you may smack your children, but she again stresses that it WON'T have any benefit.

Paragraph 16
Start of with a false appeal to authority and ends with the marked soul that you will experience, for hitting your children.

Paragraph 17
Ends with smack them or don't, it won't make any difference.

Thus the conclusion is...
1) The research is crap.
2) Hitting them or not, does not make any difference.
3) Thus if you do hit them, you are a soulless monster

This is typical liberal, marxist claptrap to be expected from MSM trash like "The Telegraph"

Sad thing is most people will read the article and not realize that their heads are being screwed with in a very, very subtle way.

What they (marxists) want is to ban corporal punishment, because the result is a crap society without self/discipline.


Anonymous said...

I could have told you this without all the scientific proof. Spare the rod, spare the child - that's why we're sitting with a bunch of thug teenagers who have been raised in cotton wool. Schools have also stopped corporal punishment which was a huge mistake.

Anonymous said...

@A4. I hear you; the others were even more left. But I read between the lines. We will slowly start to receive confirmation that it was alright all along. Common sense, no?

Pensioner said...

I have never been against smacking children when punishment is due. This softly softly approach they use today is nonsense and the adage "spare the rod and spoil the child" is very true.
Although I only got spanked once by my father, I got spanked plenty at school for deserved punishment.

Viking said...

I never hit my kid, but used physical force when necessary. I think the difference (which might seem pedantic to some) is that between retribution vs. restraint.

when he was small I used to hold him upside down by the ankles til he stopped having a tantrum. A child just needs to know who is boss, and this is not violence, it is just creating boundaries for the kid. Teaches him to respect authority without fearing it.

No doubt I am a 'monster' now.

Viking said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Your approach was very sensible, Viking. You don't need to scare the hell out of children, it's about boundaries and respect. Children don't naturally show each other respect, it's a behavioural skill they learn from their parents, so it's more a case of an undisciplined child being allowed to turn into a monster.

Islandshark said...

Yes Viking, you have brutally forced a new "perspective" on your child!

Look at Britain today and see the effects of youths not growing up with a good smack on the bum when required. They have respect for nothing, including themselves.

FishEagle said...

@ Viking, I found that hilarious!

I also believe a child needs to be spanked. Those people that are against it are often the ones that were spanked out of anger and therefor were not able to tell the difference between anger and discipline.

Sakkie de Kok said...

My old man used to give us a blerry good hiding once a week.
As he would say after tanning our arses, "that´s for the shit I don´t know about, but you do."
Thanks Dad. LOL.

Anonymous said...

You know who I'd really like to spank? Johnny Depp. Oh oh oh oh oh ah ah ah ah ah aaaaaaah. Hell but he's sexy.

FishEagle said...

Dach, LOL!

Anonymous said...

Boys especially need a smack.

Your job as a future mother is to learn the god's ways and to help your child understand despite the negative reinforcement and conditioning of today's society.  Without consciousous parents the child will have no hope, and may even exaserbate their disfavor by becoming corrupted in today's environment.
Your ultimate goal is to fix your relationship wiith the gods and move on.  You don't want to be comfortable here, and the changes in Western society in the last 100 years has achieved just that.
1000 years with Jesus is the consolation prize.  Don't be deceived into thinking that is the goal.

Much like the other prophets Mohhamed (polygamy/superiority over women/misogyny) and Jesus (forgiveness/savior), the gods use me for temptation as well.  In today's modern society they feel people are most weak for popular culture/sensationalism, and the clues date back to WorldWarII and Unit731:TSUSHOGO, the Chinese Holocaust.  They used this Situation to bury Japanese atrocities.
It has been discussed that, similar to the Matrix concept, the gods will offer a REAL "Second Coming of Christ", while the "fake" Second Coming will come at the end and follow New Testiment scripture and their xtian positioning.  I may be that real Second Coming.
What I teach is the god's true way.  It is what is expected of people, and only those who follow this truth will be eligible to ascend into heaven as children in a future life.  They offered this event because the masses have just enough time to work on and fix their relationship with the gods and ascend, to move and grow past Planet Earth, before the obligatory xtian "consolation prize" of "1000 years with Jesus on Earth" begins.

The Prince of Darkness, battling the gods over the souls of the Damned.
It is the gods who have created this environment and led people into Damnation with temptation.  The god's positioning proves they work to prevent people's understanding.
How often is xtian dogma wrong?  Expect it is about the Lucifer issue as well.
The fallen god, fighting for justice for the disfavored, banished to Earth as the fallen angel?
I believe much as the Noah's Flood event, the end of the world will be initiated by revelry among the people.  It will be positioned to be sanctioned by the gods and led for "1000 years with Jesus on Earth".
In light of modern developments this can entail many pleasures:::Medicine "cures" aging, the "manufacture" of incredible beauty via cloning as sex slaves, free (synthetic) cocaine, etc.
Somewhere during the 1000 years the party will start to "die off", literally.  Only those who maintain chaste, pure lifestyles, resisting these temptations, will survive the 1000 years.  Condemned to experience another epoch of planet's history for their ignorant pursuit of xtianity, they will be the candidates used to (re)colonize (the next) Planet Earth, condemned to relive the misery experienced by the peasantry during history due to their failure to ascend into heaven before the Apocalypse.
Never forget:::It is not a house of Jesus.
If this concept of Lucifer is true another role of this individual may be to initiate disfavor and temptation among this new poulation, the proverbial "apple" of this Garden of Eden.  A crucial figure in the history of any planet, he begins the process of deterioration and decay that leads civilizations to where Planet Earth remains today.
Which one is it?:
One transitions into the other, allowing the gods to wash their hands of obligation to their Chosen One.  My personal "consolation prize".
And since the gods never committed despite tens of billions in mass media, product development and natural disasters/tragedy they will employ the freedom they positioned into the Situation and CHEAT me out of everything.