Harry

 

Misandry is the Norm

The main reason that people fail to notice misandry
is because they are perpetually surrounded by it.

 
   

01/03/00

The Smacking Myths

Smacking children leads to worse violence against them.

False. Following the same logic one would have to conclude that kissing a child would lead to sexual abuse. (Perhaps the child-centred ‘experts’ would like the kissing of children also to be made illegal because, in some cases, kissing is, indeed, the precursor to sexual abuse.) 

Indeed, if anything is likely to lead to violence against children, it is allowing them to behave in a manner that is too anti-social and too undisciplined for people, parents and other children to tolerate.

Children are the only members of society still not protected by the law when it comes to being smacked.

False. If my wife was to smack me for some gross misdemeanour there is no policeman or court in the land that would do anything about it. Furthermore, people within families should not always be expected to behave in the same way toward each other as strangers passing each other in the street. 

"Research has shown that children can never remember what they were smacked for."

even rats remember and learn not to do something if they are smacked.

False. This politically-correct twaddle from the supposed 'child-expert'  Dr Penelope Leach (Baby and Child, Penguin Books 1982) deserves no further comment since it is patently nonsense. The truth is that there are literally millions of research papers in the psychological literature attesting to the fact that even rats remember and learn not to do something if they are smacked.

Smacking automatically leads to long-term resentment.

False. Smacking only leads to resentment because child-centred ‘experts’ keep demonising parents who have smacked their children. If the media and the ‘experts’ were saying that smacking was a good and reasonable method of disciplining children, there would be no resentment against parents who have smacked, for they would be seen by their children as having done an acceptable thing. 

It is the child-centred ‘experts’ themselves who are causing any resentment and, hence, further alienating children from their parents by constantly promulgating their false propaganda and their phony 'research' on smacking; e.g. see Smacking Children.

Parents who never smack their children don’t seem to have any particular problems.

False. Some families are, indeed, just wonderful. Some parents have the money, the time, the character, the patience, the resources and/or the kind of children who are relatively easy to control. If we were all so lucky, what a wonderful world it would be.

most parents would have enormous problems with their children if they did not take very firm actions on occasion

The reality, however, is that most parents would have enormous problems with their children if they did not take very firm actions on occasion. Those who don't, often bring up spoiled, self-centred little darlings who end up with terrible social problems when they are older and/or their children rapidly lose respect for their authority and they become more difficult to handle. 

Society itself has enormous problems with the children of such parents. 

Smacking is not effective.

False. Smacking is extremely effective. There is no society on this planet that does not smack its children. (Even in countries where smacking is illegal, most parents will tell you, in confidence, that they have found it necessary to smack their children on occasion.) However, because research with delinquent children, for example, shows that many of them have been smacked, the foolish child-centred ‘experts’ conclude that smacking does not work for any child. Their simplistic analysis fails on numerous points.

1. If they bothered to research non-delinquent children, child-centred ‘experts’ would find that the occasional smack does indeed work; and it works for most children, for most parents, most of the time. Just because something does not work 100% of the time does not mean that it is of no value. It could be of tremendous value. 

Could one also perhaps conclude that there is no point in having law courts and prisons because crime still occurs?

For example, could one really conclude that there is no point in having speed limits on our roads because many thousands of us break the speed limits every day? Could one also perhaps conclude that there is no point in having law courts and prisons because crime still occurs? If one was to visit a garage would one conclude that there was no point in having car engines, because they clearly do not work all of the time?

Perhaps if the child-centred ‘experts’ were to become undertakers they would conclude that there was no point in having hearts!

The presence of speed limits, law courts and prisons does affect the behaviour of most of us, most of the time. These things are of great value to our society, as are engines and hearts. To conclude that they are not effective and should therefore be discarded on the basis of the fact that they do not work 100% of the time would be ridiculous; but this is precisely the type of simplistic thinking that characterises the child-centred ‘experts’ when they conclude from the ‘research’ on delinquent children that smacking does not work. 

It does work, for most children, for most parents, most of the time.

2. It is obvious that those children who have behavioural problems are the ones most likely to be smacked by their parents - because they are usually attempting to civilise them. 

Where the parents are successful, the children do not end up having ’therapy’ with the child-centred ‘experts’. It is only where the parents have failed that these children end up in therapy units. The child-centred experts therefore only deal with the ‘failures’.

 

 

Doing the ‘research’ on such children alone is therefore equivalent, for example, to studying just those children who have failed an exam at school and concluding from their failure that there is no point in teaching any children. 

Further, the ‘statistical’ type of child-centred research almost always leads to correlational data, and this can be interpreted in many ways. 

For example, the finding that aggressive, poorly-behaved children are more likely to be smacked is not very surprising. But the child-centred ‘experts’ will tell you that it is the smacking that is causing the poor behaviour and the aggression.

The real reason that such parents smack is because they know, from their own experiences, that, not only is a smack harmless, ...

Similarly, the finding that parents who, as children, were themselves smacked, are more likely to smack their own children, does not imply that these parents are somehow now deranged and predisposed to do harm toward their children - which is what the child-centred ‘experts’ will tell you. The real reason that such parents smack is because they know, from their own experiences, that, not only is a smack harmless, it is actually beneficial on occasion; and it saves them from having to dish out those cold, nasty, drawn-out ‘psychological’ types of punishments that are so destructive to relationships.

And, of course, there is likely to be a strong genetic component that causes the personalities of children to resemble somewhat those of their parents.

3. Child-centred ‘experts’ claim that explanations and verbal admonitions are sufficient for younger children to learn how to behave themselves and that a smack is always unnecessary. This is not true. 

Children often do not listen, though they might appear to be listening. They do not always understand the explanations given to them by adults and, even if they do, at a later date, they might well choose not to heed them. They sometimes react impulsively - caught up in the excitement of the moment or perhaps engulfed with rage and anger. They do not always think logically. They sometimes wish to be defiant, and so on and so on. Further, children are extremely forgetful. Explanations, on their own, therefore, do not always work. An accompanying smack can make the world of difference - quite simply, because it causes pain! And here, the medical evidence would appear to be conclusive with regard to the beneficial effects of a smack in the right circumstances.

Without pain, humans, and other animals, get themselves into all kinds of trouble.

Without pain, humans, and other animals, get themselves into all kinds of trouble. There have been many instances where human beings have been born without the neurological processes required to experience pain - a condition know as ‘congenital analgesia’ - though their sense of touch is not impaired. 

They usually do not live very long. Despite normal or high intelligence, they happily put their limbs into fires and boiling water. They break bones, tear skin, walk into solid objects, crack open their skulls and, on the whole, lead a thoroughly harrowing existence. Explanations, constant general counselling and verbal admonitions and warnings do not succeed with them. These individuals end up damaged and dead. They do not usually live beyond the age of twenty.

This damage they do to their physical bodies, despite the fact that they can feel it, and even though they can see it with their own eyes.

Pain from a non-damaging event (e.g. a smack) is nature's answer to how to teach a child about the world. Believe it or not, it is one of nature's most precious gifts. It teaches us in areas where our 'intelligence' completely fails. 

'Intelligence' and constant 'education' do not protect those with congenital analgesia from an early death. Pain is what is needed. And the same is true for humans without this condition in situations where 'intelligence' and constant 'education' keep failing. 

Without pain, human beings simply do not learn sufficiently well about important boundaries

4. Without pain, human beings simply do not learn sufficiently well about important boundaries that will protect them. Indeed, in terms of evolution, the very fact that pain can be caused by a non-damaging smack suggests very strongly that the smack itself might well be a fundamental social conditioning mechanism. 

For example, a smack on the legs when a young child dashes toward a road or sticks its finger into an electricity socket will result in a strong conditioning process automatically associating the pain of the smack with the behaviour. This will reduce the likelihood of the child repeating its dangerous exploits; and this conditioning will continue to reduce this likelihood, at a later date, whether or not the child consciously recalls the experience of the smack, or, indeed, recalls consciously any of the earlier incident at all. 

Any accompanying explanation at the time will, of course, add to the child's learning of the dangers involved, but it is the smack that produces the strong conditioning (which those with congenital analgesia unfortunately fail to develop). It is the pain of the smack that, in the future, might save the child from damage, not the explanations. 

The smack emphasises the importance of the situation. It helps define the boundaries in a way that an explanation cannot, and it strengthens the child's memory with regard to the boundaries that it must recognise.

And it is the duty of parents to ensure that this happens.

 A smack is also often nothing more than a succinct social message

5. A smack is also often nothing more than a succinct social message from the parent who gives it. 

IT IS THE RED LIGHT! 

It is a message that is easily understood and that says a great deal. It says that the parent will not permit some behaviour to occur (again). It says that the parent expects the child to remember this. It says that the parent considers this a very important matter indeed. It says that the parent can, in the final analysis, exercise power over the child. And it sometimes says that the parent is unable to cope any longer and might well be about to explode and do far more harm unless the child does what it is told. These are the kinds of message that parents convey when they smack; and they are all extremely important ones.

If parents are prevented from disciplining their children properly and preparing them for the society in which they have to live, all of society will have to bear the consequences. 

Classrooms will be more disrupted, affecting the education of all the children in them; month after month, year after year. More children will end up unfit for work and without the skills (social and otherwise) that are necessary to get on in life, which will lead thousands to turn to crime or delinquent behaviour. This affects everybody, and more and more youngsters will be drawn into the same web. More will end up turning to drink and drugs. More will end up in prison. 

And they will also badly influence the younger ones who follow.

evolution has led to humans who experience pain when smacked,

6. It is worth pondering the question of why it is that evolution has led to humans who experience pain when smacked, as opposed to humans who do not. 

And the answer would seem to be very straightforward. 

Where evolution gave rise to groups or individuals who did not experience pain when smacked, those groups and individuals failed. They have gone. They do not exist any more.

Why?

Why should humans have evolved to experience pain when smacked, even though a smack does not cause any bodily damage?

And the answer to this is surely a social one.

A smack is simply a way of sending very important social messages.

And no group or individual is likely to survive for very long if important social messages are ineffective. 

What is a smack?

Smacking is nothing more than the delivering of a strong important message. It is the same as putting up a red traffic light which must be obeyed. 

A few children will not stop when the traffic light is red, that's true. And many of these children will end up crashing their cars because they continually fail to stop. They fail to learn. They are always in accidents.

But from those very few 'accidents' which end up in the hands of the 'child-experts' such as those at the NSPCC one cannot conclude that red lights are ineffective for those children who do obey them, and who do not end up in accidents or in the arms of the NSPCC.

A smack may not work all the time, for all children, but, for most parents, for most of the time, it probably does a wonderful job.

And this is almost certainly what it was designed for.

those working in the abuse industry make much of their money out of disrupting normal family relationships

However, those working in the abuse industry make much of their money out of disrupting normal family relationships, and so it is not surprising to find that they continually try to undermine families by demonising - and hence trying to thwart - behaviours that help to keep families together.

Also see, ...

Smack Those Bottoms - bogus research on smacking children

 



List of Articles


rss
AH's RSS Feed

 

Recent comments from some emails which can be viewed in full here. ...

"I cannot thank you enough."

"I stumbled upon your web site yesterday. I read as much as I could in 24 hours of your pages."

"I want to offer you my sincere thanks."

"Your articles and site in general have changed my life."

"I have been reading your articles for hours ..."

"Firstly let me congratulate you on a truly wonderful site."

"I must say there aren't many sites that I regularly visit but yours certainly will be one of them, ..."

"It is terrific to happen upon your website."

"I just wanted to say thank you for making your brilliant website."

"Your site is brilliant. It gives me hours of entertainment."

"You are worth your weight in gold."

"Love your site, I visit it on a regular basis for relief, inspiration and for the sake of my own sanity in a world gone mad."

"I ventured onto your site ... it's ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT, and has kept me enthralled for hours!"

"I love the site, and agree with about 98% of what you post."

"I have been reading your site for a while now – and it is the best thing ever."

"you are doing a fabulous job in exposing the lies that silly sods like me have swallowed for years."

web tracker

 

Share


Popular articles ...

... War on Drugs - Who benefits from the war on drugs?

... A Woman Needs A Man Like A Fish Needs A Bicycle - Surely, the evidence would suggest otherwise.

... Why Governments Love Feminism - It is mostly to do with money and power, not equality.

... The Psychological Differences Between Men and Women - Are women really more emotional than men?

...  Equality Between Men and Women Is Not Achievable -  especially since Hilary Clinton said that, "Women are the primary victims of war."

... Cultural Marxism And Feminism - The connections between Cultural Marxism and Feminism.


rss
AH's RSS Feed

Front Page
(click)