I read with interest the article posted about a study of very young children and spankings. http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20090915/hl_hsn/earlyspankingsmakeforaggressivetoddlersstudyshows
The article says that children who are spanked at age 1 are more aggressive at age 2. The article also states the negative affect of spanking was “modest”. So, I have to wonder if the people conducting this survey have ever met a group of 2 year olds or have any living with them.
Spanking needs a definition. To me, one swat to the hand or posterior is a swat. Several swats to the posterior are what I call a spanking. Now, I don’t believe that children need to be spanked, for the most part. Nor will most children need it after they can fully understand your words. And neither should be done in anger.
We spend the first year talking to babies who don’t know our language as yet. As they learn to walk and explore they learn to talk. By age 2 these short people are exercising their first stage of independence. Most children just repeat the word they have heard most “no”. Then they are subject to being corrected. Maybe, just maybe, that contributes to a more aggressive behavior and a “negative dynamic”.
All of my children have wanted to touch the stove. So what is said when they reach for the burners? “No, Hot” is replied and as they reach again, a swat to the little fingers seems more appropriate than letting them get burned.
This article doesn’t go beyond year 3. So, what happens when these same “test subjects” are teens or beyond? Will they respect their parents or will they talk back? Will they steal from the local convenient store? Do they cheat on tests? Will they claw their way up the corporate ladder stepping on anyone in their way?
In law the punishment is supposed to befit the crime. So, maybe at times spanking might befit the action. And I, for one, don’t want it to be regulated off the table as a corrective tool.