Are You A Helicopter Parent or A Lawnmower Parent?

Helicopter parent is a colloquial, early 21st-century term for a parent who pays extremely close attention to his or her child's or children's experiences and problems, particularly at educational institutions. The term was originally coined by Foster W. Cline, M.D. and Jim Fay in their 1990 book Parenting with Love and Logic: Teaching Children Responsibility, although Dr. Haim Ginott mentions a teen who complains, "Mother hovers over me like a helicopter..." on page 18 of the bestselling book Between Parent & Teenager published in 1969. Helicopter parents are so named because, likehelicopters, they hover closely overhead, rarely out of reach, whether their children need them or not. In Scandinavia, this phenomenon is known as curling parenthood and describes parents who attempt to sweep all obstacles out of the paths of their children. It is also called "overparenting". Parents try to resolve their child's problems, and try to stop them coming to harm by keeping them out of dangerous situations. In addition, these parents try to control every person, event, item, gift which is given to their child in an unhealthy control of their life which eliminates the joy of discovery and discernment for the child.  Temper tantrums and anger are a result of this strangling hold by the parents and their rigid expectations.

Some college professors and administrators are now referring to "Lawnmower parents" to describe mothers and fathers who attempt to smooth out and mow down all obstacles, to the extent that they may even attempt to interfere at their children's workplaces, regarding salaries and promotions, after they have graduated from college and are supposedly living on their own. As the children of "helicopter parents" graduate and move into the job market, personneland human resources departments are becoming acquainted with the phenomenon as well. Some have reported that parents have even begun intruding on salary negotiations. An extension of the term, "Black Hawk parents," has been coined for those who cross the line from a mere excess of zeal to unethical behavior, such as writing their children's college admission essays.
Definition: Wikipedia

Obama Will Triumph...So Will America!

 By Frank Schaeffer

          Before he'd  served even one year President  Obama lost the support of the easily distracted left and engendered the white hot rage of the hate-filled right. But some of us, from all walks of  life and ideological backgrounds -- including this white, straight,  57-year- old, former religious right wing agitator, now progressive writer and (given my background as the son of a famous evangelical leader) this unlikely Obama supporter -- are sticking with our President. Why?--  because he is succeeding.

We faithful Obama supporters still trust  our initial impression of him as a great, good and uniquely qualified man  to lead us.

Obama's steady supporters will be proved right.  Obama's critics will be remembered as easily panicked and prematurely  discouraged at best and shriveled hate mongers at worst.

The Context of the Obama  Presidency

Not since the days of the rise of fascism in  Europe , the Second World War and the Depression has any president faced  more adversity. Not since the Civil War has any president led a more bitterly divided country. Not since the introduction of racial integration  has any president faced a more consistently short- sighted and willfully  ignorant opposition - from both  the right and left.

As the President's poll numbers have fallen so  has his support from some on the left that were hailing him as a Messiah  not long ago; all those lefty websites and commentators that were falling  all over themselves on behalf of our first black president during the
2008  election.

The left's lack of faith has become a self-fulfilling  "prophecy"-- snipe at the President and then watch the poll numbers fall  and then pretend you didn't have  anything to do with it!

Here is  what Obama faced when he took office-- none of which was his  fault:

# An ideologically divided country to the point that  America was really two countries

# Two wars; one that was  mishandled from the start, the other that was unnecessary and  immoral

# The worst economic crisis since the depression

#  America 's standing in the world at the lowest point in history

# A  country that had been misled into accepting the use of torture of  prisoners of war

# A health care system in free fall

# An  educational system in free fall

# A global environmental crisis of  history-altering proportions
(about which the Bush administration and the  Republicans had done nothing)

# An impasse between culture warriors  from the right and left

# A huge financial deficit inherited from  the terminally irresponsible Bush administration.

And those were  only some of the problems sitting  on the President's desk!

"Help"  from the Right?

What did the Republicans and the religious  right, libertarians and half-baked conspiracy theorists -- that is what  the Republicans were reduced to by the time Obama took office -- do to  "help" our new president (and our country) succeed? They claimed that he wasn't a real American, didn't have an American birth certificate, wasn't  born here, was secretly a Muslim, was white-hating "racist", was secretly  a communist, was actually the Anti-Christ, (!) and was a reincarnation of  Hitler and wanted "death panels" to kill the elderly!

They  not-so-subtly called for his assassination through the not-so- subtle use  of vile signs held at their rallies and even a bumper sticker quoting  Psalm 109:8. They organized "tea parties" to sound off against imagined  insults and all government in general and gathered to howl at the moon.  They were led by insurance industry lobbyists and deranged (but well  financed) "commentators" from Glenn Beck to Rush Limbaugh.

The  utterly discredited Roman Catholic bishops teamed up with the utterly  discredited evangelical leaders to denounce a president who was trying to  actually do something about the poor, the environment, to diminish the  number of abortions through compassionate programs to help women and to  care for the sick! And in Congress the Republican leadership only knew one  word: "No!"

In other words the reactionary white, rube, uneducated,  crazy American far right,combined with the educated but obtuse neoconservative war mongers, religious right shills for big business,  libertarian Fed Reserve-hating gold bug, gun-loving crazies,  child-molesting acquiescent "bishops", frontier loons and evangelical  gay-hating flakes found one thing to briefly unite them: their desire to stop an uppity black man from  succeeding at all costs!

"Help" from the Left?

What did the  left do to help their newly elected president? Some of them excoriated the  President because they disagreed with the bad choices he was being forced  to make regarding a war in Afghanistan that he'd inherited from the worst president in  modern history!

Others stood up and bravely proclaimed that  the President's economic policies had "failed" before the President even instituted them! Others said that since all gay rights battles had not been fully won  within virtually minutes of the President taking office, they'd been  "betrayed"! (Never mind that Obama's vocal support to the gay community is  stronger than any other president's has been. Never mind that he signed a  new hate crimes law!)

Those that had stood in transfixed legions  weeping with beatific emotion on election night turned into an angry mob  saying how "disappointed" they were that they'd not all immediately been translated to heaven the moment Obama stepped into the White House! Where  was the "change"? Contrary to their expectations they were still mere  mortals!

And the legion of young new supporters was too busy  texting to pay attention for longer than a nanosecond. "Governing"?! What  the hell does that word, uh, like mean?"

The President's critics  left and right all had one thing in common: impatience laced with  little-to-no sense of history (let alone reality) thrown in for good  measure. Then of course there were the white, snide know-it-all  commentators/talking heads who just couldn't imagine that maybe, just maybe they weren't as smart as they  thought they were and certainly not as smart as their president. He hadn't  consulted them, had he? So he must be wrong!

The Obama critics'  ideological ideas defined their idea of reality rather than reality  defining their ideas-say, about what is possible in one year in office after the hand that the  President had been dealt by fate, or to be exact by the American idiot  nation that voted Bush into office. twice!

Meanwhile back in the reality-based community -  in just 12 short months -- President Obama:

#Continued to  draw down the misbegotten war in Iraq
(But that wasn't good enough for  his critics)

#Thoughtfully and decisively picked the best of several bad choices regarding the war in Afghanistan
(But that wasn't  good enough for his critics)

#Gave a major precedent-setting speech  supporting gay rights
(But that wasn't good enough for his  critics)

#Restored America 's image around the globe
(But that  wasn't good enough for his critics)

#Banned torture of American  prisoners
(But that wasn't good enough for his critics)

#Stopped the free fall of the American economy
(But that wasn't  good enough for his critics)

#Put the USA squarely back in the  bilateral international community
(But that wasn't good enough for his  critics)

#Put the USA squarely into the middle of the  international effort to halt global warming
(But that wasn't good  enough for his critics)

#Stood up for educational reform
(But  that wasn't good enough for his critics)

#Won a Nobel peace  prize
(But that wasn't good enough for his critics)

#Moved the  trial of terrorists back into the American judicial system of checks and  balances
(But that wasn't good enough for his critics)

#Did  what had to be done to start the slow, torturous and almost impossible  process of health care reform that 7 presidents had failed to even  begin
(But that wasn't good enough for his critics)

#Responded  to hatred from the right and left with measured good humor and  patience
(But that wasn't good enough for his critics)

#Stopped  the free fall of job losses
(But that wasn't good enough for his  critics)

#Showed immense personal courage in the face of an armed and dangerous far right opposition that included the sort of disgusting people that show up at public meetings carrying loaded weapons and carrying Timothy McVeigh-inspired signs about the "blood of tyrants" needing to "water the tree of liberty".
(But that wasn't good enough  for his critics)

#Showed that he could not only make the tough  military choices but explain and defend them brilliantly
(But that  wasn't good enough for his critics)

Other than those  "disappointing" accomplishments -- IN ONE YEAR -- President Obama  "failed"! Other than that he didn't "live up to expectations"!

Who actually has  failed...

...are the Americans that can't see the beginning  of a miracle of national rebirth right under their jaded noses. Who failed  are the smart ass ideologues of the left and right who began rooting for this President to fail so that they could  be proved right in their dire and morbid predictions. Who failed  are the movers and shakers behind our obscenely dumb news cycles that have  turned "news" into just more stupid entertainment for an  entertainment-besotted infantile country.

Here's the good news:  President Obama is succeeding without the help of his lefty "supporters"  or hate-filled Republican  detractors!

The Future Looks  Good

After Obama has served two full terms, (and he will),  after his wisdom in moving deliberately and cautiously with great subtlety  on all fronts -- with a canny and calculating eye to the possible succeeds, (it will), after the economy is booming and new industries are  burgeoning, (they will be), after the doomsayers are all proved not just  wrong but silly: let the record show that not all Americans were panicked  into thinking the sky was falling.

Just because we didn't get  everything we wanted in the first short and fraught year Obama was in  office not all of us gave up. Some of us stayed the course. And we will be proved right.

PS. if you agree that Obama is shaping up to be a great president, please pass this on and hang in there!  Pass it on anyway to ensure that his "report card" gets the attention it deserves.

"Activism is my rent for living on the planet."  Alice Walker

Tips For Teaching Kids Compassion

Guest Author - Sonja Meyer

"Be nice."

Parents send their youngsters off with those two words so casually they may barely think about what they mean. In fact, the words can be relegated to nothing more than a lightweight, feel-good idea about getting along with relative calm and creating no waves.

However, given the importance they deserve, the words can inspire children to a lifetime of caring enough to not only co-exist with others, but to actively help the less fortunate and improve their community. Of course there are no guarantees about what grown children will do given any particular parenting approach. But, if you make the effort, you can evoke compassion in your children and increase the likelihood they will be kind and contributing adults.

The times certainly help open the subject for families. Headlines draw stark attention to the awful reality of lives without compassion: Columbine; Sept. 11; sniper shootings in the nation's capital; terrorist bombings in Saudi Arabia.

Short of physical violence are the cruel names, the bullying and the one-upmanship some youth face. "We've gone from being a compassionate society to being a competitive society," says East Syracuse, N.Y., psychotherapist Jennifer Cornish Genovese, who hosts the radio programs "Parenting Matters" on WAER-FM 88 Saturday mornings and "Teen Talk" on WWHT-FM 107.9 and 106.9 Sunday mornings. "Competition often works against compassion."

How do you change that? Start by understanding that compassion is not just feeling sorry for someone or just refraining from hitting your playmate. "It's more than just a feeling," says the Rev. James Bresnahan, a Lutheran minister in Central New York. "Compassion involves the act." It entails both the heart that experiences it and the mind and body that bring it about.

Although you cannot "teach" compassion like a step-by-step math lesson, you can instill it in your children by making changes in your lifelong daily routine and by regularly stepping outside your ordinary schedule to make a difference for someone else.


DAILY ROUTINE: BOND AND MODEL

When it comes to modeling compassion for your children, start with your overall parenting style, and start at birth. Babies need a strong, loving bond with a caregiver, whether it is a mother, a father, a grandparent or another adult.

Without that attachment, babies will later have difficulty showing love and kindness, says Alice Sterling Honig, professor emerita of child development at Syracuse University. The early weeks and months of infancy are crucial. "It's the beginning," Honig says. "Whether it's about a skill in football, a skill in math or a skill in compassion, it's the beginning that really matters. "When you have a relationship that's loving and secure with an adult, then you are probably going to be able to give to others in life the way you were given unto," says Honig, who has written several child development books.

Respond quickly to your child's cries and learn to give him what he needs, whether it's a clean diaper, a hug, a drink or just reassurance. Babies won't remember the sweet words you whisper, Honig says, but they will remember "deep in their bones that they were given unto."

As infants become toddlers, however, it's important they observe parents modeling the kind of behavior they are to emulate. "Kids see our every move," Genovese says. "Are we modeling in the grocery store by pushing ahead in line, or are we letting the older person go ahead?"

Just like a 1-year-old will copy her parents by tapping away on a computer keyboard, children will copy social behaviors from their caregivers. "We model compassion by being nice to each other, my husband and I," says marriage and family therapist Linda Stone Fish of Central New York.

Analyze your own parenting style. It likely fits within one of three categories.

Permissive parents, for example, let the child do just about anything. They don't enforce rules and usually go along with whatever the child wants. They don't set high expectations for the child's behavior.

At the other end of the spectrum is the authoritarian model. Such parents won't let the child get away with anything. They are quick to crack down and often yell orders. Punishment is used to get immediate obedience.

Then there are authoritative parents, who are not too permissive and not too authoritarian. "You are for your kid 100 percent," Honig says. "You have clear rules, reasons for the rules, a genuine interest in your child's needs and high expectations."

Honig says the authoritative approach is the best for raising a compassionate child. "If you are very permissive, you get a spoiled brat. If you are authoritarian, you get a real sneak. He may be an altar boy and always says 'Yes, sir,' but he knows how to beat up kids and cheat on tests and hide it," Honig says.

If you are authoritative, you are kind but firm. You help children find alternative ways to deal with situations, encouraging their input. When they act inappropriately, you teach prosocial behaviors. Your goal is for children to do the right thing because of internal desire to do so, not because they fear punishment.


OLDER KIDS: TALK, TALK, TALK

As children get older, talking becomes even more important. They need to talk about their feelings, your feelings, and what other people may need or feel. They need to know it's not OK to make fun of others who are different; moreover, they need to imagine what others may be experiencing.

Bresnahan says teaching such sensitivity and awareness is an important component of instilling compassion. "Parents should expose their kids to people and circumstances beyond what they meet every day," he says. That can start with sharing the newspaper. "If there is an earthquake somewhere in the world, talk about what it must be like to have lost a home."

Parents should talk about how kids who are different from them feel. They can discuss kids who are overweight, boys who are thin and slight, children who are of a different race or social clique or any other "difference" kids see.

Parents should also encourage their children to talk about what they themselves may experience at school or in the community. Are they having problems with bullies? Help your child resolve these conflicts peacefully.


OUTSIDE THE ROUTINE: VOLUNTEER

Besides making changes in your day-to-day life, you can build on this groundwork by regularly involving your children in volunteerism.

"It's not just telling kids 'Go volunteer,'" Genovese says. It's doing it with them and showing them that helping others is important to you.

When Jim and Marcie Sonneborn's first son was 3, he helped them distribute toys at the United Way's Christmas Bureau. Seventeen years and two more sons later, the Central New York family still makes the Christmas Bureau an annual tradition.

"My kids have a lot of things," Jim Sonneborn explains. "They are very blessed. They are bright and have the opportunity to get a good education. They have two parents in the same household.

"Not everybody has all those advantages,” Sonneborn explains. “I want them to appreciate their getting a pile of things when other kids may only get one present. It transcends the specifics of the Christmas Bureau. It also teaches them it feels good to help other people.”

And when families volunteer together, the spirit is contagious. Sonneborn says his sons also volunteer as individuals with their own specific projects, such as playing piano at a nursing home.

Parents of school-age children will find that they often have an ally in their child’s teacher and school administrators. Many schools offer what is called “character education,” a subject required by many states who passed safe schools legislation after the Columbine tragedy. The laws cover everything from child abuse to codes of conduct to anti-harassment training. They also have prompted schools to expand value lessons like respect and caring.

Many schools offer opportunities for students to get involved in service projects like Habitat for Humanity, school ground cleanup days, clothing drives, and toy distributions.

You can also encourage children to find their own way to help. One 13-year-old
started volunteering at a jewish home when he was 8. He became particularly close to a resident who later died. The experience taught him "it makes me feel really good to help people," he says.

When Carol Leonard's children were young, they regularly helped make about 150 sandwiches to take to a homeless shelter. "I felt they should be doing something for the less fortunate and realize there were others who didn't have everything," she says.

The childhood experience took root. Now Leonard's daughter, 40, practices the compassion she first observed at her parents' knee. She volunteers regularly at charitable agency where she sorts clothing, performs office duties, and helps out with the after-school program.

She espouses the same ideals her parents discussed and demonstrated.

"I'm not a prejudiced person," Leonard's daughter says. "Whether you're a lawyer, a doctor or a janitor, wherever you live and however you get by, you're still a person. You have feelings and you have wants, needs and ambitions. We are all created equally."

You should take the time to instill compassion in your children because there's a good chance they will carry that belief into adulthood and become caring and contributing members of society.


FAMILY VOLUNTEERING TIPS

Here are age-appropriate ideas:

Ages 1-4: Accompany adult on visit to nursing home; go along on Meals-on-Wheels delivery.
Ages 5-7: Make sandwiches for the homeless; again, come along to nursing homes or home visits.
Ages 8 and up: Help set tables and serve food at soup kitchen;
collect clothing or supplies.
Teens: Volunteer at senior homes; help visually impaired go for walks; read to children in day care.
Whole family: Create holiday cards for hospitalized children or senior citizens; make favors for nursing homes or Meals-on-Wheels.

In addition, the United Way is a clearinghouse for volunteer opportunities. Call your local United Way for volunteer projects.

23 Countries Ban Corporal Punishment of Kids in Homes

The typical parent, when whacking a misbehaving child, doesn't pause to wonder: "What does science have to say about the efficacy of corporal punishment?" If they are thinking anything at all, it's: "Here comes justice!" And while the typical parent may not know or care, the science on corporal punishment of kids is pretty clear. Despite the rise of the timeout and other nonphysical forms of punishment, most American parents hit, pinch, shake, or otherwise lay violent hands on their youngsters: 63 percent of parents physically discipline their 1- to 2-year-olds, and 85 percent of adolescents have been physically punished by their parents. Parents cite children's aggression and failure to comply with a request as the most common reasons for hitting them.
The science also shows that corporal punishment is like smoking: It's a rare human being who can refrain from stepping up from a mild, relatively harmless dose to an excessive and harmful one. Three cigarettes a month won't hurt you much, and a little smack on the behind once a month won't harm your child. But who smokes three cigarettes a month? To call corporal punishment addictive would be imprecise, but there's a strong natural tendency to escalate the frequency and severity of punishment. More than one-third of all parents who start out with relatively mild punishments end up crossing the line drawn by the state to define child abuse: hitting with an object, harsh and cruel hitting, and so on. Children, endowed with wonderful flexibility and ability to learn, typically adapt to punishment faster than parents can escalate it, which helps encourage a little hitting to lead to a lot of hitting. And, like frequent smoking, frequent corporal punishment has serious, well-proven bad effects.


The negative effects on children include increased aggression and noncompliance—the very misbehaviors that most often inspire parents to hit in the first place—as well as poor academic achievement, poor quality of parent-child relationships, and increased risk of a mental-health problem (depression or anxiety, for instance). High levels of corporal punishment are also associated with problems that crop up later in life, including diminished ability to control one's impulses and poor physical-health outcomes (cancer, heart disease, chronic respiratory disease). Plus, there's the effect of increasing parents' aggression, and don't forget the consistent finding that physical punishment is a weak strategy for permanently changing behavior.


But parents keep on hitting. 


Why? The key is corporal punishment's temporary effectiveness in stopping a behavior. It does work—for a moment, anyway. The direct experience of that momentary pause in misbehavior has a powerful effect, conditioning the parent to hit again next time to achieve that jolt of fleeting success and blinding the parent to the long-term failure of hitting to improve behavior. The research consistently shows that the unwanted behavior will return at the same rate as before. But parents believe that corporal punishment works, and they are further encouraged in that belief by feeling that they have a right and even a duty to punish as harshly as necessary.


Part of the problem is that most of us pay, at best, selective attention to science—and scientists, for their part, have not done a good job of publicizing what they know about corporal punishment. Studies of parents have demonstrated that if they are predisposed not to see a problem in the way they rear their children, then they tend to dismiss any scientific finding suggesting that this presumed nonproblem is, in fact, a problem. In other words, if parents believe that hitting is an effective way to control children's behavior, and especially if that conviction is backed up by a strong moral, religious, or other cultural rationale for corporal punishment, they will confidently throw out any scientific findings that don't comport with their sense of their own experience.
The catch is that we frequently misperceive our own experience. Studies of parents' perceptions of child rearing, in particular, show that memory is an extremely unreliable guide in judging the efficacy of punishment. Those who believe in corporal punishment tend to remember that hitting a child worked: She talked back to me, I slapped her face, she shut her mouth. But they tend to forget that, after the brief pause brought on by having her face slapped, the child talked back again, and the talking back grew nastier and more frequent over time as the slaps grew harder.
So what's the case for not hitting? It can be argued from the science: Physical discipline doesn't work over the long run, it has bad side effects, and mild punishment often becomes more severe over time. Opponents of corporal punishment also advance moral and legal arguments. If you hit another adult you can be arrested and sued, after all, so shouldn't our smallest, weakest citizens have a right to equal or even more-than-equal protection under the law? In this country, if you do the same thing to your dog that you do to your child, you're more likely to get in trouble for mistreating the dog.


The combination of scientific and moral/legal arguments has been effective in debates about discipline in public schools. Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia have banned corporal punishment in the schools. But so far, we have shown ourselves unwilling to extend that debate beyond the schools and into the ideologically sacred circle of the family. Where the argument against corporal punishment in the schools has prevailed, in fact, it has often cited parents' individual right to punish their own children as they, and not educators acting for the state, see fit. The situation is different in other countries. You may not be surprised to hear that 91 countries have banned corporal punishment in the schools, but you may be surprised to hear that 23 countries have banned corporal punishment everywhere within their borders, including in the home.
I know what you're thinking: Are there really 23 Scandinavian countries? Sweden was, indeed, the first to pass a comprehensive ban, but the list also includes Hungary, Bulgaria, Spain, Israel, Portugal, Greece, Uruguay, Chile, Venezuela, and New Zealand. According to advocates of the ban, another 20 or so countries are committed to full prohibition and/or are debating prohibitionist bills in parliament. The Council of Europe was the first intergovernmental body to launch a campaign for universal prohibition across its 47 member countries.
Practically nobody in America knows or cares that the United Nations has set a target date of 2009 for a universal prohibition of violence against children that would include a ban on corporal punishment in the home. Americans no doubt have many reasons—some of them quite good—to ignore or laugh off instructions from the United Nations on how to raise their kids. And it's naive to think that comprehensive bans are comprehensively effective. Kids still get hit in every country on earth. But especially because such bans are usually promoted with large public campaigns of education and opinion-shaping (similar to successful efforts in this country to change attitudes toward littering and smoking), they do have measurable good effects. So far, the results suggest that after the ban is passed, parents hit less and are less favorably inclined toward physical discipline, and the country is not overwhelmed by a wave of brattiness and delinquency. The opposite, in fact. If anything, the results tell us that there's less deviant child behavior.
There could conceivably be good reasons for Americans to decide, after careful consideration, that our commitment to the privacy and individual rights of parents is too strong to allow for an enforceable comprehensive ban on corporal punishment. But we don't seem to be ready to join much of the rest of the world in even having a serious discussion about such a ban. In the overheated climate of nondebate encouraged by those who would have us believe that we are embroiled in an ongoing high-stakes culture war, we mostly just declaim our fixed opinions at one another.
One result of this standoff is that the United States, despite being one of the primary authors of the U.N.'s Convention on the Rights of Children, which specifies that governments must take appropriate measures to protect children from "all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation," is one of only two nations that have not ratified it. The other is Somalia; 192 nations have ratified it. According to my colleague Liz Gershoff of the University of Michigan, a leading expert on corporal punishment of children, the main arguments that have so far prevented us from ratifying it include the ones you would expect—it would undermine American parents' authority as well as U.S. sovereignty—plus a couple of others that you might not have expected: It would not allow 17-year-olds to enlist in the armed forces, and (although the Supreme Court's decision in Roper v. Simmons has made this one moot, at least for now) it would not allow executions of people who committed capital crimes when they were under 18.
We have so far limited our national debate on corporal punishment by focusing it on the schools and conducting it at the local and state level. We have shied away from even theoretically questioning the primacy of rights that parents exercise in the home, where most of the hitting takes place. Whatever one's position on corporal punishment, we ought to be able to at least discuss it with each other like grownups.
Alan E. Kazdin, who was president of the American Psychological Association in 2008, is John M. Musser professor of psychology and child psychiatry at Yale University and director of Yale's Parenting Center and Child Conduct Clinic. 

Parents & Teachers Against Violence in Education

Parents and Teachers Against Violence in Education (PTAVE) offers this publication for the benefit of children everywhere. The ideas that you will read here are not new. There have always been wise and perceptive people in every civilized culture who have practiced and advocated violence-free interactions with children. But, for the most part, their good example and good advice have been ignored or rejected, and the consequences to humanity have been incalculable. In these few pages we have attempted to summarize their message and offer it once again.

Criticism of traditional parenting methods is typically met with suspicion, resistance, and hostility. Were this fundamental conservatism of human nature to express itself in words, it might say something like this:

If the old methods worked well enough for past generations, they'll surely work for the next. Don't fix it if it isn't broken. Don't mess with success. Sometimes children just need a good smack on the bottom to get their attention. It never did a child any harm. That's how I was raised, and I turned out okay.

But just how well did we really turn out? 

Sooner or later we have to admit that perhaps not all family traditions are created equal. Maybe, in some cases, they've made our lives more precarious and unhappy than they need to have been. And maybe – just maybe – we haven't turned out quite as "okay" as we'd like to believe and have others believe.

When we praise our parents' treatment of us when we were little, are we merely fishing for approval of our own similar behaviors now? Are we trying to reassure ourselves that the way we want to remember things is the way they really were and ought to remain?

Let's test the I-turned-out-okay argument by examining a few real-life examples from my own childhood. See if they apply to you.There were ashtrays in every room of our house. My parents smoked, as did most adult visitors to our home. The aroma of cigarette, cigar and pipe smoke was always present. Nobody minded. In fact, not one day passed in my early life when I was not exposed to tobacco smoke. I was even exposed in the womb because my mother smoked when she was pregnant with me. And I turned out okay. 

The first family car I remember was a 1937 Chevrolet sedan. It had no seat belts. When we traveled, I was merely plunked down on the back seat with the expectation that gravity would keep me there. It did. And I turned out okay. 

All the places in which I lived as a child were painted with lead-based paint. And I turned out okay. 

I used a bicycle throughout my childhood and teen years, but never wore any kind of protective headgear. And I turned out okay. 

Was my family wise or just lucky? Today, we don't do those things anymore. We don't take such risks, and we don't expose our children to such risks – not if we know the facts.

SPANKING - The Facts

The lasting effect

Current research in the fields of mental health and child development supports the theory that acts of violence against a child, no matter how brief or how mild, are like exposing the child to a toxin. Repeated exposure has a cumulative and enduring effect. To some extent, we can demonstrate this from personal experience. Most of us would have to admit that the most vivid and unpleasant childhood memories are those of being mistreated by our parents. Some people find the memory of such events so disturbing they pretend that they were trivial, even funny. You'll notice them smiling as they describe how they were punished. It is shame, not pleasure, that makes them smile. As a protection against present pain, they disguise the memory of past feelings.

Some parents, eager to justify their behavior, will argue: "You have a duty to grab a child who is about to do something dangerous – to touch the hot stove or run into a busy street – and deliver a good smack so that your warnings about life's dangers will be remembered." Were that argument valid, spankings would become increasingly infrequent as children learned their lessons. But that's not what usually happens. Spankings tend to escalate in frequency and severity, and spanked children tend to behave worse. In fact, being spanked throws children into a state of powerful confusion, making it difficult for them to learn the lessons adults claim they are trying to teach. Parents who deliver the so-called "good smack" are not teaching their children that hot stoves and busy streets are dangerous. They are teaching them that the grownups upon whom they depend are dangerous. That's a bad lesson.

Lost trust

Survival is the newborn infant's overriding concern. Fear of falling and of loud noises, like the need to suckle, are not learned responses. They come ready-made and fully functioning at birth. And beginning immediately after birth, the sound of the mother's voice, the warmth and gentleness of her touch, the scent of her body, the taste of her milk - these key experiences inform the infant of its world and set the stage for all that follows. Trust is crucial and must be established early. Tragically for many, it is destroyed early. Neglect, rough handling, threats, shouts and associated harsh treatment including spanking, all of which begin earlier in children's lives than anyone wants to admit, are the principal agents of that destruction.

Over the years, I've compiled a list of synonyms for spanking. That list continues to grow. I don't think there is another act with as many names for it in the English language. The reason for this seems clear to me. People who hit children feel compelled to trivialize and minimize the act, even to the point of making it seem comical. To this end, they have created a special language for the subject. They improvise endlessly on that language as if it were possible to sweeten violence toward children merely by inventing new, colorful, funny-sounding names for it.

Meanwhile, what's happening to the unseen, internal life of the child? The spanked child, like one who is denied adequate food, warmth or rest, is less able to regard the parent as a source of love and security. The parent-child relationship is inevitably soured by this betrayal, and consequently the child fails to mature and thrive in the best possible way.

When trust between children and their closest caretakers is damaged, the children's ability to form trusting relationships with others is also damaged, and the effect may be lifelong. People who have been harmed this way tend to see all relationships as negotiations, as deals to be won or lost. They are always on guard. They see honesty and trustfulness in others as weaknesses to be exploited exactly as it was once done to them. They tend to see the world as an extension of their early home life – a dangerous environment in which the best protection against being a victim is to become a victimizer.

Neglect and permissiveness

Defenders of spanking often argue that a caretaker's only choice is between spanking and doing nothing. That's a false choice. Permissiveness is as unwise and counterproductive as hitting. The wise caretaker establishes a safe environment with age-appropriate boundaries and reasonable rules, models called-for behaviors, and appeals to and cultivates the child's natural inclination toward imitation and cooperation. This method takes more skill and patience than hitting, but it works. It strengthens the bond of trust between parent and child, between teacher and learner, thus paving the way for the more challenging lessons ahead.

Spousal battery and spanking

In the overwhelming majority of cases, husbands and wives whose relationships include violence are also violent toward their children. Such people surely were spanked when they were little and likely witnessed others being spanked.

Battering and battered spouses who spank their children are raising them to become batterers and victims exactly like themselves. The children learn from the parents' example that the way to vent frustration, express disapproval and assert authority is by hitting someone smaller and weaker than themselves. They see this principle demonstrated every time they witness their parents come to blows, as well as every time they are on the receiving end of violent punishments. They learn that once they are big enough and strong enough, they can control others by threatening or hurting them. They learn that it is okay for husbands and wives to mistreat each other and for adults to mistreat children.

When children, whose personalities have been formed in violent households, grow up and have children of their own, they find it very difficult to break free from the behaviors they have witnessed and experienced. The skills they apply to family life will be the poor ones they learned from their parents, and they are likely to perpetuate the cycle of abuse through their own innocent children.

As spanking disappears from family life, other forms of domestic violence will also disappear.

Escalation

Physical injuries and deaths of children caused by their caretakers often are the consequence of physical punishment. Perpetrators of even the most horrendous acts against children typically explain that the child's misbehavior called for punishment, and the outcome was unintended. "Accidental" is the child abuser's all-weather alibi.

Many infants' and toddlers' deaths attributed to accidents such as falling out of the crib, falling down the stairs, or accidentally drowning in the bathtub because the parent was distracted by a telephone call, would be reclassified as homicides if the truth were known. Sometimes the victim is blamed for his own misfortune, for example: "he bruises easily," "has soft bones," "is accident prone," "she brought it on herself," or "wouldn't hold still."

Some defenders of spanking caution that spanking, to be done correctly, must be done with deliberation and methodically. "Never spank in anger," they say. The implicit message here is that it's quite alright to hurt another person on condition that one does it calmly. (Sadists enthusiastically endorse this formula.) But it is highly unlikely that anyone being abused - child or adult - notices or cares about the abuser's frame of mind.

Many spankers are habituated to the practice because it provides them with an instant outlet for their feelings of frustration and anger - not because they've found it an effective way to improve a child's behavior. And because acts of violence, by their very nature, tend to escalate as they are indulged, there is no safe way to hit a child.

Spanking and sexual molestation

Spanked children learn that their bodies are not their personal property. Spanking trains them that even their sexual areas are subject to the will of adults. The child who submits to a spanking on Monday is not likely to say no to a molester on Tuesday. It's time spankers realized that – no matter what else they think they are accomplishing – they are setting children up to be easy prey for predators.

Spanking the buttocks and sexual development

Medical science has long recognized and documented in great detail how being struck on the buttocks can stimulate sexual feelings. Children are especially susceptible. The tragic consequence for many children who have been punished by spanking is that they form a connection between pain, humiliation and sexual arousal that endures for the rest of their lives. InSlaughter of the Innocents, David Bakan writes:

"...The buttocks are the locus for the induction of pain in a child. We are familiar with the argument that it is a safe 'locus' for spanking. However, the anal region is also the major erotic region at precisely the time the child is likely to be beaten there. Thus it is aptly chosen to achieve the result of deranged sexuality in adulthood..." 1971 (p. 113)The pornography and prostitution industries do a thriving business catering to the needs of countless unfortunate individuals whose sexual development has been derailed by childhood spankings. If we put all other considerations aside, this should be reason enough never to spank a child.

The physical dangers of hitting the buttocks

Located deep in the buttocks is the sciatic nerve, the largest nerve in the body. A severe blow to the buttocks, particularly with a blunt instrument, could cause bleeding in the muscles that surround that nerve, possibly injuring it and causing impairment to the involved leg.

In addition to nerve damage and soft tissue damage, a blow to the buttocks can cause injury to the tailbone (coccyx) or sacrum. It sends force waves upward through the spinal column possibly causing disc compression or compression fractures of vertebral bones.

Some people, in their attempt to justify battering children's buttocks, claim that God or nature intended that part of the anatomy for spanking. That claim is brazenly perverse. No part of the human body was made to be mistreated.

Physical danger of hitting the hands

The child's hand is particularly vulnerable because its ligaments, nerves, tendons and blood vessels are close to the skin, which has no underlying protective tissue. Striking the hands of younger children is especially dangerous to the growth plates in the bones, which, if damaged, can cause deformity or impaired function. Striking a child's hand can also cause fractures, dislocations and lead to premature osteoarthritis.

Shaking

Being shaken can cause a child blindness, whiplash, brain damage, spinal cord injury and even death.

Spanking at home, performance at school

Perceptive teachers will tell you that the children who exhibit the most serious behavior problems at school also have the most troubled home environments. For many of these children, the battle zone which is their home life carries over into their school life. This sets them up for academic failure and dropout. In their attempt to erect a shield against what they see as a comfortless, hostile world, these children naturally seek the company of other children with similar problems. Street gangs evolve to fill the void left by failed home life and failed school life.

We should not be surprised that many youngsters reject the adult world to the degree they believe it has rejected them. Nor should we be surprised that those who throughout childhood have been recipients of violence will become dispensers of it as soon as they are able.

Some teachers work tirelessly to curb violence-impacted children's aggressiveness, to instill trust which those children lack, and to redirect their energies in positive directions. But that is a daunting task for even the most-dedicated and best-prepared teachers. It requires extraordinary resources unavailable to public school systems.

School dropout, addiction and delinquency would cease to be major problems wracking our nation if only it were possible to persuade parents and other caretakers to stop socializing children in ways likely to make them antisocial and/or self-destructive.

Spanking, smoking, drinking and drugs

To be spanked is a degrading, humiliating experience. The spanked child absorbs not only the blows but also the message they convey: "You're worthless. I reject you!" That message powerfully influences the child's developing personality. It instills self-hatred.

Sooner or later every child is exposed to substances that promise instant relief from feelings of worthlessness and rejection. Everywhere people can be seen medicating themselves in order to feel good. It's hard to convince a child who is suffering that something swallowed, inhaled or injected cannot relieve the pain more than briefly, but will compound it by creating additional, serious problems.

Spanking and criminal behavior

Everyone is familiar with the list of social maladies believed to be at the root of violent criminal behavior: poverty, discrimination, family breakdown, narcotics, gangs and easy access to deadly weapons. And it's clear that every item in the above list contributes to violence and crime. However, one key ingredient is rarely acknowledged – spanking.

In 1940, researchers Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck began their landmark study of delinquent and nondelinquent boys. They discovered how certain early childhood influences cause children to develop antisocial, violent behaviors. They showed that the first signs of delinquency often appear in children as young as three – long before children come into contact with influences outside the home. The Gluecks showed that parents who fail to manage their children calmly, gently and patiently, but instead rely on physical punishment, tend to produce aggressive, assaultive children. The more severe and the earlier the mistreatment, the worse the outcome.

The Gluecks also found that the lowest incidence of antisocial behavior is associated with children who are reared from infancy in attentive, supportive, nonviolent families.

The message here for all parents is a simple one: if you want to do everything within your power to prevent your child from one day joining the prison population, guide gently and patiently. Remove shaming, shouting, ignoring, threatening, insulting, bullying and spanking from your parenting tool kit.

Spanking and prejudice

Spanking fills children with anger and the urge to retaliate. But this urge is almost never directly acted upon. Even the most severely spanked children, as a general rule, will not strike back at those who have hurt them. Instead, they are likely to seek relief in fantasy where they can safely vent their anger against make-believe adversaries. Sometimes bullying and acts of cruelty against younger siblings or family pets serve this purpose. Much popular entertainment aimed at young audiences caters to this need.

As children grow and come under the influence of prejudices within their community, their anger can be easily channeled toward scapegoated groups. Hate cults and extremist political factions and sects beckon to them with open arms, offering an opportunity to convert fantasy into reality. In every generation, more than a few seize that offer.

Spanking and brain development

In early childhood, the brain develops faster than any other organ in the body. By age 5, the brain reaches about 90 percent of its adult weight, and by 7, it is fully grown. This makes early childhood a very sensitive and critical period in brain development.

Stress caused by pain and fear of spanking can negatively affect the development and function of a child's brain. It is precisely during this period of great plasticity and vulnerability that many children are subjected to physical punishment. The effect can be a derailing of natural, healthy brain growth, resulting in life-long and irreversible abnormalities.

According to researcher Dr. Martin Teicher of McLean Hospital in Massachusetts, "We know that an animal exposed to stress and neglect in early life develops a brain that is wired to experience fear, anxiety and stress. We think the same is true of people." (From "Child Abuse Changes the Developing Brain," Yahoo! News, Dec. 29, 2000.)

In Teicher's article, "The Neurobiology of Child Abuse," Scientific American, March 2002, he writes:"...New brain imaging surveys and other experiments have shown that child abuse can cause permanent damage to the neural structure and function of the developing brain itself. This grim result suggests that much more effort must be made to prevent childhood abuse and neglect before it does irrevocable harm to millions of young victims (p. 70)... Society reaps what it sows in the way it nurtures children... (p. 75)." See www.nospank.net/mteicher.htmNo responsible parent would deliberately jeopardize a child's normal brain development, yet that is precisely what spankers unwittingly do.

Spanking at school

The disciplinary hitting of students in the United States typically involves battering the buttocks with a flat stick or board called a paddle. At the time of this writing, the practice is legal in 20 states. It should be understood that paddling is not the only method for inflicting pain. Forced exercise and denial of use of the bathroom, for instance, are commonly used as forms of corporal punishment. But paddling, because it is specifically prescribed and so blatant, serves to overshadow and thereby give cover to less obvious forms of abusive treatment.

Corporal punishment is deemed by its users and defenders as being in the children's best interests and essential to the smooth functioning of the school. Were that true, schools that are the most punitive would be the highest-performing, children who are routinely punished would be the best behaved, and teachers' colleges would teach paddling. In fact, school systems with the highest rates of corporal punishment are the worst-performing, children who are the most punished are the most troubled and difficult to manage, and there is not one accredited college in the United States that instructs future educators in the proper method for hitting children. Documented research shows a correlation between school corporal punishment and certain negative social outcomes. States that have the highest rates of school paddling also have the lowest graduation rates, the highest rates of teen pregnancy, the highest incarceration rates and the highest murder rates. (See "Correlation between high rates of corporal punishment in public schools and social pathologies," (2002)

The use of corporal punishment in schools also has a demoralizing effect on teachers who don't condone the practice. They have difficulty working alongside paddlers. Their survival in such an environment depends on their willingness to remain silent about what they witness. They know that paddlers feel threatened by their very presence. It's not unusual for a paddling school to degenerate to a level where it is nothing more than a magnet and safe haven for incompetent teachers, including some who are dangerously unfit to be left in charge of children. Teachers who favor a power-based management style, including the use of corporal punishment, sometimes rise to positions of authority where they set a bad example for everyone under their control and influence. A teacher recounts this experience when he applied for a position in such a place:"The interview began with the director asking me how I felt about corporal punishment. I told him that I disapproved of it and that I couldn't and wouldn't do it. He replied, 'Well, since that's the way you feel, you're of no use to us here,' and the interview was over."School corporal punishment has disappeared nearly everywhere in the developed world. Not one country in Europe permits it, and abolition is spreading at a rapid pace among developing nations. Virtually nowhere is there any movement within governments or among educators to reverse this trend and return to the old ways. Only one country on record temporarily revoked its prohibition against hitting students: Germany during the Nazi era. Meanwhile, approximately 1/4 million beatings are inflicted on students in schools of the United States every year. Typical injuries resulting from school corporal punishment can be viewed at www.nospank.net/violatn.htmWhat should enlightened, responsible parents do about corporal punishment in their schools? If you knew that a school bus had bald tires and faulty brakes, you would not let your child ride that bus, and you would demand that your school authorities correct the problem immediately. If you knew that the air ducts in your school were contaminated with asbestos and the classrooms were painted with lead-based paint, you'd remove your child immediately and alert other parents to the danger. Corporal punishment is no different. It is very dangerous, and all sensible people in the community should unite in opposition to it.

WHAT THE EXPERTS SAY"If we really want a peaceful and compassionate world, we need to build communities of trust where all children are respected, where home and school are safe places to be and where discipline is taught by example."

      Desmond M. Tutu, Archbishop Emeritus, Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, 2006. Seewww.nospank.net/globalreport.pdf

"The claim that mild punishments (slaps or smacks) have no detrimental effect is still widespread because we received this message very early from our parents who had taken it over from their parents. Unfortunately, the main damage it causes is precisely the broad dissemination of this conviction. The result is that each successive generation is subjected to the tragic effects of so-called 'physical correction.' ... Physical cruelty and emotional humiliation not only leave their marks on children, they also inflict a disastrous imprint on the future of our society. Information on the effects of the "well-meant smack" should therefore be part and parcel of courses for expectant mothers and of counseling for parents."

      

Alice Miller, Excerpt from: "Every Smack is a Humiliation," 1998. Seewww.nospank.net/miller3.htm

"A society with little or no hitting of children is likely to result in fewer people who are alienated, depressed, or suicidal, and in fewer violent marriages. The potential benefits for the society as a whole are equally great. These include lower crime rates, especially for violent crimes; increased economic productivity; and less money spent on controlling or treating crime and mental illness... A society that brings up children by caring, humane, and non-violent methods is likely to be less violent, healthier, and wealthier."

      Murray Straus, Co-Director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire. From "A Society without Corporal Punishment." See www.nospank.net/straus5.htm.

"The most positive social changes around the world have followed mass improvements in the way children are treated."

      Robin Grille, author of Parenting for a Peaceful World, 2005.

"Children should never receive less protection than adults. . . [we must] put an end to adult justification of violence against children, whether accepted as 'tradition' or disguised as 'discipline'."

      Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, Member of the UN Sub-commission on the promotion and protection of human rights, Geneva, 2006.

"I have never accepted the principle of 'spare the rod and spoil the child.'... I am persuaded that violent fathers produce violent sons... Children don't need beating. They need love and encouragement. They need fathers to whom they can look with respect rather than fear. Above all, they need example."

      Gordon B. Hinckley, President, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, October 1994 General Conference.

"Any form of corporal punishment or 'spanking' is a violent attack upon another human being's integrity. The effect remains with the victim forever and becomes an unforgiving part of his or her personality - a massive frustration resulting in a hostility which will seek expression in later life in violent acts towards others. The sooner we understand that love and gentleness are the only kinds of called-for behavior towards children, the better. The child, especially, learns to become the kind of human being that he or she has experienced. This should be fully understood by all caregivers."

      Ashley Montagu, Anthropologist, 1989. Excerpt from personal communication. See www.nospank.net/montagu.htm

"Corporal punishment of children actually interferes with the process of learning and with their optimal development as socially responsible adults. We feel it is important for public health workers, teachers and others concerned for the emotional and physical health of children and youth to support the adoption of alternative methods for the achievement of self-control and responsible behavior in children and adolescents."

      Daniel F. Whiteside, Assistant Surgeon General, Department of Health & Human Services, Administration of President Ronald Reagan, 1990. Excerpt from personal communication.

"When our Founding Fathers wrote into the basic law of our land protection against cruel and unusual punishment for everyone including dissenters and criminals, they had not been convinced by evidence, scientific or otherwise, that such punishments do not work. They added the amendment because of ethical considerations. They prized the climate of freedom more than the security of governing a populace forcibly of one mind. Over the years these proud hopes have slowly approached reality. Except for children. Which brings us back to our original question: How does it become possible to bypass standard ethics for certain sets of people?"

      Adah Maurer, "Psychodynamics of the Punisher," Watman Educational Services, 1974. See www.nospank.net/maurer2.htm

"Punitive measures whether administered by police, teachers, spouses or parents have well-known standard effects: (1) escape – education has its own name for that: truancy, (2) counterattack – vandalism on schools and attacks on teachers, (3) apathy – a sullen do-nothing withdrawal. The more violent the punishment, the more serious the by-products."

      B. F. Skinner, Ph.D., author, Professor of Psychology, Harvard. Excerpt from personal communication, 1983.

"Corporal punishment trains children to accept and tolerate aggression. It always figures prominently in the roots of adolescent and adult aggressiveness, especially in those manifestations that take an antisocial form such as delinquency and criminality."

      Philip Greven, Professor of History, Rutgers University. Excerpt from PART IV CONSEQUENCES, subheading: "Aggression and Delinquency," inSpare the Child: The Religious Roots of Punishment and the Psychological Impact of Physical Abuse, 1990 (p.193)

"I have always been an advocate for the total abolition of corporal punishment and I believe the connection with pornography that is so oriented has its roots in our tradition of beating children."

      Gordon Moyes, D. D., Pastor, Uniting Church, Superintendent of the Wesley Central Mission, Sydney, Australia. Excerpt from personal communication, 1980.

"The much-touted 'biblical argument' in support of corporal punishment is founded upon proof-texting a few isolated passages from Proverbs. Using the same method of selective scripture reading, one could also cite the Bible as an authority for the practice of slavery, adultery, polygamy, incest, suppression of women, executing people who eat pork, and infanticide. The brutal and vindictive practice of corporal punishment cannot be reconciled with the major New Testament themes that teach love and forgiveness and a respect for the sacredness and dignity of children, and which overwhelmingly reject violence and retribution as a means of solving human problems. Would Jesus ever hit a child? NEVER!"

      The Rev. Thomas E. Sagendorf, United Methodist Clergy (Retired), Hamilton, Indiana. Personal communication, 2006.

"Researchers have also found that children who are spanked show higher rates of aggression and delinquency in childhood than those who were not spanked. As adults, they are more prone to depression, feelings of alienation, use of violence toward a spouse, and lower economic and professional achievement. None of this is what we want for our children."

      Alvin Poussaint, M.D., Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School. From "Spanking Strikes Out" , 1999.

"Infliction of pain or discomfort, however minor, is not a desirable method of communicating with children."

      American Medical Association, House of Delegates, 1985.

"As long as the child will be trained not by love, but by fear, so long will humanity live not by justice, but by force. As long as the child will be ruled by the educator's threat and by the father's rod, so long will mankind be dominated by the policeman's club, by fear of jail, and by panic of invasion by armies and navies."

      Boris Sidis, Ph.D., M.D., from "A lecture on the abuse of the fear instinct in early education" in Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1919.

"Slavish discipline makes a slavish temper... Beating them, and all other sorts of slavish and corporal punishments, are not the discipline fit to be used in the education of those we would have wise, good, and ingenuous men."

      John Locke, "Some Thoughts Concerning Education," 1692.

"Chide not the pupil hastily, for that will both dull his wit and discourage his diligence, but [ad]monish him gently, which shall make him both willing to amend and glad to go forward in love and hope of learning... Let the master say, 'Here ye do well.' For I assure you there is no such whetstone to sharpen a good wit and encourage a love of learning as his praise... In mine opinion, love is fitter than fear, gentleness better than beating, to bring up a child rightly in learning."

      Roger Ascham, Tutor to Queen Elizabeth I, from The Scholemaster, published 1570.

"Children ought to be led to honorable practices by means of encouragement and reasoning, and most certainly not by blows and ill treatment."

      Plutarch, circa 45 -120 CE, "The Education of Children," Vol. I, Moralia, Ancient Greece.

"It is a disgusting and slavish treatment... When children are beaten, pain or fear frequently have the result of which it is not pleasant to speak and which are likely subsequently to be a source of shame, shame which unnerves and depresses the mind and leads the child to shun the light of day and loathe the light... I will spend no longer time on this matter. We know enough about it already."

      Quintilian, circa 90 CE, Institutes of Oratory, Ancient Rome

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERSQ: What do virtually all juvenile delinquents have in common?A: They have been raised by spankers.

Q: What was a common feature of the childhoods of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and Charles Manson?A: Each one was relentlessly, severely, physically punished.

Q: What do most prisoners on death row have in common?A: Plenty of spankings during childhood.

Q: What do rapists, arsonists, terrorists, torturers, serial killers, mass murderers, suicide bombers, kidnappers, snipers, assassins, muggers, vandals, spouse batterers and stalkers have in common?A: Violent upbringing.

Q: Which child is destined never to join the company of felons?A: One who is raised in a nurturing, attentive, supportive, non-spanking family.

Q: To turn a friendly puppy into a vicious guard dog, what must you do to it?A: Restrict its movement and beat it often.