ws and our cultural values are unambiguous concerning adults who physically attack or verbally threaten other adults. Such behavior is recognized as criminal, and we hold the offenders accountable. Why then, when so much is at stake for society, do we accept the excuses of those who hit children? Why do we become interested in the needs of children only after they have been terribly victimized, or have become delinquents victimizing others?

The answer is not complicated. We cannot believe that hitting children is abuse until we can honestly acknowledge the mistreatment from our own childhood experiences and examine the shortcomings of our own parents. To the extent we feel compelled to defend our parents and guard their secrets, we will do the same for others. We will promote physical punishment as a 'standard' form of discipline or look the other way. By continually insisting that we ‘turned out okay,’ we are reassuring ourselves and diverting our atte

Recently, a police officer was arrested for beating his 14-year-old daughter with a broom handle because she ran away for the third time. Ironically, she had reconsidered her transgression and returned home—to be met by an irate father and the beating ensued.

He acknowledged what he did with the explanation that he was ‘parenting’ an out of control child. Even more startling was a statement made by a fellow officer in his defense—he was exercising his parental responsibility. My question is—would you want either of these officers to come to your home if there was a domestic violence issue that needed intervention?

The irony of these statements and the implications to society is astounding beyond words. If police officers believe that hitting their child with a broom handle, what then do they believe when you call them to intervene in a domestic violence situation? Many women who have called to either protect themselves or their children know all too well, what the answer is—it can often mean that the perpetrator is considered exercising his parental or marital responsibility.

The harm of spanking to reinforce appropriate behavior has been thoroughly explained and demonstrated over the past century in a vast body of academic literature, scientific research, legal treatises, and recently in the popular media. We know that spanking is still considered the preferential form of child discipline as 22 states allow paddling with a wooden paddle in schools. Further evidence that spanking is a preferential form of child discipline is revealed in a random telephone survey done by Harvard Medical Center in 1997. 67% of parents surveyed stated they hit their child(ren) an average of once a week for discipline.

In my discussions with people who use spanking to promote compliance with instructions, the most frequent rationalization is that a two-year-old child cannot be reasoned with—so spanking is the best alternative. When I then ask the adult if I can hit them because they cannot be reasoned with regarding hitting or spanking children, they are chagrined by the obvious analogy.

Another classic rationalization is the need to spank in emergency situations—when there is no time for explanations. An example of the rationalization that is frequently given is: “What if my child walks into the street with oncoming traffic. In this situation, one has to impress on the child that walking into the street is dangerous,” they reason, “and spanking the child is the most effective alternative.” This reasoning is faulty because spanking creates shock, whereby the mind is unable to focus or retain logic rather than enhancing comprehension. Furthermore, hitting engenders rage rather than respect. Thus, instead of creating learning and compliance to avoid stepping into the street, the child has learned to distrust and fear adults. Since the child is dependent on their aggressor(s)for their survival and in order to maintain the relationship, the child pushes the rage deep into the psyche. The accompanying response to body boundary violations is to act out in other ways that may include rebellion, violence, self-destructive behavior, etc.

Some people believe spanking is justified or even commanded in the Bible, specifically the book of Proverbs. There is a distinction, however, which is of key interest to fundamentalists, between the practice in King Solomon’s day of beating people on the back and the modern American habit of buttocks hitting. The latter is not prescribed anywhere in the Bible. Furthermore, it needs to be pointed out that the Old Testament contains passages that could be (and in some incidents have been) construed as divine endorsements of wife-beating, racial warfare, slavery, the stoning to death of rebellious children and other behaviors that are outrageous by today’s standards.

Our laws and our cultural values are unambiguous concerning adults who physically attack or verbally threaten other adults. Such behavior is recognized as criminal, and we hold the offenders accountable. Why then, when so much is at stake for society, do we accept the excuses of those who hit children? Why do we become interested in the needs of children only after they have been terribly victimized, or have become delinquents victimizing others?

The answer is not complicated. We cannot believe that hitting children is abuse until we can honestly acknowledge the mistreatment from our own childhood experiences and examine the shortcomings of our own parents. To the extent we feel compelled to defend our parents and guard their secrets, we will do the same for others. We will promote physical punishment as a 'standard' form of discipline or look the other way. By continually insisting that we ‘turned out okay,’ we are reassuring ourselves and diverting our atten

w all too well, what the answer is—it can often mean that the perpetrator is considered exercising his parental or marital responsibility.

The harm of spanking to reinforce appropriate behavior has been thoroughly explained and demonstrated over the past century in a vast body of academic literature, scientific research, legal treatises, and recently in the popular media. We know that spanking is still considered the preferential form of child discipline as 22 states allow paddling with a wooden paddle in schools. Further evidence that spanking is a preferential form of child discipline is revealed in a random telephone survey done by Harvard Medical Center in 1997. 67% of parents surveyed stated they hit their child(ren) an average of once a week for discipline.

In my discussions with people who use spanking to promote compliance with instructions, the most frequent rationalization is that a two-year-old child cannot be reasoned with—so spanking is the best alternative. When I then ask the adult if I can hit them because they cannot be reasoned with regarding hitting or spanking children, they are chagrined by the obvious analogy.

Another classic rationalization is the need to spank in emergency situations—when there is no time for explanations. An example of the rationalization that is frequently given is: “What if my child walks into the street with oncoming traffic. In this situation, one has to impress on the child that walking into the street is dangerous,” they reason, “and spanking the child is the most effective alternative.” This reasoning is faulty because spanking creates shock, whereby the mind is unable to focus or retain logic rather than enhancing comprehension. Furthermore, hitting engenders rage rather than respect. Thus, instead of creating learning and compliance to avoid stepping into the street, the child has learned to distrust and fear adults. Since the child is dependent on their aggressor(s)for their survival and in order to maintain the relationship, the child pushes the rage deep into the psyche. The accompanying response to body boundary violations is to act out in other ways that may include rebellion, violence, self-destructive behavior, etc.

Some people believe spanking is justified or even commanded in the Bible, specifically the book of Proverbs. There is a distinction, however, which is of key interest to fundamentalists, between the practice in King Solomon’s day of beating people on the back and the modern American habit of buttocks hitting. The latter is not prescribed anywhere in the Bible. Furthermore, it needs to be pointed out that the Old Testament contains passages that could be (and in some incidents have been) construed as divine endorsements of wife-beating, racial warfare, slavery, the stoning to death of rebellious children and other behaviors that are outrageous by today’s standards.

Our laws and our cultural values are unambiguous concerning adults who physically attack or verbally threaten other adults. Such behavior is recognized as criminal, and we hold the offenders accountable. Why then, when so much is at stake for society, do we accept the excuses of those who hit children? Why do we become interested in the needs of children only after they have been terribly victimized, or have become delinquents victimizing others?

The answer is not complicated. We cannot believe that hitting children is abuse until we can honestly acknowledge the mistreatment from our own childhood experiences and examine the shortcomings of our own parents. To the extent we feel compelled to defend our parents and guard their secrets, we will do the same for others. We will promote physical punishment as a 'standard' form of discipline or look the other way. By continually insisting that we ‘turned out okay,’ we are reassuring ourselves and diverting our atte

s the best alternative. When I then ask the adult if I can hit them because they cannot be reasoned with regarding hitting or spanking children, they are chagrined by the obvious analogy.

Another classic rationalization is the need to spank in emergency situations—when there is no time for explanations. An example of the rationalization that is frequently given is: “What if my child walks into the street with oncoming traffic. In this situation, one has to impress on the child that walking into the street is dangerous,” they reason, “and spanking the child is the most effective alternative.” This reasoning is faulty because spanking creates shock, whereby the mind is unable to focus or retain logic rather than enhancing comprehension. Furthermore, hitting engenders rage rather than respect. Thus, instead of creating learning and compliance to avoid stepping into the street, the child has learned to distrust and fear adults. Since the child is dependent on their aggressor(s)for their survival and in order to maintain the relationship, the child pushes the rage deep into the psyche. The accompanying response to body boundary violations is to act out in other ways that may include rebellion, violence, self-destructive behavior, etc.

Some people believe spanking is justified or even commanded in the Bible, specifically the book of Proverbs. There is a distinction, however, which is of key interest to fundamentalists, between the practice in King Solomon’s day of beating people on the back and the modern American habit of buttocks hitting. The latter is not prescribed anywhere in the Bible. Furthermore, it needs to be pointed out that the Old Testament contains passages that could be (and in some incidents have been) construed as divine endorsements of wife-beating, racial warfare, slavery, the stoning to death of rebellious children and other behaviors that are outrageous by today’s standards.

Our laws and our cultural values are unambiguous concerning adults who physically attack or verbally threaten other adults. Such behavior is recognized as criminal, and we hold the offenders accountable. Why then, when so much is at stake for society, do we accept the excuses of those who hit children? Why do we become interested in the needs of children only after they have been terribly victimized, or have become delinquents victimizing others?

The answer is not complicated. We cannot believe that hitting children is abuse until we can honestly acknowledge the mistreatment from our own childhood experiences and examine the shortcomings of our own parents. To the extent we feel compelled to defend our parents and guard their secrets, we will do the same for others. We will promote physical punishment as a 'standard' form of discipline or look the other way. By continually insisting that we ‘turned out okay,’ we are reassuring ourselves and diverting our atte

on their aggressor(s)for their survival and in order to maintain the relationship, the child pushes the rage deep into the psyche. The accompanying response to body boundary violations is to act out in other ways that may include rebellion, violence, self-destructive behavior, etc.

Some people believe spanking is justified or even commanded in the Bible, specifically the book of Proverbs. There is a distinction, however, which is of key interest to fundamentalists, between the practice in King Solomon’s day of beating people on the back and the modern American habit of buttocks hitting. The latter is not prescribed anywhere in the Bible. Furthermore, it needs to be pointed out that the Old Testament contains passages that could be (and in some incidents have been) construed as divine endorsements of wife-beating, racial warfare, slavery, the stoning to death of rebellious children and other behaviors that are outrageous by today’s standards.

Our laws and our cultural values are unambiguous concerning adults who physically attack or verbally threaten other adults. Such behavior is recognized as criminal, and we hold the offenders accountable. Why then, when so much is at stake for society, do we accept the excuses of those who hit children? Why do we become interested in the needs of children only after they have been terribly victimized, or have become delinquents victimizing others?

The answer is not complicated. We cannot believe that hitting children is abuse until we can honestly acknowledge the mistreatment from our own childhood experiences and examine the shortcomings of our own parents. To the extent we feel compelled to defend our parents and guard their secrets, we will do the same for others. We will promote physical punishment as a 'standard' form of discipline or look the other way. By continually insisting that we ‘turned out okay,’ we are reassuring ourselves and diverting our atte

ws and our cultural values are unambiguous concerning adults who physically attack or verbally threaten other adults. Such behavior is recognized as criminal, and we hold the offenders accountable. Why then, when so much is at stake for society, do we accept the excuses of those who hit children? Why do we become interested in the needs of children only after they have been terribly victimized, or have become delinquents victimizing others?

The answer is not complicated. We cannot believe that hitting children is abuse until we can honestly acknowledge the mistreatment from our own childhood experiences and examine the shortcomings of our own parents. To the extent we feel compelled to defend our parents and guard their secrets, we will do the same for others. We will promote physical punishment as a 'standard' form of discipline or look the other way. By continually insisting that we ‘turned out okay,’ we are reassuring ourselves and diverting our attention from deeply hidden unpleasant memories.

This is why, when someone says, ‘spanking is abuse,’ many people react as though a door barricaded since infancy has been smashed open. This barricaded, unconscious door has prevented us from committing the most dangerous most unpardonable act of disloyalty imaginable, disloyalty to our parents. We are afraid that by opening the door to the truth we might fall through into an abyss—abandoned and cut off from any possibility of reconciliation with the parents we love.

The fear is irrational. Denial—about what was done to us and, now, what we are doing and allowing to be done to the next generation—is the real danger and the real sin. Hitting is a sacred body boundary violation and is violence toward another human being. In the case of hitting children for discipline, it is an act of violence by the person, who the child trusts implicitly and on whom the child is the most vulnerable and dependent.

Reconciliation and healing can only begin with an acknowledgment of the truth. It is futile to hope that denial, lies, evasions and excuses can somehow erase the memory and pain of past injuries. "There never was a time when a major social problem was solved by beating a child. And there never will be such a time... For centuries adults have injured children and have lied about it, and other adults have heard those lies and then merely turned away... we must begin putting the blame where it belongs." . -- C. Everett Koop, M.D., Sc.D