Bravo to Wiltonians for Voting Against Beer Sales in Wilton Grocery Stores

Wiltonians voted today against the sale of beer in Wilton grocery stores. According to official election results, the initiative was defeated 1,525 to 1,153! Voter turnout was low, with 2,678 residents voting. That's just over 24% of registered voters.

In my eyes, this issue was really a battle against Ancona Wines and Liquors, a local company that has been part of the community for almost 90 years, by retail food giant Stop 'n' Shop, a foreign owned company. Stop 'n' Shop is owned by Ahold (in full Koninklijke Ahold N.V.), a major international supermarket operator based in Amsterdam, Netherlands.

It was Wilton's Stop 'n' Shop that initiated a petition to allow the beer sales question to appear on the ballot. For weeks, shoppers were encouraged to sign the petition in the name of "customer convenience." The petition was signed by 1,185 of the town's 11,006 registered voters.

To further encourage voters to allow Stop 'n' Shop to encroach on Ancona's and other local retailer's beer sales, the food giant took out a full page ad in the Wilton Villager and did a mailing to every Wilton resident encouraging a vote for beer sales in "grocery" stores in the name of "customer convenience."

It is refreshing to see that Wiltonians chose to block the Stop 'n' Shop initiative and allow our local merchants to continue with their good service and fair prices.

Citizens of Wilton would have gained absolutely nothing by permitting the sale of beer in Stop 'n' Shop and the two other food markets within Wilton's borders.

The last thing we need is to hurt our local merchants in these economically troubled times.

A strong and loving bond between family members becomes its own moral discipline . . .

An advocate of parental love once wrote that humil- iations, spankings and beatings, slaps in the face, betrayal, sexual exploitation, derision, neglect, etc. are all forms of mistreatment, because they injure the integrity and dignity of a child, even if their conse- quences are not visible right away.

Even after they become adults, most abused kids will be wounded — and will wound others — because of their early experiences. They will suffer and will let others suffer. Often the violence and shame produce a Hitler or a Saddam Hussein. Cruel adults have cruel backgrounds who mindlessly transfer their own childhood humiliations and spanking onto others — even onto other nations.

Science shows that early in life children who are beaten have to deal with what they endured. Most of them, it seems, later almost "glorify it" and pass it on to their own children or to others.

They begin to tell themselves the narrative that they were actually beaten out of love! They believe they deserved being hit or humiliated because they them- selves endured and learned violence without being able to question it. People that routinely spank their children often feel grateful to their own parents who mistreated them when they were small and defenseless.

This is why parents and society remain so ignorant. Pain and destruction are seen in every generation as normal, or even "good." Mercy has been trampled by "justice" which becomes nothing more than redemptive violence. Violence which somehow makes us better because destroying / abusing the scapegoat is a divinely-inspired action.

And we all tolerate it because we all ignore it.

When small children are smacked during the first three years of life, it is a time when they are beginning to walk and to touch and explore objects in the wider world. And this all happens at exactly the time when the brain is open to learn kindness, truthfulness, and love.

The first place we all learn cruelty, domination of others and lying comes from one place and one place alone: the family, the behavior of the parent.

It is no accident that Jesus of Nazareth made so many savage attacks on family values and made them very, very often.

A strong and loving bond between family members becomes its own moral discipline and becomes some- thing the growing child can always relate to, even in the midst of the outer world's cruelty.

As long as parents feel forced to spank and abuse — whether by their own emotions or by society at large — they will feel helpless and will be unaware of any other alternatives to teach, nurture and raise their children.

— James Warren ( Apr. 9, 2011 )

Parent's Rights

Many people pose the question: "Why should the government interfere with how parents bring up their children? After all, isn't it a parent's right as to how they choose to raise their children?"

One of the primary roles of government is protection of the rights of citizens, and the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution promises equal protection under the law. But, if you are familiar with history, you are aware that true equal protection has evolved gradually. Looking back, we can remember times when certain citizens did not qualify as equal.

For example, wives used to be legally assaulted and battered by their husbands. It was referred to as a family squabble not domestic violence. These assaults were considered a private matter, trivial and a subject for comedy. The law did not presume to invade the sanctuary of the home and tell married folks how to manage their disagreements.

At an earlier time, apprentices could be physically punished by their employers, sailors could be flogged, prison inmates could be whipped by guards and military recruits could be beaten by their trainers. And at an even earlier time, it was standard procedure for field bosses to whip slaves working in the cotton fields.

All that has changed. Well, almost all. In the United States, at this time, there remains only one "whippable" class of citizen: children!

Hopefully, before long, the U.S. will join the rest of the civilized world in closing the legal loophole that allows assault and battery of the young. Thirty-one countries have already done so, and others are soon to join.

In 1989, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child was established to promote the legal rights of citizens under the age of 18. The only member nations not to have signed are the United States and Somalia.

What's our problem?
_________________________________

For more on the issue of children and their rights, visit www.nospank.net

Child Abuse, A perspective

The primary cause of violence is child abuse. It is neither a necessary nor a sufficient cause, but it is a highly likely one that becomes reinforced by later social and cultural forces. Children who are physically, sexually, or emotionally terrorized and exploited, and whose real needs are neglected by adults, become damaged. They suffer from a pervasive sense of shame, lack self-esteem, and believe themselves flawed, defective, and unworthy of getting their needs met, especially the most basic need for love. This sense of worthlessness is usually unconscious.
.....While the golden rule of ethics teaches us to do unto others as we would have others do unto us, the leaden rule of the unconscious compels us to do unto others as significant others have done unto us. The most important lessons that affect our way of relating to the world occur before we are three years of age, when we are so utterly helpless and dependent on the kindness of our care givers. Child abuse during this period and later is much more pervasive in our society and worldwide than is commonly recognized. In fact, there is massive personal and cultural denial about child abuse. Many children who are violated will take violent revenge upon others later in life, most frequently not on their abusers, without ever knowing the real causes of their own hatred.
.....Extreme shame, resulting from child abuse and aggravated by other factors, is the root psychological cause of all violence.8 It is a necessary but not sufficient cause of violence, since, as shown above, shame is universally experienced by all humans at some time or other, but most people have nonviolent means of coping with it.
.....Severely abused children are at high risk of becoming either self-destructive, violent toward others, or both, unless they are fortunate in being recognized for who they are and supported by at least one compassionate, empathic witness, who helps them feel their pain, discover and express their true feelings, and learn that the abuse they suffered was not their own fault. The earlier such a witness intervenes in their lives the better, but even later interventions can make a difference for all but the most seriously damaged.
.....Children are weak and defenseless in relation to adults. Much corporal punishment in homes and schools is even legal. Any hitting, beating, or spanking of children is abusive, and it ought to be criminal, as it would be if adults were similarly assaulted. However, worldwide 90% of adults believe in beating children for their own good. In the U.S., only one state, Minnesota, has outlawed parental corporal punishment of children, and only 11 nations worldwide have done so. Beating children in schools is still legal in twenty-three states. Texas, which had the highest rates of capital punishment under governor George W. Bush, also leads in corporal punishment in the schools with 118,000 beatings administered per year. Nationwide, children are battered in schools with wooden paddles on their buttocks from 400,000 to 1 or 2 million times annually, according to varying estimates.12 School disciplinarians specialize in punishing children physically, “This punishment is given for minor offenses usually in the form of paddling on the buttocks... There is a graded scale of different forms of corporal punishment aimed at meting out ‘discipline.’” Such legal abuse needs to be outlawed.
.....Six U.S. children are reported abused or neglected per minute. This amounts to over 3,100,000 cases a year and 63 million over a generation. We can reasonably assume that much child abuse is never reported, however. Children are often threatened with even worse abuse, or the murder of their pets, for example, if they dare report how they are being abused.
.....While virtually all violent people were once abused children, only some abused children become violent. Therefore, child abuse is a necessary, but not a sufficient cause for violence. Depending on the degree, extensiveness, and age of onset of child abuse, there are different outcomes. The earlier the abuse occurs, the more intense it is, and the more sustained and repeated over time, the worse the effects are and the more likelihood there is of resulting violent pathology. When they grow up and become parents, many who were abused children repeat the abuse on their own innocent offspring.
.....The most severely abused, who never received help, become the violent psychopaths, also called sociopaths. They are the sadists, predators, murderers, serial killers, assaulters, batterers, rapists, abusers of power, dictators, terrorists, and necrophiles attracted to death and decay. They may also become destructive political leaders who send others to their sacrificial deaths in wars.
.....Other abused children become the dominators in relationships, politics, and business. Inwardly empty, they are driven to win. They desperately want to appear successful in others’ eyes. They seek rewards for themselves no matter what the expense to others. When narcissistic corporate leaders despoil the environment, use workers instrumentally, and ignore human rights, they are displacing their own shame. For example, the real estate entrepreneur Donald Trump names most of his towering constructions after himself to prove his own grandeur. His books are replete with bragging about his triumphs and vindictiveness toward anyone who opposed him: “I’m screwing people against the wall, and I’m having so much fun. People say it’s not nice, but I really believe in getting even. I believe in an eye for an eye.” With regard to an environmentalist who had opposed one of his schemes, Trump wrote, “Often you appreciate a good fight, and you respect your opponent, But in this case I really liked grinding her into the ground.” Trump’s grandiosity and narcissistic contempt for his “opponent” reveal the shame from which he is trying to defend himself by humiliating her. His preoccupation with his image is so extreme that it extends beyond his own lifetime: “One of my biggest fears concerns how I will be perceived after I am gone.” Trump is far from unique among successful business leaders in such behavior, which usually derives from having been abused. Even Bill Gates, the world’s wealthiest individual, is known for temper tantrums against employees and berating them with such humiliating words as, “That’s the stupidest thing I ever heard.” A person with a stable level of self-respect who is capable of empathy for others would never demean them in such ways. Clearly, no amount of net worth can give a person self-worth.
.....Many abused children grow up to manifest their damage through psychosomatic illnesses, depression, self-destructive addictions, and becoming submissive, masochistic victims in relationships with abusive partners. They also may elect or follow destructive political, religious, or ideological leaders, all of whom are essentially parent figures. This includes cult leaders such as Osama bin Laden, Charles Manson, Muktananda, and Reverend Moon. The followers are blind to the character flaws of those to whom they submit because their leaders are similar to their early abusers whom they did not dare to criticize, could not see for who they were, and whom they may even idealize. Many eventually leave the fold, either because they awaken to the irrationalities, abuses, and contradictions they notice, or because they undergo a shock that leads them to choose an independent life over continued subjugation. However, the followers and victims of some necrophilic, charismatic leaders and dictators are not always so lucky in being able to escape. For example, Jim Jones commanded the mass suicide of all the members of his intentional community, and few survived.
.....Another group of abused children become idealists, altruists, helpers, and activists. They have become sensitized to injustice and may adopt any number of callings and causes. They are among the environmentalists, animal rights activists, peace and justice protesters, social workers, and psychotherapists, for example. Some recognize their own original wounds, usually with the help of an empathic witness. Others project their hurt onto the causes they choose to champion. The latter can be recognized by such signs as dogmatism, intolerance of diversity within their movement, extremism, and vehement anger that hurts rather than helps their cause.
.....The discussion above provides only a partial indication of how different people adapt to having been abused more or less severely in childhood. It is not intended to exhaust the possibilities, but only to show that violence is not a universal result of child abuse.
.....Psychiatrists working in U.S. prisons with convicted murderers, serial killers, and rapists have been able to document in at least 90% of cases that these destroyers of life were themselves extremely abused children. They were, for example, the objects of attempted murder, usually by parents or other close relatives. They saw other family members murdered. They had been tortured and maimed, shot, hit with axes, burnt, prostituted, sexually abused, frozen, starved, locked in confining spaces, shaken violently, beaten into comas, had their bones broken, were smeared with excrement, and were subjected to relentless verbal and emotional abuse.
.....What we know about the serial killers within our society regarding child abuse is relevant to the tyrants. In every case for which there is data, including Hitler, Mao, and Stalin, we discover that these cruel dictators who condemned millions to violent deaths had themselves once been defenseless children who were beaten mercilessly and repeatedly. Tyrants command the slaughter of millions of sacrificial victims while avoiding feeling the terror from their own childhoods that dominates their unconscious minds. They inflict it all around them without ever recognizing its source in themselves. Information about their childhoods also shows that America’s war-making presidents, including F.D. Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagen, Bush the first, Clinton, and others were once neglected and abused children.
.....We have so far been speaking of physical child abuse. What about sexual abuse? Standard statistics from government agencies report that one-third of American girls have been sexually abused before the age of eighteen. The actual rates are almost double that. Lloyd deMause calculated, on the basis of in-depth studies, that sixty percent of girls and forty-five percent of boys have been sexually molested, with the average age of abuse being seven. As far as technologically advanced democracies go, the U.S. is highly likely to be a leader in child abuse since the murder rate here is from 5 to 10 times higher than in any other industrialized or post-industrial democracy.

___________________________________________________________
From The Plague of Violence: A Preventable Epidemic
by Mitch Hall (2002)

Mitch Hall is mental health counselor for underprivileged children and youth from diverse backgrounds, a peace and children’s rights activist, an inspirational educator and speaker, a gifted writer, a skilled scholar and a certified yoga teacher. Mr. Hall contributes to cultivating inner and outer peace, nonviolence, children's rights, social justice and well-being.

__________________________________________________________

To read Mitch Hall's entire article, see
http://web.me.com/breathepeacefully/Breathe_Peacefully/The_Plague_of_Violence.html

Child Mistreatment, Child Abuse — What is it?

Humiliations, spankings and beatings, slaps in the face, betrayal, sexual exploitation, derision, neglect, etc. are all forms of mistreatment, because they injure the integrity and dignity of a child, even if their consequences are not visible right away. However, as adults, most abused children will suffer, and let others suffer, from these injuries. This dynamic of violence can deform some victims into hangmen who take revenge even on whole nations and become willing executors to dictators as unutterably appalling as Hitler and other cruel leaders.

Beaten children very early on assimilate the violence they endured, which they may glorify and apply later as parents, in believing that they deserved the punishment and were beaten out of love. They don't know that the only reason for the punishments they have (or in retrospect, had) to endure is the fact that their parents themselves endured and learned violence without being able to question it. Later, the adults, once abused children, beat their own children and often feel grateful to their parents who mistreated them when they were small and defenseless.

This is why society's ignorance remains so immovable and parents continue to produce severe pain and destructivity - in all "good will", in every generation. Most people tolerate this blindly because the origins of human violence in childhood have been and are still being ignored worldwide. Almost all small children are smacked during the first three years of life when they begin to walk and to touch objects which may not be touched. This happens at exactly the time when the human brain builds up its structure and should thus learn kindness, truthfulness, and love but never, never cruelty and lies. Fortunately, there are many mistreated children who find "helping witnesses" and can feel loved by them.

© 2010 Alice Miller

see www.alice-miller.com

Basic Human Rights for All?

AS A CULTURE, we demand the basic human rights of freedom from violence, oppression, physical threat, and discrimination. Unfortunately, we somehow fail to include children as a part of humanity.

It seems apparent that many of us are seemingly imprinted with the notion that children should be treated in a less respectful manner than other human beings. As a matter of fact, even some egalitarian and existential positions still fail to include children as a part of their philosophy.

Many of us find it extremely difficult to entertain the notion that children should be granted the same basic human rights that we demand for ourselves. This type of thinking predominates in spite of the fact that it would seem logical to grant children a greater leniency and tolerance with regard to their daily behavior. In light of the innocence of children, and their lack of understanding or knowledge as to how they should behave according to our culturally defined expectations, one would think that we would be less punitive toward children than we are toward ourselves on a daily basis. While they can be excused as novice students in the way of cultural expectations and the ways of the world, we adults, on the other hand, have no such justification for not following the rules of society. Yet, we adults demand that we not even be threatened with treatments of a violent nature, which I should add, includes hitting, swats, whacks, taps, smacks, or spankings. Even our most murderous adult prisoners are legally protected from corporal punishment as a means of routine discipline.

It seems to me that if anyone is deserving of physical pain as a means of punishment, it should be us adults rather than children. After all, we should already know the rules of society, while children are still trying to learn what's expected of them. Of course, I am not suggesting that anyone should be subjected to physical pain. But, when we find ourselves forced to suffer punitive physical pain, we consider such treatment to be inhumane, cruel and unusual punishment, abusive treatment, and even torture in some cases. While many will support the idea of children being hit as a punitive measure, these are often the same people who will cry foul should they themselves ever be accosted for the same reasons.

Some people find it difficult to conceptualize a more esteemed view of our young. This prejudicial attitude stands as the major obstacle in the way of children becoming viewed as sufficiently worthy of being considered viable members of the human race along with the rest of us. Until we put such thinking behind us, it would seem fruitless to propose that we expand our definition of “fairness” to include children under the umbrella of treatments we consider for ourselves to be fair, just, and humane.

I don't believe any of us would deny the wisdom and humanity offered by the Christian tenet, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Most of us like that idea when it comes to interacting with other adults. But, we all pretty much know that when it comes to treating others as we ourselves would like to be treated, most of us exclude children as being people or “others”.

There was a time in our history when “we the people” also excluded slaves, women, Native Americans, and immigrant groups as well as children. Well, times have certainly changed, and we can look with pride at the social progress we've achieved over the years in developing a greater degree of social sophistication. As evidence of this fact, we can point to the just fairness we've come to show toward minorities and women by affording them the same protections under the law, which had been previously enjoyed exclusively by white men.

It seems to me that if we are to remain on our path toward making continued strides in our social progress, a logical issue to now address should include one of our last remaining bastions of societal double standards, and discriminatory treatments — the lack of social-status granted to the children of our society. Of course there are developmental issues concerning children that serve to limit their full participation in this adult world of ours, but that fact doesn't have a bearing on the unrelated circumstance involving equal protections under the law.

There is certainly no reason why we cannot at least begin to talk about granting children the same protection from violent treatment that we adults enjoy. As defined by the law of the land, a husband who spanks his wife against her will is guilty of Spousal Abuse, Assault and Battery, and/or Domestic Violence. These laws have been designed to deter the violence-prone husband from physically disciplining his wife, and to serve as a means to further safeguard her well being in the future. Let us take yet another step forward by offering children the same level of protection from violence that we provide for adults. After all, such an added protection granted to children would provide us with yet another reason to feel encouraged about our continuing efforts toward social progress, as we become a society possessing a greater degree of social sophistication.

A Note To Spanking Mothers

You want equality in your relationship with your husband, of course. You don't feel it would be acceptable for him to spank you for disobeying him or making repeated mistakes just because he is bigger and stronger than you are.

I totally agree with you. But, given this circumstance, I would like to ask, “What makes you more susceptible to being abused than a child?” You can state that you don't deserve to be hit, but so would any child. That's not much of an argument. You can say that the relationship you have with your husband is “different.” But, no loving relationship is “different” when it comes to treating a loved one in a violent manner. You can say that you are responsible for your kids as a justification for hitting them, just as I can take the position that a man is responsible for his wife and should, therefore, have the right to “keep her in line”; to discourage her from embarrassing him in public; and to teach her to stop making the same mistakes all of the time. For every excuse you can state as a justification for hitting kids, I can counter with the same type of chauvinistic excuses for men hitting their wives as a means of discipline (as many husbands once did and, sadly, some still do).

The difference is that you are 'abused' if you get spanked against your will, while your children are not. I'm simply asking what it is that makes you think that you're better than a child, and therefore deserving of a more respectful treatment. Is it because you think that a spanking would be more harmful to you than it would be to a child?

Just as you moms would like to be legally protected from the threat of physical and emotional harm at the hand of a bullying husband, so should your children be protected in the same manner from the hand of a bullying parent.

A Note To Spanking Fathers

Traditionally, it has been the male species that has been most guilty of denying basic human rights to those viewed as smaller and weaker. We men have practiced the philosophy of “might makes right” from the beginnings of known history. Perhaps we've come a long way from our knuckle dragging, cavemen ancestors. But men, it's time we evolved further beyond such atavistic tendencies. We've already evolved beyond corporal punishment as a routine means of controlling law-breakers and women. Let's take the next step-up in our level of humanity by also putting behind us the corporal punishment of children as well.

We know from countless testimony (which young children are ill-equipped to provide) that all adults are emotionally harmed by threats or acts of violence to varying degrees, regardless of whether physical injury has occurred. The sad irony here is that young children are much more vulnerable to suffering emotional damage as the result of assaultive acts (including threats) than are we adults.

The Ins and Outs of Double Standards and Discriminatory Treatments

For those of you who may not be aware, a double-standard involves holding a different gender, ethnic group, race, religious group, or age group, in lower regard than the one with which an individual identifies themselves as being a part. These societal groups of “less worthy”, “inferior”, “unsavory”, looked-down upon segments of humanity have historically been the victims of unfair and discriminatory practices by the majority, the ruling class, and/or those in power. Our human past is filled with examples of various social groups being treated with a double standard within their particular society at large. And even though we can safely say that the existence of these double-standards have diminished over time, we have not yet evolved to the point of social sophistication that would have us putting an end to all unjust double-standards.

Women, and especially wives, have been the victims of one of the most enduring double standards of all time, and still suffer expressions of this unjust, prejudicial attitude toward them by men in many parts of the world. With the women of our culture now being generally granted the same respect, consideration, and protections that men have traditionally demanded for themselves, children stand as the last remaining segment of our society being acceptably victimized by a double standard in terms of legal protections from the threat of physical and emotional violence. In this regard especially, children are being denied their basic human rights.

We should remain ever mindful that it has been a relatively short time in our history since wives were legally beaten with switches. But, they were not being beaten as far as their husbands were concerned; they were simply being disciplined. The language that was then used as a reflection of a double standard toward wives is the same language parents now use in describing the treatment of their children under a double standard. Men had a different language to describe such a treatment of themselves; they called it Assault and Battery.

It's not quite enough to ask parents to stop spanking their children without them first experiencing a change in attitude toward childrearing. If children were to remain being held to a double-standard, we would see less physical injury occurring to children as the result of eliminating the practice of spanking. However, we would still see the ravages of emotional damage occurring to children as the result of being held to a double-standard of treatment. The continued existence of this double standard would continue to see children being treated with disrespect in the form of disregard, dismissal, insensitivity, and harsh regard.

If we are to consider children a part of humanity, it's time we brought them into the fold by starting to consider the possibility that our young might be even more susceptible to the emotional harm of being treated with disrespect than we adults.

The overriding issue at hand here concerns the fact that all adults, even including the most vicious of incarcerated criminals, are legally protected from physical punishments as a disciplinary practice, while children are left excluded from such legal protections. This discriminatory inequity is the reflection of a prejudice against minor children on a societal level. It is a prejudice known as Ageism.

Ageism is just as difficult a social issue to overcome as the bigotry of Misogyny or Racism because these behaviors represent the same behavioral characteristics (an irrational, misguided, and misinformed prejudice against others). While the targets of prejudicial intolerance might differ, the basis for group prejudices remains the same. The male chauvinist views his wife as a sexually objectified possession who is also seen through an attitude which dictates that the wife is held in lower regard than his male peers. The basis for the problem lies with this type of man possessing a superior attitude toward women. The racist views the targeted group as being inferior and is assigned to a lower social-status, which is rationalized as justifiable.

I should reiterate here that throughout history, the rationalizations used as excuses for physical discipline have been basically the same for slaves, women, and children alike. Typically, these excuses have included striking the offenders for defiance, disobedience or safety issues.

The elimination of the group prejudice presents a formidable challenge. We need to find ways by which we can effectively instill a raised understanding, a higher level of consciousness, and an increased level of empathy. This is difficult because those who harbor these prejudices are seldom individuals who feel a burning desire to change their existing attitudes toward those they regard as inferior human beings. In addition, these prejudices commonly represent deep-seated orientations that were instilled during their early formative years. This is a developmental stage where learned behavior is subject to manifest itself as deeply ingrained beliefs. Such perceptions are also referred to as bigotry. We should strive to progress beyond the inhumanity of socially accepted Ageism in the same way that we've already progressed beyond the inhumanity of socially accepted Racism and Misogyny. Given this, I support the notion that children should be afforded the same societal protections from violence as are enjoyed by the rest of society. After all, it's simply a position calling for basic human rights for all of us.

James C. Talbot (March 2010)

Please visit www.positivedisciplining.com
and www.nospank.net

Current Philosophy About Hitting Children

On Hitting Children:
A Review of Corporal Punishment in the United States

Over a century ago, it was common practice for men to hit their wives as a way of teaching them, gaining compliance, or chastising them. Today, this practice is clearly identified as abuse and is illegal. This cultural change in what was acceptable behavior came about slowly, as part of the concept of protection of human rights and acceptance that women were not the chattel of their husbands. Although both cultural mores and legal behavior in dealing with women have changed, the author of the present article states, "[I]ronically, the only humans it is still legal to hit are the most vulnerable members of our society — those we are charged to protect — children."This article discusses the position of the US government on corporal punishment (CP) of children.

"Spanking," "paddling," and "whupping," terms commonly used to describe punishment of children are, by definition, forms of hitting, either with a hand or with an instrument. Hitting children is at least as cruel and harmful an act as hitting adult women. It is an act of violence and a clear violation of the child's human rights.''

In the United States, it is against the law to hit older adults, prisoners, and criminals, and it is illegal for adults to hit children in school in more than half of US states, However, it is not illegal for parents to hit their children at home, largely "because of strongly held beliefs about parents' rights to discipline as well as a society view of parents as 'owners' of children."

The article by Knox summarizes numerous research studies that demonstrate strong associations between CP of children and later development of maladaptive behavior patterns, such as aggression and delinquency, and concludes that CP is probably more harmful than helpful. A meta-analysis of 80 studies shows that spanking and other forms of CP are associated with increased aggressive and delinquent behavior in children, poorer parent/child relationships, worse mental health in children, increased physical abuse of children, increased adult aggression and criminal behavior, poorer adult mental health, and increased later risk for abusing one's spouse or child. CP is often part of a larger pattern of abuse; it is also often the first behavior in a cycle of abuse of children, and the youngest children tend to suffer the most abuse.

Parents who practice CP are not aware of or fail to use alternatives that are more effective. Research documents that spanking does not have long-term positive effects on a child's adaptive behavior. When children are hurt physically, their brains and bodies become physiologically aroused, causing them to focus almost entirely on themselves and not on what they are supposed to be learning. Thus, researchers argue that children who are hit are, paradoxically, less likely to learn the lessons parents are trying to teach.

Many organizations, including the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners and the United Methodist Church, have taken a stand against CP. The article describes professional and international progress on ending CP, citing 24 countries that have enacted legislation to abolish all CP of children. In many countries, the ban on CP in the home is primarily educational and does not include a provision for criminal penalties. What has developed in these countries is a change in the cultural expectations about behavior toward children.

In 2006, the United Nations (UN) adopted a policy banning CP of children, maintaining that "No violence against children is justifiable; all violence against children is preventable."Leading reformers in the UN are outraged that only the United States and Somalia failed to ratify UN documents against CP in children, even though the death rate from maltreatment for US children younger than 15 years is 10 to 15 times higher than the average death rate in other wealthy nations.^[1]

The author makes an appeal for efforts that hold promise for preventing child maltreatment, such as parent education and removal of social sanctions for hitting children. A key step in treating violent individuals is to confront, dispute, and develop alternatives to beliefs that support violence. The author suggests development of programs and campaigns to educate people about how to avoid hitting children. Many parents and caregivers are need help with discipline, and health care providers, such as pediatric nurse practitioners, can be highly effective educators for parents. These clinicians should provide anticipatory guidance as a preventive method of securing nonviolent parenting skills. Nurse practitioners are encouraged to teach parents about the potential adverse outcomes of CP and have parents commit to never hitting, shaking, or spanking their children.

Viewpoint
This article emphasizes a problem that may not be a dominant clinical concern. I like the emphasis on anticipatory guidance for parents, assuming that most parents will experience times when they are frustrated and angry at their children and need to learn another way to respond. Helping parents think in advance about what they must not do and make decisions about alternatives addresses the problem before it happens. Early teaching of parents also has a chance of reaching parents with the message before they have adopted abusive patterns about which to feel guilty.

Changing the cultural behaviors about what was acceptable for men in their relationships with women took a long time. Although we might also accept that it will take a similar length of time to change societal behavior towards children, the first step is to discuss the problem more broadly. I think that awareness of failure of the United States to support the efforts of the UN and other countries in limiting abuse of children should generate some discussion and perhaps create additional positive action.

References
1. UNICEF. A League Table of Child Maltreatment Deaths in Rich Nations. Florence, Italy: Innocenti; 2003

_________________________________________________
Marilyn W. Edmunds, PhD, CRNP:

Co-owner, Nurse Practitioner Alternatives, Inc., Ellicott City, Maryland; Adjunct Clinical Professor, Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland