In the booklet ”Plain talk bout spanking” you can read at page 9 (in the chapter ”Spanking at school”) that:
“…paddling, because it is specifically prescribed and so blatant, serves to overshadow and thereby give cover to less obvious forms of abusive treatment.”
Min snabba översättning:
“…att smiska barn, tjänar att överskugga och därmed täcka over andra, mindre uppenbara former av övergrepp/misshandel, därför att det är uttryckligen bestämt och så påfallande.”
Yes, I think Jordan Riak is right; corporal punishment can be a cover for other sorts of abuse, less obvious. So if you ban corporal punishment of children both in schools and in the home, everywhere, you start to see other forms of abuse underneath, but maybe not immediately.
Contrary to what people against a ban on corporal punishment assert. That people would use oher forms of abuse instead, more subtle forms. Abuse they already have been using however?
Read “For your own good – Hidden cruelty in child-rearing and the roots of violence” by Alice Miller online.
In
“If hitting a child is so good for him, why didn’t Charles Manson turn into a model citizen? Or Hitler? Or Stalin?
If there is ‘no harm in a swat on the butt’ for a child why is it against the law to do the same thing to an adult?”
And why are people (women) drawn to spankers and very violent people like a Charles Manson, see what Riak writes at page 8 in his booklet, in the chapter ”Spanking and sexual molestation”:
“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”
Min något fria översättning:
“Det är dags för misshandlare att inse – vadhelst de än tror att de åstadkommer – att de gör sina barn till lätta byten för rovlystna personer.”
Inlägg
