Next entry in the Hands Up Don’t Hit series about the positives of peaceful parenting and the continued existence of child abuse. In this post I shall present a comment I saw to the video France Bans Spanking by Stefan Molyneux and my response to that comment.
There are significant gaps in the presentation of this anti-spanking message. Rather than being a unified theory of NAP, Biology, Psychology and Sociology that leads to an utopian future that only the most dim witted fail to see. There has been some substantial recent work done on the positive effects of strong discipline, particularly when engaged in early childhood but after infancy.
This information was presented to you by Jim Penman in his work – Biohistory and briefly touched on in his video with you – Decline and Fall of the West.
In reference to spanking it can be said that like most things, that which has been done for a very long time, must confer biological benefits onto those who engage in it.
Thus as outlined in Biohistory, family structures that utilise spanking as a parental technique are strengthening the cortisol response their gene line has to stress through epigenetics. This has been shown to be biologically advantageous to societies that use these techniques, making them more likely to survive and propagate.
In the presentation you did with Jim Penman there was the example of how Sparta raised their boys to be the most famed warriors in the world for their time.
The West is not required to raise boys to become men who can hold the pass of Thermopylae but if there is a continuum, we do not need to raise boys who can guard the door of their safespace with an impressive tantrum.
Perhaps an approach can be made to Jim Penman so he can clearly outline the biological importance of strong discipline in the raising of boys.
It would be quite catastrophic to see wide spread changes in parental behaviour if the effects on Western civilisation are to be so detrimental.
My response to this was:
Anything done for a long time does not necessarily confer benefits, it just isn’t fatal.
Can begin to give all children testosterone from childhood and it’ll likely confer some benefit but does not make it something advisable or moral to do.
Not being violently abusive does not equate to not parenting. Anything that could be considered a benefit could be achieved otherwise. Even this cortisol response. One can experience the thrill of competing in other ways. Engaging in sporting activities, debates, testing ones limits. Actual situations where there is somehtign to win or lose. Can even give children cortisol in their food, still says nothing of its morality.
Widespread changes have already occurred and been detrimental. People are parenting less. Less spanking does not automatically equal better parenting, as there are other forms of abuse, but spanking at all is not a part of good parenting.
Do you find the Non Aggression Principle to be flawed or have rebuttals to Universally Preferable Behavior?
This is another example of the continued steps towards more peacefully parented children. The benefits of doing so are almost innumerable and the danger of not doing so undeniable. When is the last time you discussed the topic?
If you have any conversations or stories related to this please contact me at : firstname.lastname@example.org
Here is the first version of the design for shirts. Shall have more related to the topic
Thank you for reading. Subscribe to the Blog for more or: