Interesting how bad kids and bad parenting went on the rise when fewer and fewer parents were spanking over the past 20-30 years. People may not heed the Bible much these days, but it still has some pretty good daily wisdom in it, used for thousands of year. "Spare the rod, spoil the child" That's not a command. It's a warning based upon Solomon's experience. Parents just need to stop abusing their kids and start disciplining them.

Caveparents also didn't have to contend with a society wired in distractions such as Twitter, Facebook, violent video games like Grand Theft Auto IV, mean-spirited Reality TV like Jersey Shore, Bad Girls Club, etc., etc., all of which discourage children from thinking about living compassionately with others in productive communities.

Cygnus_X-1 -

If spanking was so effective and raised such decent children then why did those "decent children" grow into adults who decided that spanking was NOT the key ingredient to good parenting?

In the 21st century all you have to do is sit back, relax, turn on Jersey Shore, and let the magic of Ritalin take care of everything.

Actually, if you read the article you will note that there was a community of support for the kids, not just a nuclear family.

And Cygnus? "Spare the Rod, Spoil the child" is not in the bible.
I guess you are right, people don't heed the bible if they don't know what is in it.

King James & American Standard Versions: He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
New International Version: He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.
New Life Version: He who does not punish his son when he needs it hates him, but he who loves him will punish him when he needs it.

or:
Proverbs 22-15
King James Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

New International Version: Folly is bound up in the heart of a child,
but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him. (NIV)

@Androloma: "Neanderthals wrote the Bible, before they killed off the Cro-Magnon and became Protestants."

That's so cute! Can I borrow your time machine?

Brandon if someone is letting their children play games like Grand Theft Auto (Rated M 17+) and watch trash TV like the Jersey Shore or Bad Girls Club then it is their fault that their children are desensitized and lacking compassion.

I cuddled my kids and breast fed them. NEVER, EVER spanked them - I took the time to talk to them, and I gave them a reason to be empathetic and care about others.

They are both successful college grads with excellent jobs in their fields, and wonderful people.

They actually love to come home and spend time with us as a family, and bring their girl/boy friends.

I highly recommend treating your children as you wish you had been treated as a child. Break the cycle of bad parenting.

Cygnus,

I agree that parents should discipline their children, but you don't have to spank a child to do so. I was raised being spanked and while I did turn out OK, I don't use that method of discipline in my own family and my step-son is very responsive to me when his mother and I tell him not to do something. I know many parents who only want their kids to sit down and shut up, which is cruel. Children are naturally inquisitive and learn from our examples. In our home, we make time to listen to our son and ask him what he's thinking and how he feels about things. We've never lied to him when he's had questions about drugs, sex, alcohol, etc and we credit our attentiveness and honesty with him in his relatively untroubled childhood. We feel that this will be an important foundation of trust and respect to build upon as he enters his teenage years, which are hard enough without having uninterested, unloving parents thrown into the mix.

Having said that, why did you have to throw the Bible in on the very first opening? We're talking about cavemen sociogoly from over 8000 years ago. Your neat little religion claims man was "created" about 4000 years ago. The Bible and it's magical superstitions don't have any bearing on a scientific study. I don't need some made up commandments from a mystical realm to tell me how to raise a child. Most people have a pretty good internal moral compass and can tell right from wrong. Sure, there are those that can't, but for most of us, we don't need god's and angels to figure out that treating a child with kindness and nurturing them and encouraging them is the right thing to do. Have I had to raise my voice to my son or talk sternly with him? Yes. But I don't threaten him with bodily harm because I love him and he loves us and trusts us in return.

Kristofer,

I generally think your post has some excellent points where child rearing is concerned. I think it is fantastic you have such a good relationship with your son.

But if you are going to attack religion (and I agree the introduction of the bible has no reasonable place here), at least get your facts straight. When you make such sweeping statements (and incorrect statements, at that), you just open yourself up for attacks that will undermine the very good points you are trying to make. Christianity as a whole does not necessitate a young Earth theory belief. In fact, the early leaders of the Church took a non-literal approach to the Genesis story and saw it as an allegory. It wasn't until after the Protestant reformation that the literal approach became popular. You have the proposed age incorrect, by the way. I believe most Young Earthers stick close to the date proposed by Archbishop James Ussher of the Protestant church of Ireland that places the beginning of the world at 4004 BC, which would mean the earth is a total of 6000+ years, not 4000. Either date is, of course, hogwash, but if you are going to point out the flaws in the theory it is best to use accurate data in your criticism. So... unless you know the denomination Cygnus subscribes to, you cannnot make the sweeping claim that his religion claims man was created 4000 years ago -- unless you do know for a fact he subscribes to a Young Earther Protestant denomination. I know and am good friends with many Christians of various denominations and they are all intelligent, scientifically minded individuals and not one of them subscribes to Young Earth theory.

My advice, stick to what you know -- how to raise a compassionate, well balanced kid. Religious commentary is not your strong suit. Besides, religion bashing has as much place here as relgion boosting.

In the biblical era, the "rod" was used by shepards to guide their flocks. It was not used to beat them. "Sparing the rod" references providing no guidance to children. That is what spoiling the child is, denying the child the guidance necessary to grow up healthy.

No, NOT a strong nuclear family - a strong extended family. "Sparing the rod" is the exact point of this study - it says kids should be held and cuddled a LOT, NOT spanked. Did you even read the article?

Wow, if you read a Bible re-written by King James, then your are not reading the real Bible.

Parents stopped spanking their kids because the idiot doctor Benjamin Spock counseled parents against using punitive discipline when raising their children; so now the kids are not afraid, don't know that being hit hurts, therefore they go hiting and sometimes killing others.

Also, I wonder if they interviewed the Flintstone family for this research, because there was no written language, neither audio or video recordings at that time, so this is basically a very loose interpretation of the ancient archaeological record.

I agree that this article is short on facts. A great deal of anthropology is speculation. I don't think there is any tried and true formula for raising a child. As a parent, I saw that all three of my kids were very different and responded differently. My boys especially. My oldest was far more difficult and require a swat on the butt now and again to get his attention. Nothing abusive mind, but the occasional spank was an effective tool to promote good behavior. My youngest boy how rarely required any stern discipline. He pretty much made good choices and responded to verbal cues and requests. In fact the first time I gave him a swat because he was doing something he should not have, he was about 3. He didn't cry, he just turn and looked at me and said "you could have just told me to stop."

I think the issue is balance. It is also about participation. The worst, or at least more poorly adjusted kids I have encountered come from families where there parents spend little to no time with their kids. It is only through these early interactions that children learn to operate within the society.

In the biblical era, the "rod" was used by shepards to guide their flocks. It was not used to beat them. "

Actually shepherds used a staff and even sometimes used it to break the sheep's leg so they would learn to depend on the shepherd and not wander off and get eaten.

The following quotations come from the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible:

Prov 13:24: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes (diligently)."

Prov 19:18: "Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying."

Prov 22:15: "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him."

Prov 23:13: "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die."

Prov 23:14: "Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell (Shoel)."

Prov 29:15: "The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame."

Break the sheep's legs so they wouldn't wander off? Oy, what an idiot. First, sheep don't wander off - they stick pretty close to their flock. Which you'd know if you'd ever seen a real sheep which I doubt. Two, if you break the sheep's legs, it won't be able to move about and graze, which means it will starve to death, so what would be the point?

Cygnus - you show me a shepherd who strikes his sheep with his rod, and I'll show you a very bad shepherd.

My father was the eleventh child and I think his parents were just plain tired of controlling via physical abuse by the time he was born. He did spank his first two children sometimes but then realized something. He changed. He'd say, "Look at the size of my hands and how tall I am, and how small is this child looking up at me."

He was barely literate and he figured this out. I respect him so much for that. My father figured out that children think you hate them when you hit them, no matter what the justification. He saw clearly that "this hurts me more than it hurts you" is not love. His own heart showed him that "tough love" is not any kind of love at all.

Hitting a child in anger to cause harm is not effective. Giving a child a firm swat to reinforce disapproval is different, but must be be accompanied by equal parts encouragement and adoration.

RJKARDO, by the Scripture you quoted, how are you proving Cygnus wrong? You are confirming what he said because essentially that is what the bible IS saying in all its various translations..."Spare the rod, spoil the child"....

Proverbs 23:13 (New International Version) Do not withhold discipline from a child;
if you punish him with the rod, he will not die.

Thank You Jody!

The only thing spanking teaches is fear. So one who gets spanked grows to be fearful or feared. The last 20 years of non-spanking did not produce bad parents or bad kids. It is what we as a society are teaching children to value, respect and become.

"Sparing the rod..." is most often mistranslated, as Stephanie pointed out.

Repeatedly quotating from misquoted King James verses, or quotes from Bibles that were re-writes from the King James, does not justify beating your child black and blue. Also, even better, taking a single verse and quoting it without taking into account the rest of the story it relates to should be a crime punishible by stoning.

Steve J, good point also.

Parents not beating their kids is not causing youth problems. Parents not being available to their kids is doing a lot of harm. What makes us think that if both parents go to work and leave their kids in the hands of minimum wage workers who change every couple of months is a way to raise kids? Why not just donate sperm and eggs and let someone else bear and raise your child?

In the days of hunter gatherers, and in the days of farming, the clan or village was there constantly. Even when working, you were available for your kids. The kids were there with you. The kids knew what is took to eat. You had to plan (follow the herd or plant the field) or work hard (gather fruits, etc. or thresh the wheat). The kids saw this and participated. We go to work, drop the kids off, and they have no clue what we do or where we are.

On top of this, they had one set of rules. Kids now have rules at school, rules at daycare, rules at home and there are probably different rules if they go to a friends house. And TV shows you different rules. What do they have to hang on to that is consistent?

nice fictional story no facts at all.

Very well put Steve, If my 2 misbehave they get a swat on the butt and then I talk to them gently about why they got it and if they understand why they got it. You can be firm and still loving all in the same breath. They are still young, but when I take them out I have people tell me how well behaved they are which makes me proud of my 2. They can show the world they know what it means to be respectful of others when out in public.

SteveJ-1209086:

An exact point.

To All:

The article seems to suggest that we (mankind) may actually be "devolving" with time. So we need to return to more (primitive?) methods of child rearing?

I really don't give a crap what "the Bible" says on the subject. This same Bible, after all, says a great many things that have been demonstrably proven to be utterly absurd from any scientific standpoint. Moreover there is nothing even approaching agreement between all the myriad sects of bible-believers about what the correct interpretation of scripture is, nor even about which translation is the right one.

Lay your hand upon a child in anger and you have committed assault and battery on a minor. Do it in my presence and I promise you that you won't be able to use that hand again without pain for a very long time. If I see someone try to up the ante by using a "rod" or a "staff" to administer the beating, it will take a team of surgical proctologists to remove it from the offender's lower colon.

Every day in the USA more than 5 children die from abuse or neglect - almost 70% of them at the hands of their parents. WAY too many of these murdering a$$hats spout Holy Scripture in defense of their actions. I have no use or sympathy for anyone who thinks that it is "okay" to employ physical violence against a small, helpless and defenseless child for ANY reason, nor for any religion that endorses such an obscenity.

LOL

"Parents not beating their kids is not causing youth problems"

Nice of you to use the word beating. However, this is absolutely wrong. It is causing problems in some kids, guaranteed. I have heard many kids say "what are you gonna do to me if I dont", including my step brother.

Physical discipline does not have to be beating. Teachers used to give a swat to unruly kinds and kids respected their teachers. Some may say they feared them but I say so what. If I was scared of a teacher I listened to them to stay on their good side. Kids today have no fear and do not care because the worse they get is detention, which is cool in some cases. The fear of a sore but or hands and the fear of the embarrassment kept them in line and they listened and learned. Same with life at home. You obeyed, listened, and acted appropriately. Now kids can swear at their parents or abuse them and parents cannot do anything but send them away.

Some of you say you had great kids and never spanked. Thats great but a lot of people have kids that start down the wrong track and I dont care how many times you tell them you love them or ask about their day, it wont help. Some kids need to fear the alternative. If you dont want to believe that you should just go back to your bubble of rainbows and puppies.

Cavemoms and dads didn’t spank their kids. Rather, they were the first adopters of positive touch, constantly carrying, cuddling and holding their children.

I realize this quote was WAY down in the 7th paragraph... I guess I'm the only one who read that far?

How wonderful that these caveperson's,(I'm sure in such a socialist paradise they didn't call each other cavemen)they studied were so socially advanced that they did not have to worry about survival and all they had to do was sit around the fire(provided by their one world democratic cave government no doubt)and wait for their welfare dinosaur meat to be brought to them, while Mom and Dad coddled little ug and uga,smoked the magic feel good grass,and endlessly sang kumbaya, (a very old song), because no one had to worry about tomorrow,tend the fire, hunt, or teach any survival skills to their young,(who were able to stay securely in their parents cave until they were 27, courtesy of their government) because they were SURE they would ALWAYS be taken care of,wonderful!,wonderful!,wonderful!......but I do wonder....whatever happened to them?

rjkardo....my bible says "Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod he will not die...punish him with the rod and save his soul from death" proverbs 23:13-14

It would appear that some distorted version of caveman parenting is already employed based on the behavioral nature of some of the offspring. Perhaps a vaccine would be more appropriate.

I cuddled my kids and breast fed them. NEVER, EVER spanked them - I took the time to talk to them, and I gave them a reason to be empathetic and care about others. They are both successful college grads with excellent jobs in their fields, and wonderful people.

of course, you could say the same about millions of people REGARDLESS of how they were raised. Most people can and do overcome childhood abuse and neglect; OTOH, I know people from families just like yours who drink, drug, and are in and out of institutions. Frankly, the credit for how a person turns out ultimately belongs to that person, not their parents.

This whole article sounds ridiculous, quite honestly, if you think back on our own history that we have written proof of, centuries back. So, when we were all in caves we were all so pacifist? I call nonsense. Going from "we all raise the children in loving touches" to "lets put them in child labor camps" and brutal murder is a horrible stretch of the brain for me.

So we go from hand in hand and nonphysical arguments to watching downright slaughters of other human beings for entertainment? Wow, whoever moved out of the cave screwed up huh? Seriously, Im sorry I find this a HUGE stretch of supposition considering all the downright brutality from the past centuries against children. What about each cultures own types of brutality toward others? There isnt a nationality, religion or society around that I know of that doesn't carry shame of this in their past history from slaughtering children and infants because they were born belonging "to the enemy".

And spanking or no? Ive seen wonderful children of both and horrible children of BOTH. Spanking or not isnt the issue, its people who shouldnt be parents who are "non-parenting"

Joan Raymond wrote a "fluff" piece. "Cavemoms"? I am nauseous.

There certainly can be no empirical evidence for most of the 'assertions' summarized.

Instead, the Noble Savage notion of centuries past is perpetuated.

It is hard to tell what went on at the Notre Dame University conference.

MrCool, who posts below, claims a degree in ethnology--and acquaintance with Boas and Mead-- praises Raymond's distortions. Franz Boas died in 1942. About 70 years ago. How old were you when you met the man, MrCool? In what year did you earn that degree?

I believe you are confabulating, that your judgement is clouded, and that you are "shilling" for some organization called Focus Adolescent Services.

Gotta watch out for these message boards, mister. Other posters just might challenge you.

Yes, the Twitters and the Facebook are such bad influence on our kids.

Won't you think of the children!

Uhhh huh..Just like dancing, novels, comics, Elvis, and those "moving pictures" corrupted so much of our American youth back in the day.

Please don't comment on influences that you think you know anything about.

Parents have it roughtoday, yes..but so did parents all the way back to the beginning of time. The wheel or the invention of the printing press didn't corrupt junior any more than our new social media do now.

Spanking is a combination of psychological, sexual, and physical abuse. Anyone who does this should go to jail.

It's wonderful that YOU know more than virtually every other parent who ever lived. Studies show nearly all modern parents have done it on occasion. Spanking can teach a toddler NOT to run into the street and thus save his life. But I guess we've been "evolving backwards" so to speak for the past 100,000 years, and no longer know as much as a bunch of folks dressed in animal skins.

My father figured out that children think you hate them when you hit them, no matter what the justification.

I wonder if koala babies think their mothers hate them when they spank them (which they do) or if wolf cubs think they are hated when they get a warning nip. Puleeze, some form of physical discipline is common to most species of mammals.

Solomon can kiss my a**!!! are u even a parent? spare the rod??? give me a break, the bible has the same amount of recommendable advice on raising well adapted kids as the american constitution has advise in how to use twitter. if you go by what the bible says u need to start a club to stone woman who left their husbands and cutting hands to thieves and abandoning women who cannot give birth!! You Right wing reactionary religious driven Americans are so prompt to bring the bible as the solution to ALL and ANY questions that is just unbelievable !!! As long as you don't have to think or put effort on anything following any recipe is COOL. Takes more effort to pick up, cuddle and calm your baby than letting her cry, more work to get up at night and comfort her after a nightmare than letting her "cry it out" more effort to understand a situation, think about it and explain with love and affection why is wrong to a kid than hitting them or spank them or using the rod (for crying out loud, the rod!?!?!?!) to "discipline" them... definitely more effort challenging yourself to be a better parent than following a 3000 yr old (Solomon is old testament right?) recipe from some wannabe tribe leader that decided to call himself a king. Solomon's temple

But hey, we are the mighty Americans we sent a man to the moon, can put a missile out of a camel's anus from 3000 miles away, lead the free world in all sorts of state of the art technology and are the champions of democracy ... but when it comes to moral issues about being better human beings, basic unimportant stuff like how to raise kids that are NOT little fashion-driven cellphone-holding narcissistic profiling psycho-bullying maniacs... yeah lets use the bible or any other out dated code, while leaving them unattended and out to understand this world by themselves with the added benefit of a parent that hits them when something goes wrong, or they make a mistake, or they step out of boundaries that have not yet understood or explained to them, as long as they keep quiet and don't disturb us sure lets use the 'rod'.... Solomon, OMG, wasn't that the idiot that resolve a dispute about maternity rights by ordering a soldier to cut the baby in two and give each mother a half... real good ol' redneck common sense seems to me. Betcha money he would vote republican!!!

What is missing here about the argument for spanking children, is that some parents beat their children and it is simply physical abuse. Such parents lack judgment about what is right and wrong themselves. They severely punish their children for the smallest infraction, or find any pretext for abuse. These parents are mentally ill and themselves are sadistic, paranoid, prone to making up beliefs in order to justify by punishing their children. Sadistic parents seek release and self-gratification by abusing a person who is small and defenseless.

Children of such abusive parents learn a diminished sense of right or wrong, that there is no justice, that harm may come unexpectedly at any time, and physical violence can be a solution to any problem. Some parents get a false sense of victory and moral justification by winning a violent contest, and they pass this mentality on to their children.

Look up the statistics about prison inmates related to the corporal punishment. We find the more extreme the punishment, the more the victim lacks empathy and lacks respect for authority in general. Something to think about the next time one of you spankers beats your kid.

Yes, some parents physically abuse their kids. But that has about as much to do with normal, appropriate spanking as a time-out has to do with parents who lock their kids in the closet.

I would like to know more about the translation. Maybe it does mean to spare the rod and lavish the child.

Solomon wasn't all that wise towards the end. In addition to the whole going after strange gods part, he taxed the people so much that when he died, the Israelites begged his son to reduce the load, and he refused so ten of the tribes packed up and left.

Using the Old Testament to justify beating your kid is the same as using the Quran to justify beating your wife.

Jesus didn't go around beating on children.

One day a group of people decided it was bad to spank your kids and started to educate people on the evils it it. Started to condemn parents who disciplined their children. Now our society is worse than ever. I had a lady yell at me for putting my child in timeout in public. (My child only misbehaved in public because she thought she wouldn't be punished in public. So I had to show her different) It worked she stop acting out in public. But that lady almost ruined my lesson. People like her are what is making our children a bunch of "I have the right to behave anyway I want" People. Our Country is full of a bunch of spoiled rude brats who are going to be ruining this Country one day. I pray for or future.

Solomon wasn't all that wise towards the end. In addition to the whole going after strange gods part, he taxed the people so much that when he died, the Israelites begged his son to reduce the load, and he refused so ten of the tribes packed up and left.

Wait a minute--you mean there's a down side to raising taxes? (sarcasm)

"An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics." -- Plato

"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784.

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.

"To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791.

This is how America created the Largest and most affluent Middle class in the History of the world.

marika-2453027, the parent does not have to be turned on by spanking their child in order for the child to have a sexual reaction.

"The sexual nature of the buttocks is explained not only by their proximity to the genitals, but also by their high concentration of nerve endings which lead directly to sexual nerve centers. Hence, the buttocks are a major locus of sexual signals."

-Tom Johnson, "The Sexual Dangers of Spanking Children." nospank.net, Aug 2002. Web. 18 Oct 2010

Which is why you don't spank a teenager or an older child!!! Don't you understand that for the vast majority of us, it stopped before our kids were old enough to go to school? You can reason with an older child. There is NO WAY a three year old experiences a sexual response by a swat on the behind; even if they did, I would say it would be worth the risk if the issue is life threatening behavior like running in the street. A "sexual perversion" is treatable but a dead or paralyzed child is not.

Tim Johnson is obviously a crackpot, anyway. Please use your head. Spanking was virtually niversal until the 1970s, so if it really affected people for life as Mr. Johnson and you claim, then every single baby boomer must be a pervert. World War II was fought and won by perverts. The American Revolution was fought by perverts who were inspired by the Founding Fathers--oops, I mean the Founding Perverts.

The GEICO cavemen stated they were never spanked... they were however pretty easily offended when people would say "So easy a cave man can do it". We may need to spank our children to toughen them up for the criticism they'll face once they get out on their own.

Solomon only ordered the baby to be cut in half because he knew the REAL mother wouldn't want her child harmed. If you are going to quote the Bible and turn it around , try reading the whole text and not paraphrasing what works for you.

Oh yes we need a 5-8 year study rather than do a retroactive study to show what Cave Men and Women have been doing decades!

yea. how do they know how long they cuddled or played. These quacks are just hiding their own assumptions behind psuedo-science. We're beyong the "trust me I'm a scientists" clap. Who do they think they are; climatologists?

Yeah this whole thing reeks. I love the way they even throw in that long term breastfeeding to 5-6 helped protect them from disease. What was the average life span about 16 years? Not a lot of substance there.

I just get this feeling, that cavemen were too socially advanced to possibly have spanked their children. You know what I mean? I get that feeling way down deep, just gut instinct. I just know.

How much federal grant money did the clowns behind the study burn through before reaching these "conclusions"?

Justme - I think that comment in the article about breastfeeding a 5 or 6 year old is ridiculous - they'll bite it off at that age!

I clicked the link where they were talking about the research, and it took me to a story about an i-phone ap that can turn me into a cave-man. Pretty useful for verifying their research.

Ellen - Harsh as it may sound it WAS the best thing for the clan to cast out a child in that condition so its bad genes were not carried on to the next generation. The "bad" genes are still not weeded out to this day.

PGH,

What a silly comment. By the time a kid is 5 or 6, they clearly would know enough not to "bite it off." Just because a kid was still breastfeeding at an older age does not mean their mental development stopped at 18 months. But there are many reasons why breast feeding would last that long back then -- and why other upper primates breast feed for prolonged periods of time today. First and foremost, it is the most effective form of birth control in nature (cavemen certainly weren't going to abstain and this was long before drugs, condoms or the rhythm method). Raising a child to the point of being relatively self sufficient takes a long time and a LOT of resources. If Mrs. Cavewoman was popping out a kid every 9 - 12 months, none would survive as there would not be enough resources to go around. The hormones produced during breast feeding inhibit ovulation, thus reducing the chance of having another kid until the last one was old enough to survive the splitting of mom's attention and resources. And in the meantime, the kid would benefit from years of a ready food supply. Remember, this was long before Gerber was around to provide food for babies and toddlers. So... evolutionarily, it makes total sense to breast feed that long and the evidence from the other upper primates (our closest living relatives) supports the concept.

And just to clarify -- I am in no way advocating that we continue to take this approach to breast feeding today. We do have other forms of birth control, different social structure and Gerber. With the modern world, this approach is not necessary nor desirable. To early humans, who did not have all of our advances and advantages, it makes perfect sense.

Joan Raymond,

This is a good article you wrote. Thank you.

One of my degrees is in Ethnology; Social Anthropology. I had to narrow my field of study to the dynamics of social change.

Yes, I am an old man. I met Boas and knew Maggie Mead. That was a long time ago; the good olde stone age. Back then we were concerned with the growing research that was being done. In question then, as today, was the purity of "Scientific Method." This is most important. Too much information is being passed off as truth due to poor or false science. It is possible to formulate any hypothesis and methodology to achieve any given desired result. In short; what result would you like me to prove for you?

Most of this bad science is driven by money. Researchers must spend their grant money in order to get more and more. Companies need to show research, ( frequently quasi research), to show that their product is the very best. Quasi research is done to further political, and social agendas. On and on this goes.

However, Joan Raymond, the point that you make in your article is very important. One needs only to watch his television to find daily evidence of this. A visit, for a day, to ones local public school, for which we pay for in high taxes, will show the sad state many children are in.

One one level we are all responcible for these actions. We are responcible for that child who attended Rutgers and made the sad choice to take a flying leap off of the G.W. Bridge. For the idiots in Seattle who drugged a mess of minor girls with their rape as a goal. We have yet to learn the extent and full truth of that.

The other day I was in the store waiting in line to pay for some photographs I had developed. There was some jerk boy on his cell phone yelling and swearing in a loud voice. He was using crude vulgarities in front of women in a public place. I waited 15 seconds for the manager, who was standing right there, to remove the jerk from the store. The manager did nothing. I had to act and act I did. I told the kid, ( a 20 something kid?) to shut his mouth and to leave the store that there were ladies present. His reply to me was,"what are you going to do about it Old-Man?" I walked up to him, so that the ladies present would not hear, and spoke into his ear; " I am going to meet you out side and with this apple wood cane beat you about the face and body. The punk, the coward's jaw dropped, he was afraid. I jestered him towards the door and he walked right out.

Joan, I still keep my hand in. I remain involved and have growing concerns.

I urge you to submit your article to Focus Adolescent Services, focusas.com They have for decades been dealing and working on these issues. They have a free help line. I was told by their webmaster that they average One Million visitors, (Hits?), to their web site a Month. Yes ma'am a month. We cannot and should not leave these problems to the government. It is We The People who have the power to bring about positive change.

Following Katrina and the ways in which money was ill spent or not spent I researched many groups who are doing good things in our nation. I found six who seem to be making a marked difference on a limited amount of money.

One of the things I respect about the people at Focus Adolescent Services, besides their knowledge and dedication is this: They refuse to register their organization as a "charity," a 501c. They feel that if people want to donate that they will out of the goodness of their hearts and not because it is a tax write-off. The FAS people also refuse to tax money from taxpayers on any level; city, county, state, and federal.

There are others. Ask me for my list if you want it. In the mean time give Focus Adolescent Services your work, work with them, send them a dollar. We Americans are a great people, I fear that we are forgetting this.

Hi saddened....it was a joke? Just saying that would be weird and I don't think I'd want to breastfeed my child while waiting for their school bus to come on the first day of kindergarten (more sarcasm, just so you know). Calm down.

I don't care what these freaking studies say, or what most of the armchair psychologist are posting, but I'll tell you one thing........I considered myself typical as an child, adolescent, and teen while growing up, and I will attest that the few well placed "beatings" I got from my folks during that time were deserved.

Looking back those "beatings" weren't really that bad and they had a positive impact on me in that they definitely modified the "poor" behavior that brought them on. At the time I felt they were unjust and would have welcomed an "outsider" telling my folks they were wrong and not to "spank" me, looking back I'm very thankful they didn't.

As a parent who didn't enjoy the "right" to discipline my children with spanking I clearly see the damage that's been done in my ability to "shape" my children's behavior.

No spanking = no respect, no appreciation, and poor attitude and behavior from your children. For real.

Sincerely,

A normal, even successful person, who got their ass beat a few times as a child.

moondog

My niece is raising a "never spanked" child. He's three years old and he punches her in the face and she just coos at him. So far he's been kicked out of 3 day cares for biting and hitting. It's sad because none of us want to be around him.

You know folks, no one's saying that this style of parenting doesn't include discipline. They're saying it includes a lot of affection, especially when kids are very young. That babies aren't left to "cry it out" at night, or asked to become independent too early.

As for the research backing it, it's a little hard to catch in the article, but the assumptions are based on studies of still-existing "hunger-gatherer" cultures. There are still a few of them out there, and people have been studying them for at least a hundred years, so it's not unreasonable to think that people who live today the way "cavemen" lived also raise their children similarly - especially when you see the same pattern occurring in hunter-gatherer cultures around the globe.

Janice22

I'm sorry to hear that......it won't get any better unless your relatives instill some fear in the child and it can't start too soon. I know this will sound barbaric to the bleeding hearts out there but it's a fact.

I'm actually somewhat pissed that I let myself fall into the "no spank" model for our kids, but my spouse felt strongly about it and as with many things I let her win out on this one. Now we have a 17 year old drug addict punk for a kid who needs an ass kicking. Too bad we didn't provide that for him; now he'll have to get that ass kicking in the real world, and he will soon, since we are hosting a going away party on his 18th birthday (where he's the guest of honor). That's right, even my beloved spouse who felt so strongly that we shouldn't spank our kids has had enough.......she's leading the charge to kick him out!

The moral here is: kids will not respect parents who don't spank them, period.

I do wonder if things would have been different if we put the "fear of god" into him (even though we atheist)? I'll bet the farm he wouldn't be a drug addict punk now.

Moondog

Saddened (2.7) That's what I told my sister. She says you're wrong. Breast feeding didn't stop nothin!

I think there are ways to instill respect without spanking, but I'm not a bleading heart either. Every child has their own journey. You mentioned kid(s) but only one that is making bad choices.....It seems that each child has their own unique needs and one parenting model can't possibly work for all of them. All you can do as a parent is be a good role model, love them, protect them and let them know what your limits & boundaries & rules are. Then hope for the best.

ps - I didn't spank my children and they deeply respect me, my daughter is finishing a degree in foreign languages, working 2 jobs to put herself through college and my son is finishing high school and trying to discover what his interests are. They are my best cheerleaders and I am theirs........

Legend In My Own Mind - so how does your sister come to the conclusion that breastfeeding doesn't stop ovulation a large percentage of the time? Thats how it works you know - like BC pills only not as reliable. You wouldn't see any outward effects and there is still a high failure rate (maybe 20%) compared to what we normally would consider birth control. That doesn't mean that along with the immunities provided and the nutritional value that it wouldn't be worthwhile under the circumstances for that reason. In fact in prehistoric times, a birth control method that was usually (even if not always) effective was probably pretty valuable.

proud mom-2516694

You have a point, we do have 2 girls who haven't turned out "as" challenging as our son. But, if you get any indication that your child may require a "heavy hand" then you should use it.

Also, as an aside, for those of you who may picture me as a "barbarian", there was plenty of affection, love, and encouragement in our home. This validates what proud mom-2516694 says about being able to deal with your children individually......Thank PM.

Moondog.

Justme - I think that comment in the article about breastfeeding a 5 or 6 year old is ridiculous - they'll bite it off at that age!

Actually, there is plenty of research to substatiate that in hunter gatherer cultures, the average child WAS breast fed for the first four years. (Along with plenty of solid food, of course.) Remember, such cultures still existed into the 20th century. Think for a minute: what choice did they have until dairy animals were domesticated? There aren't all THAT many good sources of calcium in nature, and small children need it.

I believe that this is the most idiotic post I've ever read on newsvine. EVER! Unless these women got into a time machine, how do they know what cave mothers and fathers did or didn't do? Unbelievable.

They probably never found any cave-drawings of kids being spanked so holy crap! They never spanked their kids!

Ill-behaved cave kids were probably sent outside to be used as bait to lure in dinner. Every time we go in public, there are more than a few who'd be good for this same purpose today.

I believe it was the author of this article that made that assumption.

Like any good journalist these days, Ms Raymond probably made little to no attempt to prevent her own biases from entering into the report. It's amazing that media contributors aren't held to a stricter standard. This article is fairly worthless as a report - the author should have included more direct quotes from the three articles supporting her assertions.

With just a little more supporting evidence, I could consider it at least a decent attempt at a journalistic essay. As it stands, it's a piece of touchy feely fluff that if printed on paper, would make an excellent hamster cage liner.

New studies show Stone Age parents had multiple caregivers, didn't spank & raised more empathetic kids.

New studies show scientists only theorize or in worst cases, such as this one, speculate. I'm raising the BS flag!

A lack of evidence for it is not a scientific basis. there is simply not enough evidence one way or the other. Plus, everyone is and was different. Even under the assumpton that they didn't spank the children, you know there were some right a-holes who beat the kids to death most likely. Why? because it happens now-sure in a vastly smaller percentage than now, but I am also willing to assume (as this author is obviously so good at doing), that the number for extreme abuse cases, as well as the number of people who spanked the kids, is equivalently the same, just the scale is much smaller related directly to population size. (Other factors such as stress etc being left out as i find it hard to believe trying to bring down say, a mammoth, is LESS stressful than facebook. just do not know where some people find this logic that the day to day US lifestyle is more stressful than not having any idea if you'll starve or freeze that winter....

)

Because it fit the conclusion the author wanted to present.

i think she watched the 2 episodes of 'caveman' on abc. they didn't spank anyone on there.

1) I was wondering that myself while reading the article. To be precise, my first thought was..."How the hell do they KNOW that?"

And 2) First if I coddle my child and attend to his/her every need, I'm a hovercraft mother, next I'm not coddling enough. I can't win for losing. Jeez.

And 3) At no point in the article did they mention god or any other mythological creature. Can you folks, for once, keep the scripture in your pocket?

To get a better view of how early humans approached child care, I would suggest that these "scientists" go join a community of wild chimpanzees for a few months, and observe their
behavior. It sounds like these people have watched one too many Disney animation movies.

iola

the article did mention the bible 'curse' that children (and all people for that matter) are born evil and obviously need beaten often. there are even bible passages that suggest that if your child is 'out of control' that its ok to even kill them. true that is mostly uncivilized old testicle stuff like muslims still practice today when they kill their daughter if she gets too westernized.

but even believers in the sweet jesus are not above dipping into that simmering pot of biblical barbarism when it suits them. example, trying to force the ten commandments into schools and other public places. i know its only 10, but those 10 are the prelude to all the other abominations that its ok to perpetrate on your children, spouses, slaves, gays, lesbians and everyone else who believes differently.

no jesus know peace

aunty

The Bible is just common sense. Nature tells us the same things if we are observant enough, so we don't need to externalize it to some invisible magic being, we need to learn to take responsibility for ourselves... there are no devils making anyone do anything.

"He who made us would have been a pitiful bungler, if he had made the rules of our moral conduct a matter of science [learning/knowledge]. For one man of science, there are thousands who are not. What would have become of them? Man was destined for society. His morality, therefore, was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right and wrong merely relative to this. This sense is as much a part of his nature, as the sense of hearing, seeing, feeling; it is the true foundation of morality... The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man as his leg or arm. It is given to all human beings in a stronger or weaker degree, as force of members is given them in a greater or less degree. It may be strengthened by exercise, as may any particular limb of the body. This sense is submitted indeed in some degree to the guidance of reason; but it is a small stock which is required for this: even a less one than what we call Common sense. State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules." --Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1787.

If a farmer could figure this out 200 years ago because he knew from experience that there are different temperaments within the same species of animals, how some are trainable and others are not... why can't we accept that people are the same... I'll tell you why, because we do not accept the fact that we are animals as well.

"The want or imperfection of the moral sense in some men, like the want or imperfection of the senses of sight and hearing in others, is no proof that it is a general characteristic of the species……

I sincerely... believe... in the general existence of a moral instinct. I think it the brightest gem with which the human character is studded, and the want of it as more degrading than the most hideous of the bodily deformities." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Law, 1814.

They actually did multiple interviews with the cavemen from the Geico commercials to get first hand accounts of how cavemoms raised their young.

Garrick S - in the Solomon story you threw in at the end - he didn't literally mean for the baby to be cut in half - he knew that the real mother would rather her child be raised by the other woman instead of having her baby killed. Once the real mother asked him not to kill the baby but to give the baby to the other woman, he was able to determine that that woman was the real mother and gave the baby back to her. So, if you're going to rail on the bible, at least read the whole story first. :)

Missionaries coming to the Americas made many journal entries about how well behaved the native children were how they were never spanked or beaten.

Go to any small, out of the way village in Africa or South America and you will not see children being spanked. You also will not see children back talking their parents.

All that may be true, but they knew what they were doing. They learned it from their parents and the culture that they lived in. You can't expect me to do the same thing without any kind of advice or counseling. Until then, if I ever have kids I'm going to do it the way my parents raised me, and that means mis-behavior will result in a sore bottom.

I have the book "Nisi" which is by an actual woman from a hunter gatherer tribe, as interviewed by an anthropologist. According to her she was spanked all the time as a child. Stone age life is and was very dangerous. Was her mother supposed to just say, "Now honey, don't go wandering into the bush or you'll be eaten by a hyena and mommy will be very sad!"

Everybody alive today is the ancestor of people who have been on the planet just as long as the rest of us. You actually CAN'T simply assume that living hunter gatherers are just the same as the paleolithic set. Also, their cultures aren't all as similar as all THAT. Nor are they violence-free.

Never said they were violence free, but they usually reserved it for fighting with the adults in the next village.

Not according to Nisi, who physically fought with her various husbands.

marika, I just PROVED to you that people in such villages DO spank, as revealed by their own words in published accounts that are widely respected. And as a matter of fact, as a former rooming house landlady, I have actually shared my own home with several people from both Africa and South America who described horrific beatings from their dads. Granted, they weren't exactly living in the stone age if they somehow got to my rooming house in Washington, DC. But neither are the peaceful, caring, sharing village people of your imagination.

African Americans, who are often victims of CPS, point out that their methods of discipline go back centuries. And they are correct.

Can I weigh in?

Good parents can do a great job of nurturing and raising their kids with or without spanking.

Poor parents will not do a good job of nurturing or raising their kids whether they spank or not.

I don't think spanking or not spanking is the most important factor in parental ability.

No matter which way you look at it, this "study" is still a load of BS--was it funded as part of a new "It Takes a Village" book signing tour?

I think how you're raised does effect what type of person you are - but unless you have found the Flux Capacitor laying around I don't think you're going to know anything about how the cave people raised their children and be able to write a report on it. You have to study parents/children of today. My mom and dad took care of us, provided for us. I was overweight as a kid and got made fun of and my parents were always there to tell me those kids were just upset about themselves and had to make themselves feel better - so I have sympathy for overweight people and will never make fun of someone for how they look.

Then you have parents that will make fun of overweight or even disabled people right in front of their kids. A man in a wheelchair is trying to cross the street and the parent will sit ni the car frustrated and impatient and saying really nasty things. Or parents will ignore or not praise their child for doing something good and those kids will just turn into bullies. There are a lot of sh!tty parents out there. I'm glad mine weren't like that. It made me a really good person.

My friend actually did find a flux capacitor and went back in time to check it out, but i assume he ran out of plutonium or couldn't find a steep enough hill to roll down to get to 88 mph when his fuel line got cut. He could have also been eaten by a sabertooth. Just like the number of licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop, the world may never know how often cave children were beaten.

Maybe if you hold your children WHILE playing Farmville they'll adapt to making cow and chicken sounds!

Ever see the episode of Roseanne where Jackie was freaking out because her son, Andy, had started talking but was sounding really slow? It was because of his Pull-n-Speak's robotic voice he played with all the time. Funny episode!

I'm not sure that we will ever get back to the "one income" standard. And, to be honest, the "50s" was not the dream it looks like on "Leave it to Beaver".

The workforce for those types of jobs was much smaller, as the only people allowed to hold them were white males. Remember, minorities and women were pretty much shut out of the work force for good jobs. Sure, a black woman could clean your house, but definitely NOT be an attorney or doctor (or very, very few).

I, for one, would not like to return to the 50's -- even though it looks idyllic on TV -- Father Knows Best, Happy Days, Ozzie and Harriet -- what a great view of the world and what a skewed view of the world it gave the kids -- perfectly happy families. Except families were not perfect.

Realistically, the two income family is here to stay. However, we don't need McMansions -- and can't afford them anyway. Families should be able to earn a decent living, have a decent home (rent or own) and work 8 hours a day and be able to put their kids in college. Maybe take a vacation. THAT should be the American dream.

Beth, My children were born in the 70's and I stayed home while they were little. It was hard but worth it. When they were 9 and 13(1986) and started going to school without waking me up I decided to go to work. I recommend that it's best to do without and stay home with your children while they are little. They need the support to become strong and independent.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I find working at least some of the time to be personally fulfilling though. While I wish I didn't have to work full time and have my daughter in day care (and my husband and I only have a 750 sq ft house - haha) I think it would be nice to see the work culture become more flexible to allow productive adults to work and be with their children at the same time. For instance, with the technology available today, many jobs could potentially encompass flex time to allow those with small children (like me) to work from home a couple of days a week. Or companies could site daycare facilities in-house so that parents could spend commutes, lunch and coffee breaks with their kiddos. In office environments (and many others) kids could come with their parents to work or play outside with other kids and a couple of caretakers in the right situation. It seems to be a matter of what people want. For some reason we tend to segment our lives out - this is the part where we are parents, this is the part where we are professionals, etc. etc. It would be nice just to be able to work and be productive AND be just who we are, with our families, all at the same time. Anyway, I thought your post was thoughtful, and I realize my suggested solutions wouldn't work for someone in a steel mill or on a construction site, but with the proliferation of "office" type work, just seems like there are opportunities to integrate work with child-rearing.

Beth...The 50's wern't perfect... The difference was no one gave up TRYING to act responsibly...Today the think is "There are sick people in the world,so let's ALL be sick".

I never thought I wanted kids, until the reality of never being able to have them confronted me.

Two kids later, I realized I had to give up working full-time, and soon even part-time was a problem, because one of us had to focus on the career. My husband was able to excel in his field and we eventually had more than enough income to improve our lifestyle very nicely, but we also made great choices.

I refused to hire a nanny to take care of my children, and extended family was not an option.

Our home was filled with books, pets, PCs and video games, which we shared/played together ( and yes, my son plays violent video games :-( and football in college :-D , but was never a violent person. We were able to put them through private colleges/grad school and they are wonderful empathetic adults, with great jobs.

Cynic says: "The 50's wern't[sic] perfect... The difference was no one gave up TRYING to act responsibly..."

The problem was people were "trying" to "act" responsibly. Trying to appear to be responsible, and actually being responsible are two totally different things.

Going to church may make you a christian, but it doesn't make you Christ-like.

Having children is so much more important than a career, you are responsible for a human life, there is nothing more important than that.

Beth...The 50's wern't perfect... The difference was no one gave up TRYING to act responsibly...Today the think is "There are sick people in the world,so let's ALL be sick".

I respectfully disagree. I don't think the TRYING was much different; it was just hidden. For example, wives suffered terrible abuse in the 50's and 60's because it "wasn't done" to get a divorce. Maybe divorce isn't the best thing for kids, but it's better than abuse. Men got away with MUCH more then.

Having children is so much more important than a career, you are responsible for a human life, there is nothing more important than that.

While you may be right, not many have the luxury of having one spouse making enough money for a family with kids to live on these days.

It's human nature to look back on the past "fondly" and to only remember the good parts about it. That's how we glorify the 50's (and into the early 60's). The wonderful "family" TV shows only perpetrate the myth. That's why we need historians to preserve what REALLY happened! There were many, many good things about the 50's, but the "perfect nuclear family" wasn't one of them.

I might add, just for fun, that the older folks was just as horrified at the beatniks, rock and roll and all those other things that came up then as many of the older folks now are horrified at rap and Lady Gaga! It's all a matter of perspective.

Darcylu....You really can twist a sentence.....You have a great career ahead in the Media. Wern't/Weren't.....Since when does a Typo detract from the validity of what was said. Did you live through the 50's?...I did....If you weren't/wern't there you don't know what you're talking about. Father really did know best.

Jim-108: I agree. Why is it that we have a larger portion of our population, using technology that has increasedour productivity exponentially, working longer hours than the recent past, yet the majority of us live less well? Does anyone believe that pointing at someone and saying "It's their own fault! They're just lazy!" is an accurate description of the current contretemps?

To the article; I don't believe in "Beating the wife and kids," but every well behaved youngster I've asked has laid claim to three to a dozen or so spankings. Neither the kids nor the parents are likely to mention it without direct query. It's considered over and done with. I think that corporal punishment is similar to the political scene. Either insufficient or excessive discipline is harmful, as extremes usually are.

Hell, why stop at the 1950s? Why should women be allowed to vote or everyone have equal rights? Let's go back to the 1850s! Those days were great: jobs in the manufacturing industry were plentiful, a man could work while his wife stayed home and kept the house clean, their children could go work in a glass factory all day since there were no silly child labor laws. What could be better?

Why should we regress our society to your idyllic period in time? Maybe not everyone can afford to live on one income, or *gasp* maybe not all women dream of staying at home to be a house wife.

Remember, minorities and women were pretty much shut out of the work force for good jobs

That's funny. My mother-in-law became a neurologist in the 1950s. Even Betty Friedan lamented in her 1963 book "The Feminine Mystique" NOT that women "weren't allowed" to enter the professioins, because they surely were, but that they were voluntarily chosing not to. Please stop believing the lies your feminist professors told you and do your own research. I was around in the 50s, and knew lots of women doctors, etc.

Didn't the article say that it was better to have a lot of different people from a community who were raising the kids not just mom and dad (if there even is 2 parents in the picture)? This sounds like support for in home child care (maybe not traditional 'daycare') but sending your children to someone's house for the day while you go to work. This will give the children exposure to other kids to develop social skills, exposure to other parental figures who should theoretically care about them, develop their immune systems (because of pure exposure to germs) so they don't miss a lot of school once they get there (a lot of pre-k/Kindergarden kids miss a lot of school because they are sick). It also gives mom a break from the kids so they are not as easily frustrated and you get better quality time with them after work.

Skot1sh, that sounds like sheer rationalization to me. Only a fool could pretend that kids benefit by spending the majority of their working hours with a constantly changing parade of uncaring strangers, and that's the reality of commercial daycare. Grandparents, uncles and aunts and family friends, great, but even then, not for 40 hours a week. All other primate species keep their babies close by mama (or, in the case of the marmosets, papa) more or less constantly. Hunter gatherer women basically take baby to work with them. I'm sure they grow up with a great knowledge of nature as a result. Daycare of any sort is a very modern, and really pretty disgusting concept when you think about it. It has NO precedence in history unless you count British nannies, or sending your kids to a wet nurse so you can go to balls or do whatever it was useless rich women did with their time in the 18th century.

As for the joy of careers, I've got news for you. Most people don't HAVE "careers". They have JOBS. There is nothing particularly glorious about a JOB, which is why when people win the lottery, the first thing they do is quit. I know I certainly wasn't a better mother when I used to come home stressed and exhausted from my JOB. I certainly couldn't provide "better quality time", especially since Dobie the House Elf quit so I had to spend most of my time after work cooking, cleaning, doing laundry, paying bills, etc.

As for building up the immune system, well people used to keep their farm animals in the house with them. I imagine that would be an even faster way to build up the immune system. Do you suppose I could purchase a goat and convince the city authorities it's a dog?

@Tabby3: "And I don't need a research paper to convince me that children are touched and held less, have less time to play and be children, and are more cruel than in previous generations."

Yeah? Does it have to do with the disintegration of the two-parent household, even a little bit? No? Cavemen. It's the cavemen's fault, or it's our fault for not being cavemen, whatever the f*&%.

Government policies which encourage family disintegration(transfer payments, no fault divorces, unrestricted access to abortion, etc.) lead to single parent families. There is no longer any social stigma about people whelping b*sterds out of wedlock anymore, so there is a bunch of them running around, what do you expect? Or maybe I'm not being caveman enough.

Hey, let's make up some bulls*%t studies so we can leverage our viewpoint of choice with the goodwill created by a popular television ad campaign. Not-spanking, so easy a caveman can do it! Whee!

J. Hill-1376776 - How does access to abortion lead to single families?

In regards to making up bull@!$%# - you do a pretty nice job to make blanket statements that promote your own agenda.

Sometimes, though, it's nice to focus on a single topic...you know...so your argument makes a little sense?

WeRdoomed

I couldn't have said it much better myself.

I really would like to hear how abortions lead to single parent families in any direct cause-and-effect sort of way, given that by definition, there is no child to be a single parent to after an abortion.

J.Hill -- perhaps a little soap in the mouth when YOU were a child would help! Sheesh -- you can't make an argument without being (as we say to the little ones) a potty mouth?

And speaking of your "argument" ...

Government policies which encourage family disintegration(transfer payments, no fault divorces, unrestricted access to abortion, etc.) lead to single parent families. There is no longer any social stigma about people whelping b*sterds out of wedlock anymore, so there is a bunch of them running around, what do you expect? Or maybe I'm not being caveman enough.

You DO realize you are contradicting yourself???? Abortions certainly don't lead to single parent families -- they prevent them. Also, there is NO "unrestricted access" to abortions -- in fact, in some states there is almost NO access to abortions.

Try a little research, a cohesive argument AND washing out your potty mouth and people MIGHT take your opinions a little more seriously.

There is unrestricted access to abortion available. Just because you may have to go to a different state doesn't mean you don't have access. While I don't see abortions directly leading to single parent families, I do see it leading into more of the "me, me, me" lifestyle that is so prevalent. And of course people who have themselves at the top focus of their life don't usually make the best caregivers, know what I mean?

JMux

"just because you have to go to another state..."

that is what you would call... a RESTRICTION (among several other restrictions). duh

Also, unrestricted access (and education) to birth control would reduce the need for access to abortion. Good to see definite proven failures like abstinence only education funding going away.

A lot of parents still have the "me, me, me" attitude, including in the reason they have children. Should be about what's best for the child, and it would be nice if more children brought into the world had been planned for as much as possible (financially, emotionally, physically) pre-conception in order to have the best opportunities available for the child. For example, if you are too poor, busy, etc... to take care of yourself, wait until that is not the case to decide to raise a child (and be as responsible as possible regarding unwanted pregnancy prevention).

There is unrestricted access to abortion available.

No, there is not. EVERY state restricts abortion in some way.

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf

UNRESTRICTED abortion means that any person, at any age, at any time can have an abortion.

I'm sure all us guys are just itching to get abortions.

Forget the abortion. Carry the baby to term and drop it off at a fire station. They won't ask any questions. At least the kid might get adopted by a loving family. Abortions are purely selfish acts. If you were stupid enough to get pregnant when you wern't ready, that's YOUR fault... not the baby's. Step up to the task or put the baby up for adoption, don't kill the kid.

Can't you understand it's simply common sense to ridicule "scientists" who claim to know something that CANNOT POSSIBLY be known? It's like speculating about how the most intelligent species on some alien planet raise their kids. Some things are simply ludicrous on the face of it. Anyway, anthropology is NOT a science. There are some real boners they've pulled in the past, for example when Margaret Mead was completely taken in by some mischievous schoolgirls in Samoa who told her wild, ridiculous stories about their uninhibited sex lives which she then used as the basis of her "serious study". Actually it turns out their society was actually pretty strict about such things in real life. Most of us would have the sense to say, wait a minute, these are teenagers. Maybe I should check this out a little more. But not an the great Margaret Mead.

Even if anthropology WERE a science, the plain fact is that they have nothing to say about paleolithic people because they are not available to be studied.

I really get tired of people like you who read a popularized article, make nasty and sarcastic assumptions that justify their own hate-filled outlook on everything, and then post an ignorant comment to show how shallow and ill-educated they are. First you have to go look at the actual research and find out what their methods are. Then you can make comments if you disagree with the methodology or the conclusions drawn from it. But to read a shallow piece in the press and assume you know "how research dollars are spent" is just to demonstrate that you're exactly the kind of badly raised, ill-adjusted person this research seeks to prevent. This is privately funded work, by the way, at a private university - University of Notre Dame - so nobody's tax dollars are being spent on it.

I went and actually looked up the symposium that's referenced in this article, and in the summary of the topic, here's what the organizers have to say. If you're capable of understanding, you'll realize that their conclusions are drawn from studies of STILL LIVING hunter-gatherer cultures, you blowhard.

"Anthropologists, who have documented early life for young children in foraging communities (representing the EEA where the human genus is presumed to have spent 99% of its existence) note that "young children in foraging cultures are:

• "nursed frequently;

• held, touched, or kept near others almost constantly;

• frequently cared for by individuals [adults] other than their mothers (fathers and grandmothers, in particular) though seldom by older siblings;

• experience prompt responses to their fusses and cries;

• and enjoy multiage [free] play groups in early childhood." ¹²

• along with natural childbirth

• and 2-5 years of breastfeeding.

My laboratory and others are documenting the effects of these practices on child outcomes and finding relations to intelligence, cooperation, conscience, empathy, self-control, aggression and depression."

thank you

Cholla, I couldn't agree with you more about how ridiculous some people's reactions are to these kinds of research. Well said!

I dislike cholla45's intellectual 'comeback' for a couple reasons... the pointing out of making assumptions... "by people like you"

Unless you know that poster personally, you did just the same, along with insulting the poster several times before even bothering with your symposium data. I appreciate that you know they were badly raised and ill-adjusted and a blowhard.

So tax dollars were not used - fair point. The actual data hidden in your insulting post - fair point. Your superiority, no point this round. You could have merely cited the data along with a "youre making a rash assumption" but I think most of the knowledge of the post was lost among the first two paragraphs of insults.

It's not about buying toys. For some people it is a necessity, and I'm the first person to jump on the 'if you can't afford kids, don't have kids' bandwagon. Yes, some parents work because they're under the misconception that their kids need the latest video game system, or because they want to visit Europe next year. But most families with 2 working parents NEED the money that comes from both jobs.

Would you prefer those people just stay at home with their kids and collect welfare?

Thank you EmilyC. I have two small children. 19 mos and 4 mos and it breaks my heart to have to leave them everyday to come to my full time job. I am one of the lucky ones who has retired parents that love and take care of their grandchildren. Our children don't have many toys and their clothes are mostly secondhand (for common sense reasons - they grow too fast to spend hundreds clothing them). We do not live in a new big house. We live in a fixer upper that we have worked on since we moved in, but it is what we could afford without a ton of debt. Neither of us have new vehicles, we drive used, but they get us where we need to go safely. However, if I didn't work, my family would be without health care and a retirement account as my husband is self-employed. My job provides us with health care, disability ins., a great retirement plan, and a greater sense of stability. I would ask that people don't judge Moms that can't stay home, for the majority of us, it is a daily emotional battle to have to leave our children for someone else to get to watch them grow.

Although we don't have the nicest, newest items (we don't even own a flat screen), we are happy. Our children know we love them, we tell them. Our children are happy, loving babies. They know their Mom and Dad are there for them and we love to cuddle and spend time with them. Our 19 month old knows her entire extended family, because family is important to us and we make a point of visiting with them weekly. We are happy with less. Maybe if more adults could learn to be happy with less, children could do the same. Children only display behavior that has been taught. Children are a gift given to their parents to love, nurture, and support.

Beth: like it or not, today's child behavior issues are a direct result of families with two working parents who are more dedicated to buying their toys than raising their children,

And these "Parents" are the children and grandchildren of the "glorious 50's" so many like to idolize. Get over it -- parents HAVE to work if they want their kids to eat and have and education. This isn't about "toys" for the great majority.

There are still millions of us who manage on one modest income. In my case, we moved to a much cheaper but still big city with decent public transportation so we'd only need one car. We live in an inner city rowhouse. I shop at charming ethnic bodegas on foot or travel to the nearest supermarket by bus and take a jitney home if necessary. My husband always buys used cars, pays cash, and does a lot of his own repairs although he is by NO means a mechanic. Our clothes are used. Most of our possessions come from Freecycle or that neighborhood garbage night freecycle known as "Hey, you throwing that out? Can I have it?" My kids grew up playing with kids of all races and nationalities, a fact of which I'm very proud. It CAN be done. Too many people ARE doing it to argue that it's impossible.

Life was ALWAYS a struggle for young families. The difference is that young couples used to understand they wouldn't be starting out at their parents' standard of living.

So because my wife and I work that means my kids are going to grow up and be behavior problems in school and grow up to be crack heads? Please. My kids are some of the most well adjusted kids that I know. They're sweet and empathetic. I agree that parents who don't actually parent is the cause of behavior problems, but it's not a problem that is based on whether parents work or not. I know plenty of parents who stay at home w/ their kids and their kids are nasty brats.

Did I SAY that?!? please respond to what I actually said, not what you read between the lines. Maybe your wife is one of the minority of women who actually DOES have a career she loves and that energizes her instead of exhausting her. But there is something pretty silly about you, as a man, pretending to speak for all women. Did you ever have a C-Section and then you were back at work six weeks later? Meanwhile you were expected to come home and do everything you were doing before plus take care of a demanding newborn. Because that is what is now expected of women in our cruel, society. Been there, done that, and no, I'm not "grateful" to the feminists for making it the new ideal.

No, not everyone is damaged by a less than ideal upbringing. In fact, most people who survived concentration camps as children went on to become functional adults. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to put kids in concentration camps. Neither is it good to put kids in what Dr. Laura rightly calls "day orphanages". You did what you wanted to do, fine, but stop rationalizing it by telling yourself stories about what they supposedly did 50,000 years ago.

Of course it's true. They didn't find a paddle with the word "Patience" painted on one side and "Discipline" on the other.

Got a point there Legend. LOL

Dude, you don't have to go far to find out how the cavemen raised their kids. So called "cavemen" were just primitive societies bases on the welfare of the group. If you read the first contact reports with small bands of indigenous tribes in the jungles of South America and Asia during the '60's and '70's, they were primitive people not far removed from how the "cavemen" lived. Nobody saw battered kids with parents strung out on weird drugs. The kids were well cared for quiet, respectful and very curious. It's only after modern societies ills, drugs, alcohol, and disease, were introduced to the primitive societies did they start to fall apart.

Why is everyone so focused on "cavemen didn't spank"? My god, it's like everyone commenting on this forum thinks spanking is the one indispensible tool for parents. The POINT of this piece is that hunter-gatherer cultures are much more AFFECTIONATE with their kids. Maybe they spanked 'em if the offense really needed it - who knows? - but they ALSO got a LOT OF CUDDLES.

As for "how do we know" - that's the problem with reading something in a popularized writeup & then assuming you know everything. I went and actually looked up the symposium that's referenced in this article, and in the summary of the topic, here's what the organizers have to say. If you're capable of understanding, you'll realize that their conclusions are drawn from studies of STILL LIVING hunter-gatherer cultures, you blowhard.

"Anthropologists, who have documented early life for young children in foraging communities (representing the EEA where the human genus is presumed to have spent 99% of its existence) note that "young children in foraging cultures are:

• "nursed frequently;

• held, touched, or kept near others almost constantly;

• frequently cared for by individuals [adults] other than their mothers (fathers and grandmothers, in particular) though seldom by older siblings;

• experience prompt responses to their fusses and cries;

• and enjoy multiage [free] play groups in early childhood." ¹²

• along with natural childbirth

• and 2-5 years of breastfeeding.

My laboratory and others are documenting the effects of these practices on child outcomes and finding relations to intelligence, cooperation, conscience, empathy, self-control, aggression and depression."

laht, those societies had their OWN set of problems. Subsequent research has refuted that of native people like Margaret Mead.

1st mistake- assuming an expert in this field knows little more than you do.

2nd mistake-raising your children in isolation.

3rd mistake- everyone lived in caves back then.

You home school your kids don't you. Another form of isolation and brainwashing! How arrogent to think parents know better than highly educated professionals!

Wow! Did you ever miss the point. You were home schooled, weren't you? Or maybe beaten? Get some therapy...please!

You home school your kids don't you. Another form of isolation and brainwashing!

Oh really? I've homeschooled off and on for various reasons. I live in a highly integrated inner city neighborhood by choice, took my kids to world-class libraries, museums, and zoos, and made sure they had access to books, all sorts of music, the Internet, and other kids of all races from all over the world. I was the very opposite of an "overprotective parent". You're showing your own brainwashing by assuming ALL homeschoolers are backwoods fundamentalists who lock our kids in the closet and teach them to die for Jesus.

BTW, I would hardly call an elementary ed major a "highly educated professional".

You home school your kids don't you. Another form of isolation and brainwashing! How arrogent to think parents know better than highly educated professionals!

Please tell me you are being sarcastic. One look at multiple studies on home-schooling (done by the educated professionals you have on a pedestal) shows that not only do home-schooled kids end up doing better on standardized tests than their public-school counterparts, but also there is no evidence of social isolation. Just because you educate your children yourself doesn't mean you don't give them an opportunity to meet kids their own age - there are plenty of other avenues for that besides schools.

As for brainwashing, it's the school system that is more guilty of that than any parent alone could ever be. We know the overt curriculum: reading, writing, and arithmetic. The covert curriculum is the part that bothers me; it extols such strange virtues as obedience (because I said so, never mind why), punctuality (essential for assembly-line workers, not so much for farmers), unthinking school spirit (just like unthinking nationalism, right or wrong be damned), and emotional dependence (your sense of worth is based on how you are labeled and the grade you get). Those who dare to think for themselves and question "the way things are" instead of following the herd are cut out, either through social exclusion/ostracism, bullying, suspension, expulsion, or a combination of those things.

And how arrogant to think that book-educated "experts" and "professionals" know our kids better than we do. The human mind doesn't go by the book, so don't count on that for all the answers to human behavior. These "experts" are the ones who are trying to determine what mold every human being should fit into, right down to classifying (labeling) kids as either normal, "special needs," or "gifted," and once you are labeled that's pretty much where you stay. How arrogant to think these "experts" have any right to have that much power over a kid's future, when that kid's own parent knows the kid well enough to know how that kid learns best, and can teach the kid accordingly.

Home-schooling involves plenty of time for independent study, which is only possible if the kid knows how to read. That means the parent's first responsibility is to teach the kid how to read. My mother taught me well enough that I was reading at a 2nd grade level by the time I entered kindergarten! Anyway...a kid learns more through independent study (with some guidance from the teaching parent) because they have to think instead of just waiting for a salaried and tenured teacher to spoon-feed them facts. More to the point, kids are more likely to learn not just facts but also concepts - something that modern textbooks often fall short on. Since a parent has much more of a vested interest in their own child's education than any "expert" outsider, said parent will have the motivation to teach more than just who, what, where and when, but also why.

In many cases, an "expert in the field" does indeed know little more than we do about our kids; oftentimes they know less. The only thing that allows them to put on airs is a piece of paper with a gold-colored sticker that says they read the books. Unfortunately, theory does not always translate well when applied to reality.

Well said, Wall.

How could he possibly know that cavemen didn't spank kids? Cavemen lived under brutal and dangerous conditions. It would seem reasonable that if a kid got out of line that an adult would give the kid a whack or two. I seriously doubt they put the kids in a special cave for "timeout"?

LOL -You are right. A completely theoretical and completely unsubstantiated piece.

Perhaps some filler for the fall off in the wall to wall coverage of the Chilean Miners rescue?

Rodney old buddy, You don't whack small kids because they want love. In a caveman society children were part of the group at birth. As a group they cared for them, the all cared for each other, death was all around, and a new life was very precious. There were no lines to get out of, all the small kids knew instinctively correct behavior, or the group might not survive. If you read about tribal life in the small villages of some of the first contact groups with the Amazon Indians, the scientists invariably report that the children almost never cry.

@laht: "If you read about tribal life in the small villages of some of the first contact groups with the Amazon Indians, the scientists invariably report that the children almost never cry."

...and you fail to discern that fantasy from reality. Social scientists constantly try to sell the idea that somewhere in the distant past was a golden age when no one wanted for anything, no one shed any tears, and all things were held together in communal harmony, and it was bliss.

J. Hill, you're a bitter, angry person with an ugly soul. I'm sorry life has treated you so badly that you need to share your distorted worldview in order to feel justified in continuing to be so cynical and hate-filled.

Please cite any references for works of social science or anthropology where the idea is posited that somewhere in the distant past was a golden age etc etc etc. I would be most interested to read them.

Well, Margaret Mead was sure taken in by those schoolgirls in Samoa, wasn't she?

just becaus they susport druggies doesn't mean that the kids if it wern't for food pantries a lot of children would be a lot hungryer are eating food from parents that buy it .i know for a fact of parents getting food stamps and turning arround and selling them the same day to susport their habit!! if it wasn't for food pantrys i know a lot of children that would be a lot hungrier .it's no wonder that todays children are more angry than the generation i grew up in.i don't know how the cave dwellers raised their kids but it couldn't be aany worse than today's socitiy.i don't know if thats spelled rite or not but i really don't care!!!!

I am with you AJ. I wish I had a dollar for every time I've been told that I was spoiling my babies. It has not changed the way I raise them though. I love them, cuddle them, sing to them, help them, and teach them. My 19 mo old has turned out to be very independent despite all of my "needless attention". I am confident that our 4 mo old will dothe same. I love my children and I want them to know and feel that. I actually had to tell my husband's grandmother that our children were our children and we would do what we felt best for them, that she had her children to raise and now we were going to raise ours the way we felt best. She didn't really like that, but I haven't heard her say how badly I was spoiling our children since.

Rivergirl: Nineteen months and four months are way too young to require discipline. However, from recent experience, when you've got a two year old and a four year old, and maybe even pop out another one, you will reexamine the necessity for spanking. The near constant competition for your attention will have you begging for Seven O'clock so you can put the kids down and go to bed. The four year old will start bossing around the two year old. The two year old will try to do everything the four year old does, like climbing trees and juming from rock to rock and exploring the forbidden whatever. Though it should not be applied capriciously, discipline must be established, and "I'm Bigger Than You!" is the rule of society because it works.

I too give kudos to A.J. All new parents have the same doubts about their ability to raise their kids right. It is quite normal for new parents to second-guess themselves about what is best for the kids, how to teach them right from wrong, how to make sure they don't cross that line, what to do when they cross it, what works, what doesn't work...the list goes on and on. And yet, humanity continues to live on, in spite of society's demands. That tells me the old-fashioned way of raising kids is much more effective than what the namby-pamby are trying to shove down our throats.

If you want any successful results with an animal, you will never hit them. Dogs don't have the wide scope of thought we do. If we hurt them, they understand that we are hurting them, but not necessarily why.

Some children are very stubborn--"alpha" children, if you will. Telling them "no" doesn't always work. Taking away their toys doesn't always work. Time-outs don't always work. Neither does spanking. If you want a fool-proof method of punishment, you need to tailor one specifically to the temperament of the child in question.

Have you ever trained any animal other than a dog, such as a horse for example? Professional trainers use all sorts of different tools, depending on the animal and the situation. And BTW, a dog is definitely smart enough to make associations if the negative reinforcement is properly applied. I agree that they won't understand if you correct them for something that happened even a few minutes before. It must be immediate. Please watch how dogs deal with each OTHER. A bitch will nip a puppy when necessary--she does it gently, and as a "last resort" (not to be anthropomorphic, but that's how it looks.) My rabbits will nip and kick to establish dominance.

I have only had experience training dogs (and cats), and what experience I have had shows me that not all learn by physical punishment. Example: When I was trying to teach my German Shepherd/Pit Bull/Australian Shepherd mix not to nip (even playfully) I tried the method that was suggested most: When he nips or bites, grab his mouth, apply pressure under his tongue and tell him "No." This did not work. I started ignoring him whenever he started getting nippy. I would turn my back and refuse to play with him until he calmed down, sat down, and looked at me for direction. This is working; he is nipping less and less each day.

I saw once, when I was eleven, a woman trying to train a horse. It was only a yearling, I believe, but was being stubborn. In this instance, I did not like her. She took his lead rope, which was a good inch thick and very coarse, and started beating his chest with it. When he reared and displayed his dislike of this method, she hit him more. I do not agree with what she did.

And BTW, negative reinforcement is taking away an aversive stimulus to encourage good behavior each time. Example: The beeping a car makes when the driver's seatbelt isn't buckled is an aversive stimulus. The sound goes away when the driver participates in the good behavior-buckling. Negative means to take away, not necessarily 'bad' or 'evil'. In this situation, you are taking away the annoying sound (negative) to promote the good behavior (reinforcement).

Take it from a parent of 8 kids. It is one of the easier things we do, raise kids. It is not about coddling not coddling, spanking not spanking and a myriad of other things so called experts throw out so they sound important and knowledgeable.

Raising kids is about rules, respect, honor, honesty and morals. I am not talking one sided here. These things must flow from parent to child back to parent. As they get older these things need to flow from others to the child and back. Teach kids these things and let them know that with each decision they make they are responsible for the outcome of that decision. Of course you have to make sure they can think for themselves.

I tell all my kids, ‘hey I am human I will make mistakes, we discuss them and resolve them and then move on. It is all a learning experience.” If kids blame others for their misfortune it is because they have been taught that this is a correct response to misfortune.

My father beat the you-know-what out of me for every little thing...spilling milk, standing in front of the TV, etc...to this day, I do not like the man and have no respect for him...we have no contact (I am 50 and he is 77)...all I learned from him was to be afraid to make a mistake, even if was an 'accident', and it has caused me to have problems myself...being afraid of people not liking me, not knowing how to talk about problems, etc...it's taken a lot of therapy to even get me to a place where I understand I have rights as a person and deserve to be treated like a human being and not a piece of you-know-what...after my folks divorced I watched him get married (to our babysitter who was 20 years younger than him and only 7 years older than me) and raise two more children...whom he treated the same way...both of those children turned out with major psychological problems.

I have an autistic son. When he was born, I didn't know he was autistic. I held him close to me the first hours of his life, whispered into his ear that I loved him, and no matter what happened I would always do my best for him and listen to him and take good care of him...and 22 years later, I've kept my promise, even though there were days when I sat on the kitchen floor and cried my eyes out because my son was destroying the house. I raised my hand to him once...he spit milk in my face when he was 5 and I thumped him on the cheek...I felt so horrible that I apologized to him, even though he didn't understand it at the time...I learned not to react to his negative behavior because it just made things worse...and he had a mental problem that caused his behavior...now, by going over and over the same things, loving him, hugging him, praising him, and yes, taking away things from him when he does misbehaves and KNOWS he's misbehaving, he has become a loving, sweet, sensitive young man...still autistic, still limited in a lot of areas, but loving and kind...a rarity in a lot of autistic folks.

I was spanked, but chose not to spank my own children...here's why...I don't know what a spanking is...I only know what a beating is...when my father would beat my brother for 'whatever', I would cry...and my father said there was something wrong with me for crying and that he was going to take me to a doctor and find out why I did that...as an adult, I now realize how horrifying this was and how if effected me in lots of areas of my life...

I don't know if I would be a good parent to a child that wasn't disabled, because I worry that I might mimic the behavior of my father...in a way, having a special needs child has made me realize that saying, 'no hitting' and then hitting a child makes no sense...

There's got to be a healthy balance somewhere...I mean, kids need to have a healthy respect for their parents and their authority, but they sure as heck shouldn't be 'afraid' of their parents.

I often wonder if I would have damaged a 'normal' child like my father damaged me...I watch my brother with his kids and see so much of my father in him...and I see my nieces have the same anxieties and fears that I did...

I'm rambling...I'm sorry...I guess I just don't know much about this except that I get a lot more from my darling disabled boy with love and praise and setting boundaries in a healthy way.

I'm sorry if this post is making everyone crazy...

drclth, I also have a child with a form of autism, although it's probably milder than your son's. I realize it's a little late, but you try reading some of Temple Grandin's works. She grew up in the 1950s under the care of a strict nanny, and she credits her strict upbringing for the fact that she was able to overcome so many of the negative symptoms of her autism. While I realize that many autistic kids are also mentally retarded and that can't be fixed, it's just possible that your child would have much higher functioning if you had been stricter with him. If someone just wants something to love and cuddle, they should get a pet. We have to be a bit tougher with our kids because we want them to grow up and be independent.

do you beat your child? in this post you seem like you do not give you child very much love!!!! and yes i have children a 25 year old and a 17 year old. you seem very harsh. maybe you should not have children if you think you should only love and cuddle pets. get a life

I never "beat" anyone. I spanked appropriately a very few times in dangerous situations and it saved my child's life. Maybe it wasn't necessary in your son's case because of lifestyle or whatever. You missed my larger point entirely. All kids need lots and lots of love, but they also need discipline, autistics more than most because they have a diminished capacity to figure certain things out themselves (even though that is often more than compensated for by other abilities.)

I have a son with a form of autism called Asperger's Syndrome. My granddaughter also has the same condition plus ADHD. They both take everything extremely literally, and they both get engrossed in whatever it is they are doing as if nothing else mattered. They both lack social skills but behavior modification has worked to some extent. Spanking a child like this is rather pointless, as it doesn't teach them anything. My son is an adult now and my granddaughter is 10. Time outs worked for him as a child and also they help my granddaughter so she can calm down. Her worst times are when there are a lot of people around (like a party) and she just can't handle the stimulation, so we have to plan ahead and have a plan "B" in place. I wonder how the cave moms would have handled autistic kids?

PJB7689-

Note: This is not a serious comment--it is meant sarcastically.

The "cavemoms" wouldn't have had autistic children because they had no vaccines back then, and we all know that vaccines are what causes autism.

Now, back to the matter at hand.

I have recently begun to wonder if all these ADHD, ADD and autistic children aren't always properly diagnosed or even properly treated. There is a boy across the street from my moms house who is about nine but behaves like a two year old and his parents just shrug off his behaviour because he is autistic. I find myself wondering if it is possible to maybe expect more of them, give them goals that they would struggle to attain, but could eventually attain.

If you expect children to act a certain way because, after all, they're afflicted with something that hinders their ability to reason and act accordingly, they're going to behave that way and never strive to better themselves. I hold all children to this. I have a three year old and a one year old; I expect them to behave well in public with few or no issues. I expect them to play nice, to treat people nicely. If they misbehave, they are punished. With my 3yo, a spanking or a time-out works. With my 1yo, a stern "No!" works. I digress.

If you only hold your children to the lowest of goals because they're "hindered" in life, how far do you think they'll get? Even parents of children that are diagnosed with autism or some other issue should strive for their children to be the best they can be. I hate seeing poor behavior written off as "okay" just because of a possible mental or physical issue or retardation.

Yes, that is a point Temple Grandin has made very well in her books. As you suggest, it applies very much to ALL children. But it is even more important for those with neurological differences. That's because an NT child MAY eventually figure out what sort of behavior is socially acceptable and she MAY eventually realize that it is in her best interests to do so. An intelligent ADHD or autistic person will probably also realize the latter sooner or later, but has GREAT difficulty figuring out those skills on their own, no matter how high their IQ. You have to be very explicit AND you have to be realistically demanding. I'm a female Aspie who is still learning social skills in my 50s, but if they had the diagnosis back then and the same "we can't expect anything of you, poor dear" attitude, I shudder to think what kind of life I'd be living right now. Thank you so much for your wise and courageous post.

Spanking a child like this is rather pointless, as it doesn't teach them anything.

I didn't say you spank a child for not having social skills, for being rude, or anything like that, which they obviously cannot help! I meant only for really dangerous things like running into a busy street. My son has ADHD as well as Aspergers, and that's probably what made him do dangerous things when very young. And yes, a judicious swat in a life threatening situation when he was about three WORKED, probably saved his life, and was definitely the right thing to do. You cannot reason with a child that age no matter how bright they may be. And not everybody lives in a safe suburban environment. Not everyone has a car. Not everyone can simply avoid dangerous situations; their children have no choice but to learn to obey.

What Temple Grandin was talking about was consistent discipline. She's speaking of what she remembers so she isn't talking about three year olds. IMHO, and I stress this is MY opinion, you generally don't need to spank a child over the age of four or five. Other things work better. But you do NOT help a neurodiverse child by letting them use their autism and/or ADHD as an excuse. Even worse (and I have heard ASD children say this) "well, I couldn't help it; I haven't had my pill yet."

Thanks for your words of wisdom. My son was not diagnosed until well after graduating from high school, so we had no idea why he was so "different". When my granddaughter came along, she was so much like him that we knew what we were in for. (BTW, he's not her father, he's her uncle.) My daughter only gives my granddaughter medication during the school year, and only enough to get her through the school day without having melt-downs. When at home, the meds wear off and she can be her self. I've heard of Temple Grandin and will look for some of her works. Thanks again for the advice.

Charles I think you missed an s in the word predatorS. PredatorS like to work in packs and can destroy an entire extended family in one sitting.

saddened-1829725

I stand corrected on the timeline. I did indeed not count that up correctly that Christianity is seen as being 4000 years old, beforeChrist. Thank you for pointing that out Saddened. I appreciate your support and your criticism. I don't usually go around poking fun at religion, but after a while, I feel the need to stand up for myself and my own beliefs. I truly think that people should be free to believe what they want, but that doesn't mean that I can just stand by and be put down because I don't believe. That's one of the great things about this country; my right to my beliefs, even if they're different from the majority.