A new study from the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University found that children who are spanked as 1-year-olds are more likely to behave aggressively and did worse on cognitive tests as toddlers than children who were not spanked. The study focused on low-income families and found that African-American children are spanked more than their white and Mexican counterparts. I have no love for Duke but I guess they have some pretty decent researchers there. Still, I don’t think, from personal experience, that children who are spanked are more aggressive BECAUSE of the spanking and not the other factors in their lives. Even if the toddlers are performing below their un-spanked peers, I wonder how they compare when they’re teens and adults. The latter part, Black kids being spanked more, is not surprising to me at all. Many a comedian has based their routine on spanking Black children. We get together and laugh about this shared experience. We see kids acting up in school or in the store and shake our heads thinking he or she needs their butt whooped. Not all Black folks spank their kids but there is definitely cultural acceptance and encouragement of the practice within the community.
There was spanking in my family. Physical discipline was definitely on the menu but it wasn’t the main course. I’m definitely against violence in most forms. It’s criminal and inhumane to abuse a child, a spouse, a friend, a stranger… It’s not the way I want to live my life, being violent toward others. I don’t know if this makes me a hypocrite but I don’t consider spanking to be “violence” in the same way. Truthfully, I have more of an issue with some of the verbal punishment I hear hurled at children than the physical. I feel there is a certain way to use physical discipline for punishment or correction with children. That being said, I don’t see myself using spanking as a disciplinary method very often when I do have children of my own. Continue reading
Swiped from J&J Politics:
Is it funny if you knew the cartoonist was Black?
Um, to all my readers who have children, I have a message for you. I really should have mentioned this before Christmas, but I think it applies all year round.
Do not buy your children a Jack in the Box. Be honest, the only reason you buy them is because you think it’s something kids should have. You had one, right? It only makes sense. No. Stop. The Jack in the Box is a cruel fucking toy, people. Think about it: your child is going to turn the little crank on a pretty colored box. A fun and familiar tune emanates from the box, “Pop goes the weasel!” Oh, your child doesn’t even understand what’s going to pop out at them. Then, right when they’re all comfortable with the pretty little music box, BAM!!!!!!!!! They’re scarred for the rest of their new life.
How do you expect your kid to ever trust you again? What kind of parent are you? Trying to give junior a heart attack before his little heartpiece grows into maturity?
Jack in the Box is not for your kids. Furthermore, on a semi unrelated note, Jack in the Box (the fast food) is not for YOU.
I wonder when we’re going to start holding people accountable for child abuse for shit like this:
I’m not a skinny person but I really think we need to quit making excuses and accommodations for obese people. There’s a hefty amount of responsibility that goes into being that large. For kids, however, they don’t have the presence of mind, maturity or ability to control themselves when presented with all kinds of treats and fatty foods. It’s clearly ALL on the parents. Surely a five year old child can’t be held responsible for being over 200lbs. I’m a 27 year old woman and I’m not even 200lbs! If you were a parent who did drugs or alcohol while pregnant, you’d be vilified for harming your child’s health and future life prospects. You cannot tell me that this child’s parents have not harmed her (is that a her?) health and future.
I would fucking kill my mom. When I got 7 years old (and presumably another 100lbs larger) I’d sit on her chest while she slept.
Am I wrong?
Whether you’re a parent or not, one thing you probably know is that babies cost a lot of money. When the baby gets here they eat all the time, shit through a billion diapers, grow out of their clothing at an astronomical rate, require all kinds of medical care and come with all kinds of cute accessories people can’t help but purchase.
Something you probably haven’t considered is the cost associated with conceiving the child in the first place. There are many Americans who cannot have a child naturally, on their own. Infertility affects about 7.3 million women in this country — about 12% of the reproductive-age population*. Fortunately, we live in a modern society where medical technology allows infertile men and women to have children if they so choose. Well, if they so choose and if they can afford it. Fertility treatments and procedures are crazy expensive.
The cost of giving birth using assisted reproduction technologies such as in vitro fertilization (IVF) exceeds $100,000 when the probability of a live birth falls below 15 percent … The cost of IVF using donor eggs ranges from $15,000 to $25,000. The delivery rate per donor egg is approximately 51 percent at Segars’ clinic, making the cost approximately $30,000 to $49,000 per live birth. **
If you have insurance, it might not cover the procedures. Your coverage depends on where you live and the type of plan you have. Fifteen states currently have laws that require insurers to either cover or offer to cover some form of infertility diagnosis and treatment. Other than that, you’re kind of on your own. This IS America, though and we know that healthcare is a joke here. There are more than 47 million Americans without insurance.***
So what about people who cannot afford it? Should they just give up on the idea to EVER have children of their own? I remember, during my first year of law school, discussing natural rights in constitutional law. There’s a natural right to life, for example. [I understand that this could be a point where one would interject an abortion debate, but it’s not time for that.] Is there a natural right to bear children? Continue reading