All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 13, 2012 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
22:54
2256 Spanking As A Last Resort?

Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio, answers a listener question about the use of spanking as a last resort in disciplining children.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everybody.
It's Stefan Friedman Radio.
Hope you're doing well.
Email.
Somebody writes, Okay, I know you're very busy, but do you have any time to answer some of these questions?
I have moved past being a theist now after countless research, but really it was common sense.
I was wrong.
It just took some time to get over all of the propaganda I had been fed as a child.
My questions are as follows.
How do you respond to people when they say something similar to this?
I only spank my child as a last resort.
Anyways, you just cannot reason with them when they are two or three years old.
They then talk about things like, when kids bite, I replied that these are obviously traits that are perceived from the parenting style or other influences.
They pause and panic and reply with, it's free will!
They choose whatever they want to do, not because of how we parent.
Do you have any idea how to combat the first reply?
Thanks, and I appreciate you taking the time to reply to me.
It's my pleasure, and thank you for taking the time to listen and to write.
It's really, really pleasurable.
So, I only spank as a last resort.
Well, that conditions your parenting, right?
I mean, if you accept that violence against your children, that aggression against your children is valid, is in your toolbox as a parent, then your toolbox is fundamentally different.
It's fundamentally different.
It's like saying, well, we have taxation in case people don't give to charity enough.
Well, once you have taxation, people will give to charity less, and therefore you need to increase taxes more, and people will give money to charity less, and so on, right?
I mean, when they cut taxes, charitable giving goes up.
And so, if you have something in your toolbox as a parent called, as a last resort, I can hit.
It's sort of similar to saying, as a computer repairman, As a last resort, I will hit the motherboard with a ball-peen hammer.
If I really get frustrated, if nothing else seems to work, then I will hit the motherboard of the computer with a ball-peen hammer, repeatedly.
Well, you understand that, first of all, that doesn't make the problem better.
Now, once you hit...
The motherboard with the ball-peen hammer, you're done repairing it, right?
So, in a sense, your job is over, but not because you've fixed it, but just because you've resorted to that kind of violence, to that kind of aggression.
So, you're done.
Now, in the same way, hitting a child will very likely end the particular situation.
But you haven't solved anything.
You certainly haven't fixed anything.
All you've done is you've stopped the problem in the moment.
I go to a doctor with a migraine, and he sends you to a guillotine.
Well, he doesn't have to deal with your migraine anymore, but it's not like that's the solution that you want, right?
And it's like, want a girl to go out with you?
Take her brother hostage till she does.
Hey, look, she's going out with you, but you haven't really achieved what you wanted, right?
I'm going to try and get you to go out with me voluntarily, but as a last resort, I reserve the right to chloroform you and dump you in a windowless van and take you to a remote corner of my choosing for a fine manacled candlelit French dinner.
You get that if aggression is your last resort, that changes everything that you do.
It changes your whole approach to things.
So, again, not to milk the metaphors too much, but I really want to get this across.
So, if you say, well, sure, I will apply for the job, and I will try and get the job.
But if it doesn't look like I'm going to get the job...
That I reserve the right to blackmail, to plant drugs on the guy who's hiring me, to manufacture photographic evidence of him having an affair and to threaten him with exposure with my made-up information and make his life very difficult.
I threaten to report him to the authorities in some nefarious way or another.
So, I will try and get the job voluntarily.
I will try and respect his choice.
But if it really doesn't look like it's going to work out my way, then I reserve the right to blackmail him, to kidnap his children, to whatever, whatever, right?
I mean, I'm sure you understand that that's going to color the whole job interview process to begin with.
That's going to change the whole...
Like, if you've got in your back pocket as a job applicant...
Blackmail and I'm going to go and key his car and I'm going to go and set fire to his outhouse or whatever.
If that's in your toolbox, your toolbox is different.
And everything changes.
Once you give yourself permission for violence, then you're accepting a whole bunch of things.
You're accepting that the opposite of violence works and then violence works.
Reasoning and all that, that works.
But if it doesn't work, then violence will work.
That's crazy.
Right?
You understand that this is...
Again, I know I'm using extreme metaphors.
I'm not equating spanking to kidnapping or whatever, but I'm equating the reversal of the principle of peace versus violence.
Right?
Right, so, if I were to make an argument that says, if you want to sleep with a woman, yes, woo her, and try and get her to go out with you, try and seduce her, do whatever, and then if that doesn't work, just rape her.
And that's in the same continuum.
It's the same level of quality.
It's the same good stuff that is occurring.
And in the same way, if you're a parent and you say, well, I'm going to reason, I'm going to be peaceful, I'm going to, but then if that doesn't work, I'm going to hit them.
That's the same as saying, well, I'm going to woo, I'm going to ask her, I'm going to date her.
But if she really doesn't go on, if it doesn't look like she's going to go on the date with me, then I'll just rape her.
And not noticing that that's a complete reversal of ethics, of value.
Not hitting children, reasoning, but then being peaceful with them is really great.
But if it really doesn't look like it's going to work out in favor of the parent, then hit them.
I reserve that as a last resort.
I reserve rape as a last resort if the woman won't go out with me.
Or, again, just really want to make this clear, I really want an iPad, and I will try to get a job, and I will try to save up money to get an iPad.
But if it really doesn't look like by the end of the month that I'm going to get an iPad, then I'm just going to steal it.
Right?
I'm going to work for it, I'm going to trade for it, I'm going to get the iPad voluntarily, or even ask for charity or whatever, right?
But if it doesn't look...
Like I'm going to get the iPad within the time frame that I want.
Then I reserve the right to steal it.
You get how insane that is, right?
Peace, volunteerism, negotiation, trade, charity, whatever.
And then, if that doesn't look like it's going to work out, the exact opposite.
Right?
So, irrespective of the child's physical...
Boundaries and their physical space and their body and so on.
That's parenting.
And then, if parenting is not working out, then assault, violation, spanking, hitting is the logical next step.
And you get, like I'm sure you understand, that if you reserve the right to steal, you are much less likely to work for something.
Yeah, I want the iPad, you know.
Now, I'm going to steal it if I don't get it within a month.
Like, I'm just going to steal it.
Well, how motivated is that going to make you to go and get a job, get a paycheck and save up the money or, you know, ask for charity or make the case or join some community or use your weight within the community to get X, Y, and Z? How motivated are you to earn the iPad if you are fully comfortable and believe that it is perfectly fine to steal it if you happen not to be able to earn it?
Do you get how essential a change that is?
If you have a gun in your back pocket, your handshake is going to be quite a bit less offered.
How nicely do you have to ask someone to give you 20 bucks if they say no, you're just going to stick a knife in their ribs and take it?
You don't have to be nice if violence is on the table for you.
It changes fundamentally what's in your toolbox if at the bottom of your toolbox is violence.
It fundamentally, completely, and irrevocably alters the equation as long as violence is considered to be an acceptable escalatory technique.
Or, you know, well, if my parental difficulties are five, I've got a reason.
Six, I'll start screaming.
Eight, you know, I'll spank.
And ten, I will spank with implements.
If you have violence in your toolbox...
What voluntarism is capable of becomes severely crippled.
Right, so if you say, well, I really want the iPad, of course I'm not going to steal it.
Of course I'm not going to steal it.
But I really want the iPad.
Well, if you take violence or theft or aggression, immorality, out of your toolbox, then voluntarism becomes energized.
And you are fully committed to finding a way to get the iPad without being immoral, without doing evil.
And then your creativity starts to really work if you simply don't have that option.
If you have that option, your creativity never really has to rouse itself that much.
Because if voluntarism fails, your backup is violence.
And so you're not really committed to voluntarism and you're not going to explore all of the possibilities that voluntarism has for you or can generate.
You're not going to be wildly creative.
You're not going to come up with super fantastical ways to get what you want.
Because you have the backup plan called violence, which means that you don't really have to be that creative.
How hard are you going to research a job opportunity if you can simply force your way into the position?
We all know that violence cripples voluntarism, hobbles voluntarism.
So that would be sort of my first argument, which is that if you have violence in your back pocket, that fundamentally changes.
Everything else that you do in that situation.
You ain't gonna buy roses for a woman who, if she says no, you're just gonna rape her.
So, I think that's an important thing to get from the beginning.
So now, as to the next question, we say, well, you can't reason with a three-year-old.
Well, I think that's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, right?
So, if you say...
Like, if you go in with violence as an option in your interactions, you may find that people are surprisingly unresponsive to your fake attempts at volunteerism.
So, if you go to a woman and ask her out, and in the back of your mind, kidnapping and rape is on the table...
She's kind of going to get that.
And she's going to get one creepier sense of you.
And she's then going to say, okay, so this guy, he seems to be asking me out, but I'm getting a really sinister vibe from this guy.
Like, he's pretending to reason with me and pretending that things are voluntary.
But if I say no...
I really think he's going to attack me.
So, automatically you have a situation in place where she's going to say no.
Or she's going to run.
Or she's going to pepper spray you or something like that.
I don't know.
Self-defense is legally tricky.
Do not attempt without consulting a lawyer.
But you understand, like, if you go into a job interview...
Basically, with the idea that if you don't get the job, you're going to kidnap the guy's kids and just hold them until you get the job, then you're not going to be as prepared, you're not going to be as positive, and you're going to give off a pretty creepy vibe.
If violence is an option, it alters the interaction.
You won't try every conceivable thing.
You won't be as creative.
You won't be as imaginative.
You won't research the alternatives.
Because, you know, you're not going to work as hard for the iPad if plan B is stealing it.
Because if violence is the last resort, it changes all the first and second resorts.
So, it's sort of like saying, well, I have to kidnap women because otherwise they won't go out with me.
Women don't find me attractive, so I have to kidnap them.
It's like, no, I think that your willingness to kidnap them probably is contributing as to why they find you unattractive.
And those who find you attractive, run!
So, Children won't listen to reason, saith parents, but that's because parents have spanking as plan B or plan C or whatever.
And so the parent is automatically kind of hypocritical in reasoning with the child.
And the child picks up on that.
And you're not reasoning with someone if the next step, if they fail to listen to your reason, is to hit them.
You're not reasoning with someone if your next step is to hit them, if they don't agree with you.
You understand that.
You're not asking a woman out if your next step is to kidnap her.
You're not perfectly reasonable, and then when the reason doesn't work out, you just switch over to some hitting-is-good person who has no connection to the reasoning person.
No.
The violence's plan B changes everything that comes before it and makes the violence that much more likely.
And, of course, the other question is, what on earth do parents mean by you can't reason with?
What does that mean?
I mean, you have to be kind of creative to reason with kids.
Right?
So, the other day, you know, I was explaining to...
I was explaining to Isabella that her tongue likes sugar, but her belly, her teeth, and her bum don't like sugar so much.
So her tongue really wants to like the sugar, and, you know, the teeth don't like it because it makes bugs bite the teeth.
And the belly doesn't like it because it can make you sick, and the bum doesn't like it because it turns your poops into bricks.
Right?
Which, of course, was everything to do with body functions is hilarious.
Of course, that never changes.
And so we ended up doing this play, you know, where the tongue was like, Give me sugar!
Give me sugar!
I want the sugar!
And the belly was all like, No, I don't want sugar!
I don't want sugar!
I'm too full of sugar!
And the bum was like, Don't give me sugar!
My bums are turning...
Poopos are turning into bricks!
Ah!
And the body was saying, I don't want to get diabetes.
I don't want to end up running out of insulin.
I don't want to have a needle every day.
No more sugar.
The tongue's all like, give me sugar.
And for the other thing, the butt and the belly is all like, give me vegetables.
And the tongue's like, ew, I don't want vegetables.
That tastes as good as sugar.
I want sugar.
So we were doing this whole, right?
It was kind of funny.
Actually, it was very funny at the time.
This whole thing where we were having arguments between the tongue and the body over what is best to eat.
And this, of course, teaches her important things about washing hands, all these things.
You have to be kind of creative to get ideas across to little kids, but it's not like they can't understand these things.
Of course they can.
I mean, a failure of parenting is no reason to punish the child.
So, of course, when you say, well, I can't reason with my child, there's a whole number of things that are built into that.
First of all, what's built into that is I'm rational.
I'm perfectly rational.
There's nothing contradictory about what I'm communicating to my child.
There's nothing confusing.
And I've never been hypocritical with regards to this.
Right?
So, if the child has ever heard you lie to get out of a social engagement or Don't lie to a telemarketer saying, I'm having dinner when they're not.
Or, you know, just basically tell a falsehood.
If your child has ever seen you tell a falsehood, then you need to factor that into when you say to the child, don't lie.
Naturally, if you've hit your child or a child's seen you hit another child, when you say don't hit, this is a problem, right?
So, you have to be perfectly rational and you have to have been perfectly consistent.
Those are the two necessary but not even sufficient requirements to make the claim that your child won't listen to reason.
First, you have to be perfectly rational and you have to have been perfectly consistent.
Those things are pretty tough.
Those things are pretty tough.
And secondly, of course...
You have to have adapted whatever you're arguing for to a child-friendly language, right?
You have to have made every conceivable effort to diagram it, to map it out with papier-mâché, to use dolls, to use analogies, to use anything that you can conceivably use to get the idea across.
You have to be in a situation where you can't possibly prevent Whatever you're trying to reason, right?
So, you know, kids reaching for a boiling pot of water on the stove.
Well, of course, as a parent, you can not have the child in the kitchen.
You can, of course, use the backburners, point all at the right.
So, if you failed as a parent to protect your child's environment, you don't get to hit the child for your failures, right?
Obviously.
So, you have to have...
It has to be a situation that you can't prevent.
You have to be perfectly rational in your requests and consistent for all of your other relationships, consistent with all of your children, and you can never be accused of hypocrisy or the child can never have seen you violating the moral rule, right?
So...
If you say to your child, don't grab, well, have you ever grabbed something from your child?
I know I have.
I mean, it's an enthusiasm I want to share, and then I have to apologize and say, I'm so sorry, that was right.
If you're saying, don't chew with your mouth full, have you ever spoken with your mouth full in front of your child?
Again, these are all really difficult things, right?
So, having the humility of recognizing that there are imperfections all around us, and we are part of those imperfections, and they're part of us, is a way of...
So, when people say, well, I just can't reason with a two- or three-year-old, well, have you hit them already?
Have they seen you do anything hypocritical?
Are you being perfectly rational?
Right?
You can't reason a child into believing in things they can't see.
You can't reason a child into wanting to go to church, right?
Now, what's interesting is then, so then when you say the biting example, right?
So then...
Saying kids bite.
Well, those are traits they've received from the parenting style or other influences.
And they say it's free will.
They choose whatever they want to do, not because of how we parent.
Well, I mean, this is just typical parenting nonsense, right?
I mean, do you take pride in your child's achievements?
Okay, that's part of the equation of parenting.
And the other part of the equation is you're also responsible for their negative behaviors.
Particularly when there are two or three, right?
If your children do things entirely unrelated to your parenting, then any and all achievements that they have have nothing to do with you, and you can never take a shred of pride.
In fact, there's no point you even being there.
In fact, it could be anyone.
It could be Charles Manson, it could be Jesus himself, it could be Buddha, it could be Hitler, and the child would be exactly the same.
Well, then, of course, what you need to do is, obviously, they will say, well, that can't quite be true, and just say, okay, well, so you believe that your parenting has no influence on your child's behavior.
What is your proof for that?
Do you have scientific evidence that parenting has no influence on child behavior at all?
And you point them towards the bottom of the brain stuff, the effects of spanking and so on.
And say, okay, well here you have a prejudice without any facts.
So clearly this is an emotional defense.
When you have a strong opinion, not only without any facts, but in the complete rejection and avoidance of facts, in the opposite of what the facts say, then you have a prejudice.
And so it's important to understand that you have a prejudice.
And the reality, fundamentally, of course, is that many parents find it necessary, and even a positive action, to hit their children.
Positive action to hit their children.
They call it discipline, right?
In other words, I didn't hit her, officer.
I was merely disciplining my wife.
Oh, okay.
Well, that's fine.
They call it discipline.
And it's all nonsense, right?
What is the case is that they have things that they want from their children that they can't reason them into.
and therefore they have to hit them, right?
They want the kids to go to church.
The kids start being skeptical about the existence of God, and so they threaten them with either hell or whatever, right?
So all of these things occur on a regular and repetitive basis in...
And parents are either defending their own irrationality or trying to get the children to conform to an irrational and abusive familial or cultural or social or religious environment or trying to get them to conform to a public school environment.
You know, listen to the teacher.
I can't believe I'm going to hit you if you don't get whatever good on that test.
Right?
So...
It's really got nothing to do with any kind of virtue.
It's just what the parent feels necessary in order to sustain the madness of modern society.
And that's not good.
▲
Export Selection