To Spank or Not to Spank Quotes

“Antispanking laws would solve a nagging problem for Child Protective Service agencies nationwide: to wit, the criticism that current child abuse and neglect laws discriminate against the poor-that, in fact, definitions of neglect and abuse are often synonomous with definitions of poverty. A prohibition on spanking would be nondiscriminatory; it would "tie the hands," so to speak, of haves and have-nots alike. After all, the typical Fortune 500 CEO has probably never beaten his children in ways that produced bruises on their bodies; nevertheless, he has probably spanked them. Antispanking laws would mean that he would be no less vulnerable to the forced "interventions" of Child Protective Services workers than an unemployed single mother of three living hand-to-mouth in a slum tenement.”
― John Rosemond, To Spank Or Not To Spank

“This amounts to nothing more than misleading propaganda. The purpose is to create a climate of acceptance for the passage of legislation which will turn the majority of parents into criminals of the most heinous kind-those whose victims are defenseless children. The resulting body of law will play directly into the hands of ultraliberal social engineers as well as social activists within the professional community. The outward motive-the protection of children-conceals several more insidious ones:
• The desire to expand and consolidate the power of the helping professions. At the present time, there is no law that says an individual must, under certain circumstances, submit to psychological evaluation and counseling. If they are written as is being suggested, however, antispanking laws will require exactly that. They will give helping professionals the power to define when the law has been broken, who is in need of "help" and how much, and when a certain parent's "rehabilitation" is complete. It is significant to note that in all of history the only other state to confer this much power on psychologists and their ilk was the former Soviet Union.
• The desire to manipulate the inner workings of the American family; specifically, the desire to exercise significant control over the child-rearing process. Take it from someone who was, at one time, similarly guilty, a significant number of helping professionals possess a "save the world" mentality. They believe they know what's best for individuals, families, and children. The only problem, as they see it, is that most people are "in denial"-unwilling to recognize their need for help. This self-righteousness fuels a zealous, missionary attitude. And like the first missionaries to the New World, many helping professionals seem
to believe that their vision of a perfect world justifies whatever means they deem necessary, including licensing parents, taking children away from parents they define as unfit, and the like. (For a close look at the social engineering being proposed by some professionals, see Debating Children's Lives, Mason and Gambrill, eds., Sage Publications, 1994).”
― John Rosemond, To Spank Or Not To Spank

“In the 1960s, helping professionals began actively promoting a child-rearing philosophy which holds that parent and child are equals-not in theory, mind you, but in fact. According to psychologist Thomas Gordon, one of the chief architects of the democratic family movement and author of Parent Effectiveness Training (1970), or P.E. T, one of the all-time best-sellers in the parenting field, parents should treat children as they would treat adult friends.”
― John Rosemond, To Spank Or Not To Spank