Skip to main content

Breaking an Unhealthy Cycle Before It's Too Late

It's common for unhealthy cycles to bound in people's lives. Whether that be alcohol abuse during difficult times, finding oneself in abusive relationships, or becoming promiscuous after break-ups, even if we know deep down the cycles aren't healthy for us, it's often times very difficult to break these very cycles. As difficult as it might be to do this, however, if we don't eventually break these unhealthy cycles, it becomes increasingly likely that these unhealthy cycles will take control of and ultimately destroy our lives.

Unfortunately, Minnesota Vikings Pro Bowl running back Adrian Peterson and his children find themselves in a similar situation. Based on friends' and family's testimonies, it seems about as likely that Adrian Peterson's father beat him as a child as it does that the earth revolves around the sun. Since Adrian feels this harsh form of discipline helped him become the person he is today and he is ignorant of any alternatives, he's beat his kids in a similar manner, thinking it will have the same supposed positive effect on them.

When details of Adrian Peterson's child abuse allegations emerged, he had many immediate defenders, saying, "That's not abuse; that's just discipline" or "I sure got my share of whoopings back in the day. That's just how things are." The problem with this argument is the fact society evolves, and with that, people are expected to evolve as well. There was a time when African-Americans were viewed as 2/3 of a person, weren't allowed to vote, weren't even allowed to share water fountains with Anglo-Americans. However, changes were made, we evolved as a society, and while racism is still present, we've done a lot in an attempt to limit it and hope that it continues to decrease over time. Similar progress has been made with regard to women's rights, gays' rights, non-Christian's rights, etc. So, yes, while some trends, traditions, and cycles may have existed for some time, that doesn't make them right and it takes a stronger person to break that cycle than to continue it.

That brings us to the cycle of corporal punishment and the line between discipline and abuse. Corporal punishment has been an increasingly controversial issue. While a majority of parents still spank their children, that number has declined through the years, perhaps because a majority of studies say something similar - "Spanking isn't very effective" and "There are better ways to discipline a child than spanking."

In a fairly recent study conducted by Gershoff and Grogan-Kaylor, it found the following results:

"In one set of analyses with young children in the laboratory, time outs worked just as well as spanking for (immediate) subsequent compliance on 30 tasks assigned by the mother. Long-term compliance is decreased after spanking."

The study also reported this:

"Spanking predicted increases in children's aggression over and above initial levels [of aggressive behavior]" and "in none of these longitudinal studies did spanking predict reductions in children's aggression over time."

Still, it seems that most parents don't have a problem with spanking, so long as it doesn't result in physical injury, which would constitute as child abuse, and that's why the Adrian Peterson case has been such a hot and divisive issue. While many people have defended his actions by saying he was merely disciplining his kid(s) with spankings, he went above and beyond just spanking and ended up physically injuring his kid(s), to the point where he (they) needed medical attention.

As CBS Minnesota reported:

"The police report said the boy told the doctor Peterson had hit him with a branch from a tree. The doctor told investigators that the boy had a number of lacerations on his thighs, along with bruise-like marks on his lower back and buttocks and cuts on his hand. The police report says the doctor described some of the marks as open wounds and termed it 'child abuse.' Another examiner agreed, calling the cuts 'extensive.'"

If those reports are accurate, and judging by the photos, they are, that isn't simply a "spanking;" that's abuse.

To his credit, it appears that through his post-story comments, Peterson seems at least somewhat cognizant that what he did was wrong, has sought counseling, and now acknowledges that there are better forms of discipline than what he subjected his son(s) to. The question now is, can Adrian Peterson break that unhealthy cycle? While he was beating his kids, while he may have felt partially wrong about it, it was the only way he knew how to go about matters. Since he subjected his kids to the same abusive treatment his father subjected him to growing up, unless he alters course, his own kids will be much more likely to subject their kids to abuse, and the cycle will continue until someone finally puts an end to it. The problem for him is, if the courts convict him, it'll be too late to change course, and he'll be unable to try and form a healthier bond with his children. While I sincerely hope he learns from his actions and improves as a person because of it, I also sincerely hope his kids are never subject to any kind of abuse again and go on to live a long, happy, and healthy life. Many people may continue to defend the Pro Bowl running back's actions. I, myself, will continue to defend the defenseless - his children.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/vikings/2014/09/15/adrian-peterson-second-child-abuse-accusation-houston/15694615/

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/09/177641-see-photos-got-star-rb-adrian-peterson-indicted-child-abuse-decide-went-far/

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201309/research-spanking-it-s-bad-all-kids

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/16/the-adrian-peterson-beating-and-the-christian-right-s-love-of-corporal-punishment.html

http://thebiglead.com/2014/09/12/adrian-peterson-alleged-photos-of-boys-legs-show-extensive-cuts/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"