When I was a child my mother would often get angry and say, "That's the worst thing you can do!" Being a little kid with a big vocabulary I would say, "How can I manage to plumb a greater depth of depravity every time I do something you find objectionable?" Addressing me by my full name she would say, "You wait until your father gets home."

When my father came home he would listen to my mother. Then he would take me in the bedroom and get my version of what I did. If he thought it wasn't good he would talk to me about it. Otherwise he would just tell me something about enduring. My mother was an alcoholic, and he had to endure a lot. Then he would take off his belt and say something about this hurting him more than it did me. He would lustily strap the bed post, and I would yowl. We would then emerge from the bedroom, and I would wipe my eyes.

Much later I occasionally spanked my two sons with my hand. Then my wife had a daughter. When she was two she ran out of the house into the street nude, and a car came to a screeching halt. I carried her into the house intending to spank her, but I found myself unable to swat that cute little bottom. I never spanked anybody after that.

Smacking a child is painful, humiliating and immediate. For behavioral modification, there is generally no need to smack.

However, in the case where the child disobeys an instruction and puts his/her life in jeopardy, a smack differentiates this from other "bad" behaviour, and for small children the rapidity of the discipline strongly reinforces cause and effect.

We used this only a handful of times on each child and never after 5 years, and it had the desired effect of separating in their minds behaviour that was dangerous and non negotiable and largely prevented repetition.

So to sum up, whilst I believe that discipline is possible mostly without resort to smacking, I am not in favour of the one size fits all rule of NEVER for no one.

spare the rod and spoil the child. If people can't see today the result of 'sparing the rod' then there little hope of them thinking rationally. We have far more violence and abuse than ever before. We have allowed kids to be worshiped rather than loved resulting in a total breakdown in families and society. It is straight out child abuse not to discipline a child adequately.

Excellent article and I agree totally.
Ive said it before Hitting a child is assault. And a particularly cowardly one at that. While I dont call for sanctions, after all what is worse for the child a smack or a parent in jail, I do think we should aim to further our civility as a society by extending the social taboo of corporal punishment to all people all of the time.

I tend to the anti-smacking side of the debate but I found the article overly one sided. It did not try to present the issue reasonably but rather ran a very one sided portrayal of the issue.

Kid's and parents hurt, often for a much longer period of time from other forms of corrective discipline. Smacking is not the only cause of emotional pain when it comes to disciplining children. The argument about children not having the same protection s as others ignores the elephant in the room which is that children don't suffer the same consequences for bad choices as adults, a child might have a loss of some privileges, spend some time in a thinking corner or maybe get a smack for an action which if carried out by an adult could well result in a prison term.

There is plenty of research which suggests that when smacking is a regular long term form of discipline children might suffer negative long term consequences, a statistically significant increase which all parents should consider.

There is also evidence to suggest that children who are smacked young (when their capacity to deal with other forms of discipline is not well developed) may do better than their peers who are not smacked. Early days on that yet but worthy of attention for anybody considering outcomes http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6926823/Smacked-children-more-successful-later-in-life-study-finds.html

It is a complex issue, in some cases a smack might be far less painful to all involved than the other practical alternatives available to most parents.

R0bert

Let parents decide how to discipline and love their children.Get big brother and the know nothing academics out of our lives.

It is all a matter of what works for the individual.Not disciplining can be more destructive than a smack.

We have never had so much interference from the state and yet we have so much dysfunctionality and violence in our society.Everyone is a victim seeking redress for situations primarily of their own making.

When people are made responsible for their own actions,they will learn and so we'll have a semblense of equilibrium.

A smack is just a gesture when they're very small (or should be). I don't know how wise that is--depends on the psychology of the moment I s'pose. My father was a prison guard and I remember vividly his telling my brother and I that when we got home we'd get twenty each on the bare bottom with his belt. Having about nine hours to think about it, and that Dad was a man of his word, was the worst part I think (if you got your hands in the way, it didn't count).
I've smacked my kids in anger a few times, always restrainedly, except once. On that occasion this son of mine was about four and I got angry with him because when I demanded that he get something or other, I forget what it was, he was just bewildered. I barked exact instructions; 'there it is, right there (pointing)'! The poor fellow could not see what was right under his nose and I smacked him, and then ordered him anew to do my bidding. In a state of utter panic, he still could not comprehend my meaning. I think I smacked him half a dozen times, hard on the bottom, repeating the instructions repeatedly, and he just became more bewildered and uncomprehending. That night when I bathed him and his younger sister (I was newly a widower) I saw my finger prints, blue, on his bottom, like faded aboriginal art. I've never smacked a child since, beyond gesture.
Children are our equals in everything bar experience, and we should do unto them what we would have done unto ourselves.
That same child, when he was younger, was getting into some harmless mischief one day and I said, "Eliot, NO!"; he looked at me and then continued with intent. We repeated this a few times until finally I smiled at my wife, looked at Eliot and said, 'ok, if you feel that strongly about it'.
Kids need guidance, discipline and above all example, but they don't need brutality.

Good for you, Squeers! You let him win one.

I agree with Robert that most of the criticisms of smacking also apply to the alternatives.

This line from the article sums up my view:

>> A 13-year-old said: “Parents think hitting children is sort of their right...I guess parents have gotta learn to respect children”. <<

Squeers

Your recollection was very moving - as I am sure it was a huge learning experience for you. Thank you for your honesty.

As a child my parents never hit me. At school in year Four, I was caned across the hands for something another child had done - I have never forgotten and to this day I remain suspicious of anyone who assumes they have great authority. The teacher who hit me was a middle-aged female - however I am sceptical of either gender who are judgemental and narrow-minded.

Neither my niece nor nephew are smacked and they remain two of the best behaved kids - with plenty of exuberance. Although I'd have no trouble hitting anyone who tried to lay a hand on them.

In conclusion; children learn by example and respect is a two-way street. Therefore, it is a good idea to think before acting in anger.

This debate is a laugh. The anti-smacking brigade have some very high-calibre ammunition - the National Committee on Violence (1988) recommended to stop violence in Australia we needed to stop smacking. Also to stop Aboriginal disadvantage and a whole long list of gun laws. Now we can see that the gun laws gave the community satisfaction, except those affected, and solving Aboriginigal disadvantage has been the huge success we know. Banning smacking MUST be next.

Its the only way its proponents lives will be meaningful.

I never considered the style of corporal punishment I employed to manage the personas in my lot as criminal. I regaled in the role knowing that "I brought them into this world, and I can take them out of it".....
I employed the single shot method; very rarely did any of mine get more than one. An immediate lightening fast four fingered blow to the back of the legs or the botty. What triggers the "fingers of fear" is obviously something dangerous, or it could be a mundane naughty act that was the culmination of many other such acts within a relative short space of time. When does it stop, when I believe they should know better of the act. Time out with absolutely no parole, except in case of fire, was and is a regular part of the landscape...they disappear...for a while.

I am in two minds about smacking.
While I very rarely smacked my daughter (twice, once after she tried to run on the road, and then when she ran away from me at a shopping centre), myself and my 3 siblings were smacked a bit more often as kids.

Like Severin's relatives, they all turned out reasonably well balanced, exuberant people too.
So, being smacked, occasionally and only when an extreme situation occurs, does not preclude most people from turning into reasonable members of society.

Where the smacking debate comes undone is when some people take smacking too far and it tips over into abuse.
Many victims of this kind of child abuse do suffer greatly and don't always turn out so well balanced later in life.

So I think that if we can legislate against smacking anyone- child or adult, we can perhaps save even a few people from a life of mental health issues.

. suzeonline said; So I think that if we can legislate against smacking anyone- child or adult, we can perhaps save even a few people from a life of mental health issues.

I agree with the principal and follow that logic in my decision to oppose capital punishment (if only one innocent dies in a billion, it's too much to pay) But in regard to smacking and the psychological ramifications, I address it with the same logic that makes me believe that children need exposure to dirt and dust and the outside world to build up their immune responses. The irregular little smack is placated by love and close family ties and is beneficial in setting a boundary to the child’s action, especially in the first five years. Past this point if corporal punishment and reason has not set the boundary then it is time to stop, and employ reason and reward, and then hope for the best.

What works with one child may not work for another. Smacking as a form of discipline should be the exception rather than the rule, used only when absolutely necessary. There are usually better options but not always. I was smacked but very rarely as a child but the threat was always there if you overstepped so we never did as a rule.

I do remember a teacher smacking my palm with a ruler when I got a maths question wrong, and the feeling of injustice and humiliation has never left me, especially as I was a good student and well behaved. When my parents smacked me on the rare occasion, it was usually for a good reason and I accepted this was the consequence of my own behaviour.

Children are instinctive about intent and can easily distinguish between abuse and discipline. But I agree with SM on this, that we cannot assume a one size fits all approach.

Posted by pelican, Saturday, 8 May 2010 2:31:52 PM
I do remember a teacher smacking my palm with a ruler when I got a maths question wrong, and the feeling of injustice and humiliation has never left me.

My all boys’ school caned convincingly, and I never gave it a second thought after the pain abated. What I am qualifying is that your persona would carry any other trivial event as emotional baggage due to your perception and reaction to adversity. The neighbour yelling at you, a slap from a school friend, etc are all a shattering experience for your persona. You cannot control that, that is who you are. My persona needed threats and retribution to help me make good value judgments by giving me boundaries. I needed a smack, you did not.

runner wrote: "Spare the rod and spoil the child." Actually it is not an injunction justifying brutality. It clearly means that children generated by artificial insemination may not turn out as well as those conceived in the time-honored way.

Posted by pelican, Saturday, 8 May 2010 2:31:52 PM
I do remember a teacher smacking my palm with a ruler when I got a maths question wrong, and the feeling of injustice and humiliation has never left me.

Pelican in my previous reply to your above comment I trivialized your
smacking event, it sounded patronizing, but clear differential was more my intent. I did not read your words with clarity, as I themed my comment around the physical event and not the memory of the injustice and humiliation.
Anyhow what brought about this clarity was the second reading of your words, and a personal memory of injustice and humiliation was retrieved from my vault. When I was ten a shopkeeper accused a mate and I of theft. My father by a million to one chance walked into the shop at that moment. Immediately grasping the situation he started smacking me on the behind as I ran around and around trying to break away from his grasp. Immediately after the whacking the shopkeeper found what he said we had stole. This event was unjust and humiliating, but for me not for the physical aspects, but because I was innocent. It seems I carry trivial emotional baggage that I did not know I owned.

sonofgloin as a bystander I applaud that last post. OLO would be a far better place if more people were able to reconsider their first response and deal with it when they get it wrong.

My impression is that the harm done by perceived injustice is far worse than the actual punishment regardless of the form the punishment takes (within a sane range).

R0bert

Thanks for the clarification sonofgloin. I had not read your comment until you had already posted the follow-up and am glad you re-read it in context with the rest of what I wrote.

I should add when I say that I carried that event with me, I do not lay awake at night thinking about it nor did the event affect me adversely despite my feelings of injustice. Bad as it was it probably made me a fairer and well-adjusted adult able to discern right from wrong.

Andrew Denton is having a re-run at the moment and I caught Paul Featherstone the other day who was the emergency services person involved with the mine collapse in Beaconsfield and the Stuart Diver rescue.

Featherstone said that "some adversity is necessary to form character". I agree, and while I don't welcome bad acts, the fact is we are all human and we may at some time experience bad times or bad behaviour, or we may be the perpetrator knowingly or unknowingly.

It is what we do with those experiences that make us or break us.

Yes, well I'm feeling rather neglected lately, since Col Rouge took his leave, I mean! I think it only fair that some of the spleen is reserved for me! After all, I try to upset everyone, and not just the ladies!
Maybe it's time for some people to do a doctor who, and change identity; familiarity breeds contempt. There's obviously a bit of history behind the blood-letting. I find Antiseptic's posts mostly very shrewd, but there is without doubt a thick strip of misogyny there.
On the other hand, some of the ladies (no names) are also men haters, or seem incapable of stepping outside their insular little world views. It seems we're either mannered or ill-mannered. My recommendation is that we all make a conscious decision to let go of our cherished perspectives and bugbears and think outside the square, or in this case outside the gender. Indeed, I'm much more interested in the world, and that perennial philosophical question, 'how should we live?', than I am in paddling my own canoe. It's having our thinking seriously challenged that makes us grow; must we always defend that wicket at any cost, even when we know we were out? As Gilchrist showed us, it's infinitely more noble to walk!
I look forward to walking! Dismantle my arguments and reveal my asinine thinking, and I'll thank you for liberating me from myself! We can't all be right, indeed it's a safe bet that we're all wrong.
Anyway, in the interests of peace and enlightenment.

Squeers
Some noble goals and high aspirations, but did you intend this for the monogamy thread? :)

Apologies folks, the post above was intended for another thread. I'm blushing!

Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 9 May 2010 1:31:03 PM
My impression is that the harm done by perceived injustice is far worse than the actual punishment regardless of the form the punishment takes (within a sane range).

I agree. In an example I gave earlier about the right of the State to impose and carry out a death penalty.It is not just the taking of the condemns future. It is the possibility of an innocent life being taken and the dual psychological impacts of the loss of your own life and the torture of knowing you are innocence of the crime. Absolutely psychologically devestating.