suze,

Sorry to get on the gender thing so early in the year... but you did raise it.

It's been some time since men saw women as their property. In fact, as you will have seen on this forum, women seem to be doing a fine job of seeing mens' property as theirs. Speak to any divorced man.

I think about 60-70% of divorces are initiated by women. They do this because they get a good deal out of divorce. It also means there are an awful lot of men trapped in unhappy marriages. Men don't want to initiate divorce because they know the (ex)wife will get the property and kids while they will get the bill.

As for kids being seen as possessions, I agree. I think about 95% of kids go to the mother in custody disputes. We can see who sees whom as possessions.

I don't take you as a radical feminist at all, but I wonder when I see someone like you make an argument based on such false assumptions. If anything, the current issue really should be 'men as possessions - dispose of thoughfully when used'

Suzie,

How you felt when you smacked your child is irrelevant to this debate. No matter what the system, you will never be made to smack your child if you don't want to. The author of this article is trying to sugest that no-one has the right to smack their child, under any circumstances. They would label your mother a criminal for her acts.

These people wish to tell us that we don't know whats best for our children, they do. This is just more example of the "big gov't busibodies" extending their mini-empires into our lives.

I was soundly smacked by my parents as a child when i got out of hand. I always knew where the line was, and what would get me smacked. I never once felt I copped a hiding without good cause. I cannot find fault with their actions and I find it obscene that the law would label them criminals.

The loony-lawyers rely upon the obvious misrepresentation of smacking. They say we don't know the difference between abuse and discipline. But we do, we always have. People who flog their children , or who randomly beat them, or who take their frustrations on their kids are child abusers. People who smack their 4 year old on the bum to stop them running onto the road, or climbing pool fences, are not abusers. Any confusion is solely in the minds of the "do-gooders"

How about I not tell you whats best for your child, and you not tell me whats best for mine.

No Dane, I am not a radical feminist, but I was really only discussing the topic when I was trying to say that thankfully men no longer have the 'right' to physically discipline their women in this country, yet parents retain the 'right' to physically discipline their children.

What is the difference between these two scenarios:
Wife tells husband to 'go to hell' when he swears at her.
Husband holds himself together and doesn't smack wife for fear of her reporting him to the authorities.

On the other hand, Junior walks into the room and yells 'go to hell' to his Father or Mother, and they both chase him to smack him.

Double standards?

PaulL, I was not trying to tell you what to do with your children, but I hope this Government has the balls to mirror the New Zealand Government's stand on acceptable discipline for children in this country.

Why is it not acceptable to smack another adult human in anger, but it is ok to smack a small child in anger?

It doesn't make any sense to me.

Suzieonline,

the fact that you could even say " Why is it not acceptable to smack another adult human in anger, but it is ok to smack a small child in anger? "

demonstrates the distance you have come from any common sense view of the world.

On the same basis you might as well ask why don't children get the vote. There are a few simple and very good reasons why we don't treat children exactly the same as any random adult.

They are these.

1) Children are little humans whose brains and bodies have'nt yet reached a mature stage of devellopment.

Thats why we need to feed them, wipe their bums, make sure that animals don't eat them, and finally equip them for life in the real world. We don't do this for other adults because they can do it for themselves.

2) The safety, and socialistation, of other adult humans is NOT our repsonsibility. Certainly not in the sense that our children are. We cede to adults the right to make their own decisions (to a certain extent) and so .. we don't smack adults.

Your comparison is inane. Childrens brains are not fully develloped, and their reasoning ability, at young age especially, often leaves them unable to accurately judge the risks that they take. Our own children's behaviour/safety is directly and specifically our responsibility. Other adults are patently not.

No PaulL, I am not suggesting we don't discipline our kids when there is dangerous situations etc, I never said that.
As I said, I would endorse the laws that New Zealand has put in place.

Using all of your examples above though, with the facts they are not mature and often don't know what they are doing, should we then be allowed to inflict pain on them in non-dangerous situations?

Give me some situations, other than when there are dangers involved, that you think it is ok to smack a child?

Beat your kids often

Their free spirits need it, and

You will feel power