I disagree.

Corporal punishment administered in a considered and sparing way in early years is a form of discipline that is understood, quick, easy and leads to a reduction in recidivism in later years. For those that don't agree, you only have to look at the total disregard for the law from rioting youths, to assault, to road rage, to inconsiderate attitudes to others that was minimal 50 years ago when punishment was inflicted on the backside of many a youth and he grew up with an understanding that certain things were unacceptable in a community. It worked then and is one of the reasons why we now have such a selfish society, because we live in an environment that panders to the young and their so called rights.

That's classic, snake.

>>For those that don't agree, you only have to look at the total disregard for the law from rioting youths, to assault, to road rage, to inconsiderate attitudes to others that was minimal 50 years ago when punishment was inflicted on the backside of many a youth and he grew up with an understanding that certain things were unacceptable in a community. It worked then and is one of the reasons why we now have such a selfish society<<

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Go look it up.

My own view, tried and tested through raising three very well-adjusted and socially acceptable children, is that to resort to corporal punishment of any kind against children is an admission of weakness on the part of the beater.

The article however concerns itself primarily with the legal basis for inflicting such punishment on children. The idea that the line between "smacking" and child abuse can be determined by legislation, and that a position either side of that line will in future be argued by lawyers, smells to me like special pleading on the part of those who will earn money from the task.

The article does not, possibly for these reasons, cover existing legislation, but I suspect that our current assault laws are perfectly adequate to detect the abuse of children. Can anyone point to situations where they are lacking?

Snake the problem with that argument is that there does not appear to be evidence that anti-social kid's are necessarily from non-smacking homes. They may well be from ones where discipline is inconsistantly administered, thumped at times, ignored at others.

To the article
Strangly enough children are not adult's. They don't have adult reasoning or adult consequences and attempts to discuss smacking as a rights issue seem to ignore that "minor" fact. Parents and children come with differing temperments, abilities and attitudes. One size does not fit all.

Some kid's have a remarkable ability to dismiss most of the non-physical consequences and often don't do well at considering longer term consequences. In the heat of rage the risk of loosing some favorite toy or entertainment for a sustained period is not relevant to them nor are most other non-physical disciplines.

Some parents don't do well with the complexities of nuanced discipline especially where the child is keen to work around that discipline.

TBC

R0bert

Part 2

There is credible evidence that large amounts of physical discipline correlate to a relatively small increase in the likelyhood of adult violence. A lack of any consistant discipline is far more likely to lead to significant problems than small amounts of physical discipline used to back up other strategies. There is some evidence (not conclusive as I understand it) that outcomes can be better for children where physical discipline is one of the strategies used at a young age than for children where it's not.

Emotional abuse of children is far more likely to lead to long term harm to those children than small amounts of physical discipline.

Serious physical assult leading to injury is a different matter. The deliberate linking of serious assault to smacking ignores that people need to make distinctions about levels in all forms of discipline. Sitting a kid in a thinking corner is different to chaining them in the dog house for the weekend. Telling them that a behaviour was inappropriate is different to telling them that they are a useless piece of s#%t.

The goal should be to give parents access to the best set of tools to raise children allowing for the differences in all human beings.

Physical discipline should never be the first port of call, it should never be at a level that leads to injury but it also needs to be remembered that children are not adults with adult reasoning and consequences.

R0bert

In spite of your latin quotation Pericles, ! do think there is causal correlation between the lack of physical discipline and anti social behaviour. However, You will notice that right at the beginning I modified my approach to it by saying "considered and sparingly".

Of course there are alternative forms of discipline and they should always be used first and I agree with the other posters that there should be consistency so that a child knows what is expected of him/her, but I have observed enough children admonished constantly with no effective results when a short smack on the backside would be quick and sharp enough to get the desired result. A child that knows the rules and abides by them is a happy child, rather than one that is constantly shouted at and abused.

It is somewhat similar to that of a trained dog such as those used by law enforcement or the blind. They know their boundaries and are trained with affection. Unfortunately children are more astute and if they think they can get away with something, they push those boundaries when ever they can....... Now I can see that I will be criticised for making THAT comparison !

It is too large a subject to discuss within a few paragraphs and I am ambivalent on both sides of the argument, but I still remain adamant that there is place for corporal punishment which certainly worked for me.

It is time to get these ratbags, out of our lives, & definitely out of our homes.

Apparently the only folk capable of thinking are doctors, [pretty often unsuccessful at their jobs, & lawyers, the people most likely to use lies as part of their business], according to them anyway.

If you want proof that corporal punishment works, just go walk down a Singapore street at night, & feel safe, then walk down some near city street in most large Oz cities, & see how safe you feel.

Bring back the strap, & cane, & all but the elites will be safer, yes even the thugs.

A poorly constructed article, which fails to set out the current legal situation coherently, and calls for action which is clearly not justified by the irrelevant material put forward.

For someone seeking employment with the corrupt and useless United Nations, production of a turgid article like this would no doubt be a commendation.

For sensible people, seeking constructive discussion, it is an irritation.

failing to discipline one's children is gutless and will usually produce violent kids in our society. Only the blinded can't see what has happened since the social engineers took over 50 years ago. Snake has done well to point that out. First they want fatherless kids and when they lose there they want emasculated fathers. The real child and society abusers are those who fail to smack their children when they are rebellious and anti social.

I noted your remarks regarding Singapore HASBEEN and I wondered if you had seen this.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8eb_1269138010

It shows how a drunken driver is punished in Singapore and while I don't endorse this sort of thing for the offence committed, I'm willing to bet the guy won't offend again. It might be a week or so before he sits down again.

Smacking is wrong and the college of surgeons is right.

Give us break you morons. Haven't you caused enough harm already ?

I have read responses from people whose whole argument is based on how they raised their children. That's not data folks, that's your own, tiny experience. Surely one "I hit my kids and they're fine" cancels out one "I didn't and they're fine" - or the other way around.

The problem with this is that it's the beginning of the slippery slope. As a Principal with over 22 years experience, it is the mindset that comes with "no smacking" that is the problem. From my experience (100s of families and 1000s of students NOT just my kids) is that the non-smacker tends (not universal, I said "tends") to also be a no boundaries sort of person. Or, if not, hasn't actually worked out how to maintain the boundaries without smacking (Let's face it - it's not easy).

Going against my own opening point, I will mention that I have two well adjusted teenagers, and I didn't smack.

I am tired of me, or my staff, being the first person in these kid's lives to tell them "no" when they do something wrong. You talk to the parents and they either (in order of common response) i) Don't care, ii) Get angry with you for how you have treated their child or iii) Throw up their hands and say "What can you do?" A distant 4th is "That's terrible, how can we work together?"

This argument needs a lot more thought.

It is not a "latin quotation", snake.

>>In spite of your latin quotation Pericles, ! do think there is causal correlation between the lack of physical discipline and anti social behaviour.<<

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is the descriptor of a common logical fallacy.

My own view is that violence inevitably perpetuates violence.

Our prisons and corrective facilities are well stocked with violent people who were beaten in their childhood. An ex-colleague of mine who spent a number of years in prisoner-counselling told me that it was extremely rare to come across any inmate who had not experienced corporal punishment in his youth.

In fact, he couldn't actually think of any, among the hundreds he had interviewed.

But that neither supports nor negates my position, in the same way that your own anecdotal evidence neither proves nor disproves your assertion that the presence of corporal punishment is the key element that makes streets safer. There are many more socio-economic aspects that contribute to our safety. I'm sure you could probably think of some if you put your mind to it.

Meanwhile, runner...

>>failing to discipline one's children is gutless...<<

Oh, really? And belting them is, what... courageous?

Let me see if I have this right. You are unable to communicate to a child that there are boundaries, and that they are expected to stay within them. So, as a result of this failure, you give them a whack.

Are you sure you are hitting the right person? Sounds like you are in fact taking out your own shortcomings on them.

And I expect that calling people gutless because they don't share your opinion makes you feel better about yourself. Every little helps, I guess. Perhaps, one day, there may be some relief from the self-loathing.

Thank snake, & thank heavens I don't drink.

If they treat their speedsters the same way, it might even slow me down.

Yes it may actually be a bit excessive, but it keeps potential muggers off the street.

We live in a paradoxical age, trumpeting human rights, religious freedoms and abhorrence of violence, pursuing diplomacy, freedom of information and transparency to the 'n'th degree - all the while within a kaleidoscopic world of violence and uncertainty.

No-one knows when the next terrorist will attack, or where or why. We have transport police and electronic screening, and screening for weapons and 'radicals' at high profile events; we have drug wars and drive-by shootings, and Wall Street thieves - and it was only ordinary people taking matters into their own hands which prevented an aircraft obliterating the White House on 9/11.

Our courts are lenient, we outlaw capital punishment and 'rehabilitate' psychopaths, our jails are relatively 'leisure centres' for habitual criminals (and educational institutions for young offenders), and people use every possible excuse to wriggle out of taking personal responsibility for their actions. An age of credible denial.

There was a time when school masters used the cane to stop persistent offenders from disrupting school and classroom, when police 'corrected' unacceptable behaviour by youths (with most not needing a second lesson), and kids had respect for their elders (and would get a swift clip if they didn't). Open hand smacking, no strap, spoon or ruler, provided a mild but memorable rebuke to a very badly behaved child, by parent or relative, and rarely by responsible bystander - but of course nothing succeeds so well as plain good parenting.

Now we have people provoking the police (go on, hit me pig) and crying foul if they cop it (origin of 'copping it'?), binge drinking and carrying on like idiots, bullying, being stupid on the internet and reveling in personal freedoms. In parts mobs throw molotov cocktails and destroy personal property in pursuit of those 'freedoms'.

In Aus we have some of the highest urban costs and standards of living in the world, and some of the lowest living standards in remote communities; elswhere Shiite bombs and kills Sunni, Somalies starve, and human slavery persists. We live in a paradox - and smacking may be a lost virtue.

Pericles.... Post hoc ergo propter hoc, actually is Latin

"When I was isolated and without family, for a brief moment I accepted the belief that children could be smacked with wooden spoons here. I announced this to my children but they very quickly broke every wooden spoon in the house and hid them, so when I did reach out for them they were missing."

I wonder how that approach to property and avoiding consequences will translate into adult life? Perhaps the children will get the idea of boundaries somewhere but that little anecdote tells part of the story.

I've never been a fan of the use of implements. Way to easy to do real harm both from a leverage factor and from not feeling the smack yourself. Of course it might be dangerous to announce that you'll give your kid's a smack with your hand with some kid's. Wooden spoons can be replaced.

Smacking may be a sign of failure, a really skilled driver might avoid a crash that most can't avoid so in that sense airbag's and seat belts could be considered a sign of failure. Still useful to have around.

R0bert

The confusion comes from the difference between "belting" and a "clip", on the calf muscle.

No smacking leads to rudeness, vandalism and lack respect...........

Cheers,

Ralph

Paradoxes galore, Saltpetre. Not much comfort in the fact that it was always so in the world and even less knowing that it will be so into the future – human nature being what it is…

Still can't get my head around how at the other end of life when the children have to become the parents the exact same 'character building' would be regarded as elder abuse.

Doesn't seem fair somehow.

Use of corporal punishment in the State School system has been outlawed since what, the early 90s?

In the past 20 years we have seen how this has produced a happier, healthier learning environment where students, teachers and other school staff have been able to go about their business in an environment of mutual respect uninterrupted by the terrible violence and behavioural problems which had been triggered by use of the evil cane.

Why these days, the strategy has been so effective that all forms of assault and anti-social antics are virtually just a memory of bad old days past. Bullying for instance, or schoolyard fights and students who were resentful over a rebuke or being sent to the Principals office would never dream of raising a hand to their teacher, throwing objects or shouting obscenities and threats. No sirree Bob! It's been a total success.

So now let's concentrate on those terrible parents who dare to give their recalcitrant offspring a slap or 2 as discipline. Lets see if we can apply those same wonderful results across the board .....

OK - Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny will now hear your requests and honestly, all your delusions will come true .....

The point of the article is that, in every other context, hitting another, even mildly, is legally the crime of assault. The law simply hasn't caught up with incorporating the hitting of children into assault legislation.

You can argue about parents' rights, children's cognitive immaturity and declining social behaviours till the proverbial cows come home, but current laws on assault are based on the assumption that everyone other than children has the legal right to be protected from all forms of physical force. If you grab another adult's arm and slap them a few times on the top of their hand, they can go straight to the police and have you charged (as long as you can prove it). A child who receives the same treatment - by someone 3 times their size, on a regular basis, and in the supposed safety of their own home - can legally do nothing. Neither can any third party intervening on their behalf.

And, R0bert, the children in the wooden spoon anecdote showed the exact level of respect for their father's 'private property' that he deserved. If someone intends to use an implement to inflict violence on you, you have every right to destroy and dispose of that property. In this instance, it was the children who dared to discipline their own parent. I applaud both them and the father who seems to have learned his lesson.

Well of course it is, snake.

>>Pericles.... Post hoc ergo propter hoc, actually is Latin<<

What it is not, though, is a quotation.

It describes the situation where an outcome is caused by an action that preceded it, regardless of any other factors. If you were to point out, for example, that Australia's GDP is the highest that it has ever been, and that there are now more people in prison than ever before, the post hoc fallacy is to assert that our prosperity causes criminal behaviour.

In the same way, the suggestion that reducing child abuse leads to more dangerous streets is equally fallacious. As I pointed out, the correlation between being beaten as a child and being in prison for violent offences is extremely high. It would be equally wrong to automatically link the two, however tempting it might be, and assert that if we stopped beating our kids, they'd stay out of jail.

The knee-jerk reaction that says "we're too soft on the kids, they need more physical discipline if the streets are to be kept safe", is just another version of "they all need a spell in the army, national service is the way to go" approach. It gives the speaker a nice warm feeling of self-righteousness, but doesn't actually help solve the problem.

In fact, it is a rather neat example of the lazy thinking that characterizes the whole debate. If we accept that much of the problem is due to poor child management on the part of the parents, why do we not propose that they receive the punishment? Reason: it's so much easier to beat the child, than accept a failure to set and manage those behavioural boundaries.

Receptus ignavorum. That's Latin too, snake, and it means the coward's retreat, or the easy option.

The root cause would appear to be in the parents' relationship with the kids. How about we work towards making the parents fully responsible for the actions of their children until, say, their eighteenth birthday? Send them to jail, along with the offender.

Solving tough problems is never simple.

These days I work as a piano teacher. I encourage all my students, both old and young, to relax their whole bodies at the piano, and to understand how the way you move your arms and wrists can affect the tone you produce from the instrument. Older generations often tell me how in their piano lessons as children, they had teachers who would whack their hands with a cane if they made a mistake or their hands got out of position. If I ever have the pleasure of meeting a teacher who did this, or still does this, (one of my students had a teacher who would use a metal ruler just a few years ago,) I swear i will break their fingers one by one. I'm sure this will serve as an adequate deterent to any to any half-baked teacher who thinks that hitting someone is going to make them a better musician.

On another note, I'll never forget the time my dad smacked me on the bottom with the wooden spoon (a common form of punishment amongst my immediate and extended family,) and when I deliberately screamed in his ear immediately afterwards, he asked me "why are you trying to hurt me?"

lol

I've just checked up on Patmalar Ambikapathy's background and realise that 'father' in my comment above should have been 'mother'.

Apologies to the author.

"If someone intends to use an implement to inflict violence on you, you have every right to destroy and dispose of that property"

By that logic we would have the right to destry police paddy wagons and prisons even when not facing an immediate threat of incarceration in case the application of the law leads to confinment as a consequence for a crime at some time in the future.

Alternatively we can take note of the possible consequence of incarceration and do whatever is practical to ensure that's never a problem. Obey the law, pay the fine when you do mess up.

Our law is backed by the threat of violence, before that violence is used there are generally a range of other options but eventually you get to the point that for serious infractions you may be detained against your will (forcibly if you don't coperate) for a long period.

The pretense that violence is never allowed against adults is not valid, it is used where adults break the law and don't cooperate with lesser penalties.

R0bert

hitting another, even mildly, is legally the crime of assault.
Killarney,
That is correct if it is an assault. We're not talking about assault though, are we ? We're talking about discipline & the lack of it & how to dish it out.
Even in the animal world discipline is the order of the day. You can not & definitely must not object to discipline. If you do you're going against nature itself.
Defence is another thing. You should not object to defence. That too is against nature. What you should do but you don't is to strongly object to violence & assault.
If you're incapable of differentiating between all of these then you should not be a parent or a teacher or an employer. In fact you should be prevented from having a say over others.

R0bert

I wonder if you would be as willing to defend your paddy wagon logic if someone twice your size came after you with a wooden implement.

What is it you can't understand Killarney?

The whole point of mild corporal punishment is to induce just enough fear of punishment in the recipient, that they will start to think.

The objective is to have them realise that the application of a little self discipline, before committing the "crime", & refraining, will actually prevent the application of discipline by your parents/government, after the "crime".

It is this lack of reason to have to apply self discipline in so many today that has caused the dreadful increase in crime in the last 40 years.

As snake said, I'll bet that Singaporean will apply quite a lot of self discipline, before drink driving again. Just think, it might even be you, or someone you love who is saved from injury, or death, by those few strokes of the cane, extreme as they may have been.

I have no doubt that such punishment applied in Oz, with compulsory viewing of videos of it displayed in senior class rooms in all schools, would go a very long way in curbing the loutish drunken behaviour seen in our streets by both sexes today.

2 or more police officers armed with gun's and tasers as well as some training in unarmed fighting.

The police have a responsibility to use both within boundaries and when less violent means have failed. Most act responsibly and occasionally some won't.

Most parents act responsibly and a small number won't.

I have a choice regardless of how fair I think it is at the time, resist and escalate or comply and try and sort the mess out afterwards. That's the bit I can control and a useful lesson for all to learn.

Most but not all of those hurt by police are hurt while resisting police. There are exceptions but they are a massive minority and not a reason to disarm all police.

Using the wooden spoon analogy it should be legitimate to break into a police station and destroy all the guns and tasers so that they can never be part of the consequence for later bad choices on my part.

R0bert

"The point of the article is that, in every other context, hitting another, even mildly, is legally the crime of assault."

In almost every other context restraining someone against their will is legally deprevation of liberty.

In almost every other context taking someones posessions from them for a period without their consent is theft.

In almost every other circumstance the act of removing part of someones clothes without consent because you know they need to have their bottom wiped would constitute sexual assault.

In almost every other circumstance controlling what foods someone has access to would be considered a form of abuse.

In almost every other cirumstance forcing someone to attend a workplace that they didn't like (in this case school) would be a form of abuse.

In almost every other circumstance the actions which might warrant a smack could lead to major family upheaval, loss of a job, police involvment and a possible criminal trial depending on the situation.

The correlation of smacking with assault used to make the point has some disturbing implications if applied elsewhere.

Anybody up for a criminal charge if they insist that a child sit in the thinking corner for a while or take away a favorite toy?

R0bert

Pericles,

When did a smack suddenly become a "beating"? We are getting a bit 'precious' here, aren't we? Political correctness run rampant?

Sure, family violence can often lead to a tendency towards, or a perpetuation of violent behaviour, and that is definitely NEVER a good thing. (Just as all sorts of errant behaviour may be copied - drunkeness, drug abuse, disrespect for others, bigotry, etc). But, giving a kid a smack (NOT A BEATING!) for hitting a sibling or for whacking the family dog with a stick or for attempting to drown the cat, or to teach them not to reach for saucepans on the stove - this is unacceptable? Where a simple lesson, such as a smack on the hand or the butt, can provide the necessary disuasion, where a logical discourse on the rights of others and animals will just produce puzzlement or humour - what's wrong with the simple lesson here?

People are so 'precious', accepting, and fearful these days - not wanting to get 'involved' - as exemplified by the news coverage of that kid lying in the street, after having been hit by a car, and people passing by, and not wanting to look, or to be 'involved'; or someone having an eplileptic seizure or heart attack, and passers-by not wanting to get 'involved'. Only one of the four 9/11 aircraft was diverted - because people don't want to take a chance, to face reality, to be a 'man', to get involved.

Someone is getting beaten up, we don't get involved; someone is destroying or defacing private or public property, we don't get involved; someone needs a smack in the mouth, we don't get involved. These days if you roughly pull someone back from the edge, you risk a charge of assault. How precious is just too precious for our own good?

Smack a kid? Boo, boo, bogeyman! Some in our midst beat their wives, commit honour killings, abuse children, commit crime, plot terrorism - but families, neighbours, community, stay silent. And we are taught not to get involved, to be just so 'precious'.

Ooooh, snarky, Saltpetre.

>>Pericles, When did a smack suddenly become a "beating"? We are getting a bit 'precious' here, aren't we? Political correctness run rampant?<<

Ok, I'm happy for you to substitute "smack" for "beat". It doesn't in the slightest change the points that I am trying to make.

Point #1 is that to try to draw a causal link between a lack of corporal punishment in youth, with the safety of our streets, is a nonsense.

As snake did, with:

>>...you only have to look at the total disregard for the law from rioting youths, to assault, to road rage, to inconsiderate attitudes to others that was minimal 50 years ago when punishment was inflicted on the backside <<

There is also a correlation between Australia's increased prosperity and an increase in our prison population. So?

Point #2 is simply that resorting to corporal punishment is a cop-out, and tends to normalize violence in the mind of the child. The anecdotal example I gave was the 100% presence of smacked children among those imprisoned for crimes of violence.

Your attempt to link non-physical child-rearing with your assertion that "People are so 'precious', accepting, and fearful these days" is simply laughable. Especially where your evidence is an incident on the streets of Foshan, in Guangdong province... in China.

Nice one. Since you are clearly open to international examples, how about some from the streets of Homs? How "'precious', accepting, and fearful" are they, do you think?

>>Some in our midst beat their wives, commit honour killings, abuse children, commit crime, plot terrorism - but families, neighbours, community, stay silent. And we are taught not to get involved, to be just so 'precious'<<

Sounds like you live in a dangerous neighbourhood.

But I suspect it might just be a load of grumpy hot air.

Pericles

Are you always so pedantic and patronising ? You used the phrase post hoc ergo propter, therefore you quoted something in latin, because it is a generally recognised phrase. Quod erat demonstrandum. Yes I do know what the quote means I studied a bit of Latin at Oxford so there is no need to try and exercise a superior interllect

loutish drunken behaviour seen in our streets by both sexes today.
Hasbeen,
I watched on TV the other day when the Bali Chief of Police warned the stupid Australians who behaved in that very manner. Now, if one did get arrested then there'd be an outcry again just like with that dumb crap kid a while ago.
Only discipline can prevent Australia from having to cope with such idiotic mentality. National Service first & an apprenticeship or study second. A better society guaranteed within two years.

When we smack children, we teach them that the way to get someone smaller than us to comply is to hit them.

I would rather my children do the right thing because they understand that it’s the right thing to do and because they want to, rather than doing it because they’re afraid of what I’ll do if they don’t. The same goes for rewards.

One method gains us compliance in the short term; the other helps them with their development in the long term.

It takes a pretty shallow, self-centered, thoughtless and lazy person to find any satisfaction in compliance acquired - ultimately - through fear. There’s so much more pride to be had in having children that don’t do the wrong thing because they understand why they shouldn’t.

I remember being smacked as a child and all I got from it was resentment and a lack of respect for authority (although, I’m sure my parents got a bit peace and quiet out of it in the short term once the crying stopped). Two thoughts would cross my mind when I was smacked:

1. I may have been naughty, but now you’re just as bad as me;
2. You’re no longer interested in teaching me a lesson; you’re just taking your anger out on me.

Children are smart enough to realise that when the people, whom they are totally reliant on, resort to inflicting pain in order to gain control, then they have actually lost control and given up and are no longer thinking rationally. It’s a great way to teach children that it’s alright to act upon irrational impulses.
I remember getting the cane in school too and my red fingers were like a badge of honor. My only regret, at the time, was that it wouldn’t scar.

My ability to distinguish between right and wrong was learned in spite of physical punishment, not because of it. The only thing physical punishment taught me was that sometimes adults do the wrong thing too.

It’s amazing how easily so many of us seem to forget all this as adults.

Two thoughts would cross my mind when I was smacked:
AJ Philips,
Well, that's you. Most of us didn't think that at all. We realised hey, we did the wrong thing & this is why we got smacked And, as we got smacked we thought a few more thoughts not just one.
No-one, including you at such a young age has the mentality or wisdom to rationalise the way you try & tell us. Look at the society around you now. It's made up of a majority of people who didn't get smacked. Is this the outcome won really want to continue ?
Do you really think we're such a great society now ? Do you really think many of the crap heads in high positions now are the people we really want to run the show ?
Do you really believe those who didn't get disciplined via smacking are better people ?
Do you really believe those who did get a smacking are not he people who went out & pulled their weight in society ?
I guarantee you if you asked many successful business operators or entrepreneurs that they'll tell you with a grin "my old man gave me a belting when I did this or that ?
When you go to ask around don't confuse high ranking bureaucrats with successful people.

individual

‘You can not & definitely must not object to discipline.’

I don’t object to the kind of discipline that respectfully guides and mentors children. I do, however, object to the kind of discipline that uses physical and emotional punishment to force children to submit to rules and authority – not because the authority is right, but because it’s bigger and stronger. How anyone can subscribe to the belief that the less respectfully children are treated throughout their childhoods, the more respect they will have for others and for the society they live in, is anyone’s guess. But a lot of people seem to think it makes perfect sense.

R0bert

All the scenarios you describe (the less silly ones), that would be deemed crimes if they weren’t committed by parents on children, only reinforces mine and the author’s original point. The kind of parenting that relies on assaulting another human being in both physical and emotional ways – putting kids in naughty corners, taking away their toys, denying their everyday privileges, and of course smacking – is more about controlling others, not raising happy, respectful kids. And, analogies aside, conflating parental discipline of children with police apprehending violent criminals indicates to me that you've got a few control issues hiding in the cupboard.

Killarney,
Say what you will. The fact is that those who were mollycoddled are now the problem We have to deal with, Not their parents.

Pericles,

So, do you think those protesters in Homs (or in Egypt, Bahrain, Burma, Sudan, etc) were never smacked as kids? (Or, ALL of them were?) Do you consider them violent deviants? Or, people with the strength, conviction and moral courage to stand up for their rights and those of their children and families? (Maybe those in Foshan were never slapped as kids? What say you?)

I'm not making a causal relationship between no-slapping and societal dysfunction - nor can the reverse be confidently asserted (though beatings, abuse, and parental dysfunction or disinterest may be).

What I AM saying is that it is NOT correct to contend that a mild slap (Not a beating!) is never justified and is always abusive. And, I am NOT saying that people have to be brought up rough in order to have moral courage; but I am saying that people should not be afraid to do what is right, even if it means placing oneself in jeopardy (if the cause is sufficient). Am I justifying war? NO! Violence? NO! Courage and determination to do what is right? YES.

A slap does not make a criminal, any more than a lack of a slap makes a saint. And, which is more damaging - a smack or a verbal tirade? The answer is in the circumstance and the manner.

So, are we still confusing a slap with a beating? Any beating, and especially an unprovoked, alcohol or drug fuelled helluva beating? What say you reveal the nature of those beatings sustained by all those criminal incarcerants, and the source, frequency, circumstances and intensity of those beatings? Are we comparing apples with oranges, or are you just trying to make a questionnable argument that all smacking can only lead to criminal and perpetual violence?

So now you're going to say that Islamic militants and al-Qaeda were all beaten as kids? Slapped = violent; unslapped = sheep? Footie players and boxers - must have been slapped, hey?

Strange how a racial slur is a greater offence in footie than excessive violence? Balance?

Dear AJ Phillips, you must have an truly amazing memory and even more fantastic reasoning and analytical skills as a very young child.

Most of we nasty "Child Beaters" use the "Smack" tool on our very young children, from about walking age, because that's the stage where the child becomes all mobility and no sense of self preservation. Yes - none and precious little other sense other than of self and want. 'REASONING' beyond, "I see, I want" or "I'm hungry/thirsty/lonely/uncomfortable. Where's Mum?" just doesn't happen. It's at this stage conditioning gets ramped up big time as we start teaching our children the basic concepts of what is RIGHT and WRONG including danger, speech, manners, social interaction etc. This is a very gradual process involving much repetition achieved through a carrot / stick process. Pain and fright are useful tools and one the child will learn by his/herself as time goes by but as responsible parents we wish to temper that process.

So, for example, rather than letting little Nigel scald himself grabbing Mums hot coffee, she may pull him back saying "No, musn't touch. Hot" but when he grabs for it again, smack his hand saying NO! Child gets a fright, maybe the smack stings but he gets the message and doesn't try again - until next time she's having a cuppa and he's on her lap. It is a gradual repetitive process! Did I say repetitive ... Nigel doesn't understand the concept of "the hot liquid will burn you and it will hurt a lot" but quickly understands his parents serious intent when his hand is slapped and is deterred.

By the time Nigel gets to where he starts to operate at more complex levels - usually around age 3, you have a child who's been conditioned to some level of obedience and compliance who now has developmental capacity to understand reasoning - of a simple nature at first. Once again it's a gradual evolving process and still a stage where a good smack, or threat of, is likely to be useful.

Continued next post ...

From previous ...

Nigel reaches school age. He's been trained by caring concientious parents through loving encouragement and firm discipline, is well socialised, recognises boundaries exist and is ready for formal learning. He is developing nicely and is able to think in considerably more complex terms than 2 years ago. He still has a long way to go but now his parents rarely smack as there are other more powerful tools at their disposal like withdrawal of possessions or privileges. If he continues to be so lucky, his parents will apply fair consistant discipline throughout his childhood that by the time the dreaded hormones kick in, he at least has had an excellent grounding, knowing right from wrong, having respect for self and others and understanding that actions - good or bad have consequences for which one will be accountable.

Now to all those who claim to remember the 'trauma' and the way they 'reasoned' as a result of mild early childhood corporal punishment - I cry "BOVINE EXCRETEMENT" and the adjective "delusional" comes strongly to mind.

If there are readers who were genuine victims of REAL abuse - punching, kicking, protracted beatings, being hit around the head and so on - you have my utmost sympathy. If that was the case you almost certainly suffered until either removed from the abuser/s or old enough to remove yourself.

However the DIFFERENCE is like chalk and cheese and the links non-existant.

"indicates to me that you've got a few control issues hiding in the cupboard." Killarney that little comment says a lot more about the sort of person you are than the sort of person I am.

R0bert

Individual (and divine_msn),

From my observations, it’s not a lack of corporal punishment that’s the problem, but lazy parenting.

From what I’ve observed, the children that are smacked that are more likely to be the troublesome ones, not necessarily because they’re smacked - the smacking is often just a symptom of the lazy parenting that has resulted in unruly children - but because they’re unruliness has brought the parents to the brink and they feel they have nothing left other than to administer frequent wallopings.

<<Well, that's you. Most of us didn't think that at all.>>

Or maybe many have just forgotten? The thought of you being right here is just plain depressing and I would prefer to remain a little more optimistic about people in general.

<<No-one, including you at such a young age has the mentality or wisdom to rationalise the way you try & tell us.>>

Of course, at the time, children don’t always think the thoughts I conveyed with the words I used. But they can still experience gut feelings (telling them something’s not right) that they can later reflect upon when they’re older and realise what exactly was wrong.

<<Look at the society around you now. It's made up of a majority of people who didn't get smacked.>>

From my observations, this is not the case at all. Smacking is still rampant. My wife and I are the only parents in our families and circle of friends who don’t.

<<Do you really think we're such a great society now ?>>

No, but it’s much better than it used to be.

Only a few decades ago, we lived in very ignorant and intolerant times where people of other races and sexualities were discriminated against. Heck, Western countries were even at war with each other with one of them being run by a madman - something unimaginable nowadays.

<<Do you really think many of the crap heads in high positions now are the people we really want to run the show ?>>

No, and I don’t think they ever were.

Continued...

...Continued

As with rape, murder, paedophilia, etc. I think it’s largely that we’re more aware of these things now that they’re reported on and exposed more. The media relentlessly pursue politicians nowadays; only decades ago, the American media would never have dreamed of exposing JFK’s indiscretions and yet Clinton was fried for his.

<<Do you really believe those who didn't get disciplined via smacking are better people ?>>

Again, I can only go by my observations, but they tend to be less anxious and more “grounded”.

divine_msn,

Modesty aside, yes, I do have a very good long term memory. I don’t appreciate the implication that I’m either a liar or delusional.

I’m not sure why you put in all that effort to explain a method of parenting so many parents use. How could I not have known all that?

One better method than smacking a child, who is too young to understand that mum’s coffee is hot, is to not put them in the situation to begin with. And if you’ve put them into a “situation” without realising it at first, then take them out of it. If they’re too young have the hazards of touching hot coffee explained to them, then they’re too young to understand that you had good reason to smack them.

In unexpected situations, a sharp “No!” (and maybe a clap) is sometimes enough and if it’s not, then again, take them out of the situation and prevent them from getting back into it.

Yes, parenting like this requires effort, but I feel I’m reaping the rewards of this now and it saves a lot of time in the long run.

As for all your suggestions that came after, they’re good ways of encouraging children to go behind your back...

Parent: Don’t let me catch you doing that again.
Child: Okay, I’ll make sure you don’t catch me next time.

Children learn about consequences without punishment and rewards, they don’t live in a bubble. And when you take privileges and possessions, your child doesn’t think, “Hmmm... now I can see that what I did was wrong.”

Beautifully rationalised AJ, you wouldn't be a psychologist would you?

That is certainly the type of garbage they have been sprouting for quite some time. Definitely long enough to have caused a major deterioration in the civil society we all enjoyed before this BS became rampant.

It really is time we took back our lives from the "experts" who appear out of the wood work, any time there is a chance of a bit of money.

AJ - I wonder how I had 3 respectful, well mannered, generally well behaved children? They've all grown into responsible considerate adults who seemingly LIKE and appreciate their parents. Must be freaks of nature eh?

They were all smacked occasionally, poor things. They suffered further with restrictions on social lives, pastimes and pocket money if they failed to follow directives and fulfil responsibilities. Perish the thought eh? Child slave labour! They had regular chores and were often called upon at random. A hard brutal existance ... They were also showered with affection, praise when deserved, and abundance of life's little luxuries such as we could afford.

Their friends seemed OK with the 'Nazi' parenting. We frequently had rent-a-crowd at our home. Somehow we were considered 'cool' .... Maybe because we'd join in for a muck around with the kids but we never tolerated bad behaviour and never had a problem. Through school - when caning was still an option for eldest son, the most severe punishment ever recieved was 1 detention - between the 3. No 'brushes with the law' beyond couple of traffic tickets. None has ever lost a DL. I'm very proud of my kids - always have been. Are they 'naturally good'? Maybe, but my money is on upbringing.

My experience: children who get a well deserved smack as part of consistant discipline are less unruly and quicker to heed and obey parents when rebuked - so smacking is often not required. Amazing also how many children raised 'without violence' seem handy at meting it out to others - even adults.

I agree children shouldn't be exposed to danger but life is a mine field for littlies. Children learn faster to avoid dangerous behaviour if there are unpleasant consequences involved when one tries it. I too have a very good memory and despite getting many smacks and occasional few stripes with the belt I have no pretentious recollection of all the 'reasoning' I did. I was never in doubt why I was being punished nor ever for no good reason. Good luck with your kids AJ

you can certainly pick those in supermarkets who have never had a smack. Usually they are throwing a great tantrum with mum uttering useless threats that just make the situation worse. It must be so so hard for some to face the fact that we including children have a fallen nature. No wonder the pyschs get it so wrong. Meanwhile teenagers are more violent than ever. No wonder the number of people wanting to send kids to school where other parents don't smack is diminishing and those applying a tiny bit of commonsense are growing rapidly.

Hasbeen,

I’ve studied a very, very small amount of psychology, but I’m certainly far from an expert.

As for the so-called deterioration of society, I think the fallaciousness of assuming the causes for that has been well and truly covered now. There are many factors that could be at play there. We live in far more complex times than we ever have before.

Conformity is so much more easily achieved when things are black and white. Things were so much simpler when black people were inferior and the homosexual was a predator in search for adolescent boys (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzgKSGD6Hgo); when the Christian was a capitalist and the atheist was a communist.

But we know better than that now and it's so much easier for kids to become lost and confused in today's world.

.

divine_msn,

It’s not hard to tell I’ve hit a nerve (somehow) when your only response is a sarcastic reply implying all sorts of ridiculous things I haven’t said or even tried to imply.

Very ordinary.

But thanks for reminding me why I usually stay out of these debates.

'it takes a pretty shallow, self-centered, thoughtless and lazy person to find any satisfaction in compliance acquired - ultimately - through fear. '

What about complience through manipulation of someone without the same mental capacity? The use of distraction of a 1 year old based on their reduced concentration span. Unethical!

At the end of the day, maybe we shouldn't even be seeking to make our children comply? I haven't heard any methods that would stand up to 'Human Rights' and Ethics.

Which is why I find the whole debate ridiculous in the first place. Just like Adults putting their sexualised notions on childrens innocent play and dressing up and copying adults, we have this moral agonising and ethical debate about how to get children to do what you want.

I think perhaps children need performance reviews, access to a Lawyer and to be self-actualised.

It's a symptom of this polarisation of every topic. Smacking is not child abuse, and regretted sex isn't rape, having a family budget and arguing with your spouce isn't financial abuse and domestic violence.

It's all bollocks.

Adult says don't hit your sister.

Child does it anyway.

Smack: Physical abuse
Move child away: Emotional abuse via exclusion
Appeal to good nature: Use of manipulation and guilt
Let child hit: neglectful parent
Water boarding: Ethically dubious

R0bert did this better than me!

All this pontificatining and ethical grandstanding and moralising could be avoided if people didn't expand the definition of everything and apply adult concepts to children.

I for one would have rathered a good wack rather than verbal abuse and manipulation as a child. I'd be far less warped I'm sure. There is something to be said for a simple message children can understand without really hurting them much and that's forgotten much faster than a character assasination or some version of a withdrawal of love and attention or bribery which relies on kids having a concept of planning for their future use of playstation.

It's here, it's now , it's unambiguous to children, and it's over quickly.

Also children are differnet, as are parents.

Well, guess what, Saltpetre.

>>What I AM saying is that it is NOT correct to contend that a mild slap (Not a beating!) is never justified and is always abusive.<<

Nor am I.

Nor am I saying this...

>>So now you're going to say that Islamic militants and al-Qaeda were all beaten as kids? Slapped = violent; unslapped = sheep? Footie players and boxers - must have been slapped, hey?<<

Precisely the opposite, in fact, as I have already rejected any causal link at all, either way.

What I do object to is the line of argument that says "we used to beat our kids, now those do-gooder PC fanatics tell us its wrong, and as a result the world has gone to hell in a handbasket."

I am also saying that a parental slap is an admission of defeat, an acceptance that communication has failed. But I also understand that some parents find it more difficult to communicate with their children than others.

And, just for good measure, I disagree that we need specific legislation. Because it was two days ago, I'll take the opportunity to repeat myself.

"The article however concerns itself primarily with the legal basis for inflicting such punishment on children. The idea that the line between "smacking" and child abuse can be determined by legislation, and that a position either side of that line will in future be argued by lawyers, smells to me like special pleading on the part of those who will earn money from the task.

The article does not, possibly for these reasons, cover existing legislation, but I suspect that our current assault laws are perfectly adequate to detect the abuse of children. Can anyone point to situations where they are lacking?"

Have a great day.

Oh, by the way snake...

>>Pericles Are you always so pedantic and patronising?<<

Absolutely.

AJ - I'll put it another way:

My children were "parented". We were not their 'friends', we were the adults in charge who were responsible for their needs and ensuring they were fit members of society. Our children had expectations of us and we of them. They knew there would be unpleasant consequences for bad behaviour just as there would be praise and further encouragement for good.

As for going behind our backs - we had a nice little strategy. As the children matured, wrong-doing was often handled with a discussion about what had happened and appropriate penalty or compensation would be agreed on. However it was made clear that if they'd done stupid things outside our knowledge, they should confess to us quickly. Hearing it from their lips, we would be merciful. If we heard it from another party, leniency was out the window. As adolescents they were given a good deal of personal freedom on the understanding we trusted them, but betrayal would see that privilege curtailed. A long rope I called it - that could be shortened. Since it's very hard to lose something one enjoys and is proud of, they were all pretty careful and we enjoyed relatively calm weather through the stormy hormone charged years.

Our adult children love and respect us. I loved and respected my parents even though I recieved considerably more corporal punishment than my kids. It was much more the 'style' then. The important thing was fairness, I'd done wrong and was being pulled into line. My parents were loving and caring and I always felt loved and secure. Occasionally sulky but probably less than one of my offspring missing an outing. Given the choice they might have opted for a hiding instead.

AJ - what disturbs me is by your tone you don't seem to think children should be in any way punished for wrong doing. That there shouldn't be any unpleasant consequences for unpleasant behaviour? I hope I've got the wrong idea because unless your children are very very unusual indeed, there is trouble ahead for you and them.

I'd like if I may expand this concept of applying adult notions of ethics and rights and responsibilites to children.

When people give children stuffed toys, encouraging them to love them or use them for comfort, I believe this has sexual connotations and amounts to the encouragement of Plushophilia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plushophilia

Just annoyed that I was outdone by r0bert.

OK it's now time for a vote. Closing arguments are in and voting will now start on who was a better parent.

All those in favour of divine_msn raise your right hand.

All those in favour of AJ rais your left hand.

OK I'll be back in a while with the final vote. The loser will be publicaly stoned, and DOCs will be around by 2PM that day.

After which we will put in black and white laws on how people should parent, and anyone who diverges from this will be metted out the same treatment. There is nothing more righteous than a public stoning of people who refuse to conform to worlds best practice on raising their kids.

Any small deviation from the world's best practice will inevitably result in the raising of a homicidal axe wielding maniac. Each and every variation from world's best practice parenting on every child is life altering, and their psyche is so fragile that the smallest error by any parent should be punishable by death. No child can possibly recover form a deviation from this approved practice.

Because it is difficult to keyboard a comment whilst voting in this way, Houllebecq, could it be amended to simply raising the right or left hand middle finger? Or in the case of an abstention, both?

Houellebecq sorry to not have shared.
I missed one of the best though if we want to conflate adult concepts with childrens rights. (apparently that's only Ok when it's convenient and can be dismissed when it does not suit).

A system enforced by the government where millions of people are required to work with no pay for 6 or more hours every week day for much of the year (including unpaid over time most days).

Where they are required to pay for uniforms, have impositions on how their hair can look, piercings etc. Where they pay for most of the stationary they use in their work and some of the tools required. Where they may be required to subsidise the cost of work related travel.

Where they are often subjected to bullying and other behaviours that if as endemic in any other workplace would have the employer in serious trouble.

It's slavery on a grand scale.

R0bert

Did anybody here happen to catch the BBC series "Outnumbered" on the ABC. It was a superb rendition of modern parenthood.

"....this comedy is an honest portrayal of the well-meaning parental incompetence that happens in most homes, as Mum and Dad attempt to raise their kids with the minimum of emotional damage."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00fq31t

It's a good show Poirot, but a bit... I dunno. Sickly in some way. It's very English. I want to kill the sister, I cant stand space cadets like that. The daughter reminds me of my own, but mines cuter and smiles more.

Anway it's good the son pointing out the hypocracy of the mothers feminst preaching. Always good for a laugh that stuff.

We're discussing disciplining children so why do some of you twist it by using the phrase capital punishment. Most parents do not punish their kids, they discipline them. A smacking is part of discipline & learning. It is not punishment.

divine_msn,

Thanks for that last reply. That was a lot better. I’d love to keep this discussion going further (if only OLO had a PM option), but I think I’ll bow out now. There are obviously some here who are not capable of an adult discussion on this topic and that’s why I’ve usually avoided this topic like the plague (ironically, these people are actually raising children too - from what they tell us - and that, to me, is far more scarier than smacking).

For what it’s worth though, I never, for a second, doubted that your children had grown to be anything but well adjusted people; and I don’t consider your method of raising children as necessarily “abuse” as others here would like to imply I would (why do some have to assume extremes?), I just think there are better alternatives to smacking.

Until next time...

but I think I’ll bow out now.
AJ Philips,
you mean "bail" out ?

No he's playing tennis. He must have made it to the 4th round otherwise he would have 'crashed out'

individual,

That's amusing coming from someone whose arguments didn't hold.