A dog bites you you put it down.
If a child bites you or hits you what happens?
You are looking at only one side of the issue.
How do you deal with children that are pushing the envelope of acceptable behaviour by biting or hitting their parents?
I suppose the child could be pushed off onto the Police or DOCS but I fail to see how this would be of benefit to the child.

It's always fascinating to watch a "progressive" reinterpret words for their agenda. They take a common every day used term and re-write it to suit their political ideology. The term "abuse" here is the classic example. Under Mr Gelfer's new definition, drunken, violent fighting can now be conflated with a light smack on a child's bottom. Anyone that engaged in about 5 seconds of critical thinking can see the intentions and the actual act itself are not the same. It's always prudent to keep in mind when reading or conversing with a "progressive" that they are always striving toward a utopia where people will no longer be "offended" or "hurt". Such a fantasy always sees them contorting language and desiring to instil the most impractical of policies.

I don't think this article is particularly helpful.

Let's first get the simple, objective, isolationist analysis of smacking out of the way: of course it's wrong, and of course it's abusive. This is not a difficult concept for an individual to swallow, and the objection to banning it has nothing to do with people's lack of "stomach" for accepting that it is an abusive act.

I would suggest rather (from a sociological perspective at least), the objection to banning smacking emanates from a general distrust of parents to have the skills to employ alternative discipline techniques - such as explaining to the child that something they have done is wrong, and getting them to acknowledge/take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, through methods such as talking them through it, having them apologise, make amends, accept the withdrawal of privileges etc.

Alternatives to smacking are difficult to achieve, they require sustained, consistent effort, a high level of communication skills, intelligence, self-control, and self-education... coupled with a "default" conducting of their relationship with their child in a respectful and inclusive way - and my sense is that we all realise that not all parents are capable (or have the time) of doing these things effectively and comprehensively. Or indeed you could say, that the "worst" parents are the least likely to fail in this regard, and to lose their temper and lash out.

A smack, on the other hand, acts as a sort of circuit-breaker, which I would think is likely to prevent an escalation of the conflict to the point where the parent loses control and does something really damaging.

So I would like to argue - difficult as it is to countenance - that while continuing to emphasise that non-violent methods are preferable, we also need to have a debate on what constitutes reasonable, acceptable use of smacking. Otherwise we are simply trying to achieve the impossible.

'If you were smacked by your parents, you have been abused.

If you have ever smacked your child, you have been an abuser. '

Obviously Joseph is totally blind to his corrupt nature.

It is not a good idea to legislate about smacking children.

Teaching parents how to keep children happy, well cared for and safe requires skills that not everyone has. It would be best to target better ways of disciplining and raising children than legislating.

In the UK when my son was small I recall the debates about smacking and how they made me think carefully that a smack should be a last resort. However, the burden of criminal prosectuion or any other legislated sanction is not right for parents.

runner,

We mustn't accuse people of having a "corrupt nature" just because we disagree with them.

Can we please leave the “If you hit your dog you could be arrested, but it’s legal to hit your child" argument out of it. I can walk into any pet store and most supermarket's and buy a choker chain or an electric collar to train my dog with. As well as muzzles. Items that use pain and force to control. It is a completely ridiculous argument.
I hate smacking my children and would love to learn a more effective way of teaching them to be reasonable and happy adults. But where and how do I learn? Every book I have read and every method I have tried isn't working.(I have heaps of methods that work great for most things, but sadly when all else fails find smacking to be the only thing that works)
Efforts should be made to give parents the tools to avoid smacking rather then tell then "You are wrong, you are an abuser. Do something different"

Bec,

I expect you'll find as your children grow older and are more inclined to accept instruction, that there are other ways of disciplining them.

Consistency and well-defined boundaries are really what most young people find the most reassuring.

Poirot,

So its ok for the author to call me, my father along with most Australiuans who have smacked a child an abuser but not okay to point out the obvious (that children need discipline due to their adamic nature). I take it you think this hypocrisy is acceptable.

Of course the author along with other social engineers remain in complete denial as to the obvious link in the rise of violence in society since most were either deceived or to gutless to properly discipline their children. They are the ones still dumb enough to ask why their children can't say no to drugs, perversion, promiscurity and rebellion.

runner,

There are myriad reasons for the decline of standards in our society.

People not walloping their kids is probably a minor factor.

I think you'll find that most parents "still" give their tots light smacks in lieu of being able to reason with them - even now.

Like I said in another thread, we've managed to raise two respectful individuals without the need for a regime of ongoing corporal punishment.

Poirot

I notice you conveniently ignored the accusation of 'abuser' to anyone who has smacked their child. You seem to hold a view that such an approach is acceptable if you 'agree ' with their view. Gross hyprocrisy on display. As pointed out before the only thing that 'smacks of denial' here is the simple observation that kids acting like brats need a smack.

yes fatherless children, feminism, the failure to discipline in any effective manner and the victim mentality all add to the decline to standards in society. None more so than the selective rejection of absolutes.

Poirot, I do indeed find that now I do not need to smack my 6yr old very much. I am able to reason and explain and "help" her to make sensible choices. My 22mth old son however is not so keen to listen, he would rather turn himself inside out throwing a tantrum. Whilst I am happy to ignore his 5min to 90min tantrum (because I won't give him what he wants) I find that the general public are not. And will instead give me dirty looks and complaints. You say that people give children smacks "in lieu" of reasoning with them...what if the child is unable to be reasoned with?

Runner, I don't think it is fair to call Poirot a hypocrite for having an opinion, I have found his/her points to be both informative and interesting. And not the least bit hypocritical. I agree with him/her that there are so many other factors associated with the decline in society's standards and that in a lot of cases it is not lack of a smack that has caused children (or adults) to misbehave but a lack of any care, love or discipline at all.

Bec_young mum of 2

so you feel ok that you by the authors definition is a 'child abuser'? Sounds to me you are doing a great job. I wonder if Poirot also agrees with the author that you are a child abuser.

I point out that the author has a corrupt nature along with everyone else and am accused of labelling people I disagree with. The simple fact is we all (including people I agree with) have in us rebellion to varying degrees. The best most effective method of shaping a childs character is through love and discipline. Smacking is one if not the most effective methods at times as you have found out. You won't find studies confirming the obvious but just observe the parents who fail to bring kids throwing tantrums under control and you can usually predict accurately the outcome.

Runner, I like you resent the label "Child Abuser", however in this case I choose to pick my battles. Thank you, I try my best. I like to think my children and I have a great friendship...but I will always be their parent first and foremost. I do find myself not disciplining my children in public the same way I do at home. Some will pick up on that and accuse me of hiding what I know is wrong, but it is honestly the thought of defending myself for the next hour that stops me from smacking my children publicly. My son threw a 40min tantrum in a hospital waiting room the other day because I wouldn't let him run around. It was hideous! screaming at the top of his lungs, wiggling and fighting to get loose. People had mixed reactions, some tried distracting him, some asked me to let him run, another wanted to feed him a lolly! 2 are rewards for bad behaviour and another whilst a good idea didn't work. It was driving me insane knowing all it would take is a smack on the butt, followed by a strong NO to pull him into line...but I didn't dare. Finally once he realised I wasn't going to give in he was happy to play with the toys available and read some books but by then half of the waiting room was deaf and the other half had given me enough unhelpful advise to sink a battleship. I must say, I strongly disagree with anyone that would seek to smack a child for doing wrong without seeking to reward the smallest bit of good behaviour. Clapping and cheering is my young blokes favourite reward for doing something right, even if I have had to growl beforehand.

Bec,

I get your point about very young children and tantrums...although I've yet to see a full blown tantrum being cut short by a smack :)

Stuff the onlookers. Young children chuck wobblers - that's what they do occasionally. I've had to carry my son out of shops when he was very young. Don't let it get to you. It's just something that happens now and then.

runner is very keen to paste epithets on anyone he disagrees with. He's made a career on OLO doing just that. He tends to jettison that bit of his Christian faith (whenever it's convenient)...you know the bit about not judging.....

Here we go again ...

I'm now both abused child and child abuser ... Cry me a river while I drown myself in depths of self-pity and guilt ...NOT!

ABUSERS are parents (or substitutes like Mummy's new BF) who physically and/or emotionally batter the child - sometimes to death and/or neglect basic needs. Too many out there and too often children removed from such situations barely recover from injuries and become accustomed to 'normal' carers than the "System" wants them back with Mummy and/or Daddy (She's not with the BF who put the toddlers hands on the hotplate anymore and swears she's off the gear ...) Wonderful news for the 21 yr old Social Worker preparing another "successful" reunion as per Departmental policy. If you're a punter put money on this scenario repeating several more times before the child is permanently removed - dead or alive. Odds are very good ...

If dingbats who think they are "experts" through blind ideology cannot tell the difference between a parent using smacking, as one tool, to correct a young child and ABUSE we really should be telling them to pull their heads in.

I don't hear about the Royal Australasian College of Physicians embarking on a campaign to have severely abused children removed permanently from dysfunctional dangerous environments - before irreparable physical damage occurs and psychological damage becomes overwhelming? Because that's what is happening and has been for a long time. Until I do, I call Hypocrites and Frauds!

IMO this is a College 'ego trip' attempting to flex their influence and power. The 'soft target' is the responsible caring parent who is doing their best.

Anyway does anyone truly believe legislation banning smacking will result in better parents and children? Will it impact one iota on levels of bona fide abuse?

If yes, will they explain how, drawing of course on legislative changes like banning corporal punishment in schools and 'social experiments' like encouraging parents to believe they should be their childs 'best friend' and how these changes have brought about benefits? Or maybe not?

Doctor Benjamin McLane Spock has a lot to answer for. In fact I'm quite sure we can trace the whole problem of the dysfunctional thuggish culture we see in much of our youth, & young adults right to his door, & the fools who could not see through the silly ideas in his book when they read it.

I am also quite sure that most cases of so called ADHD could have been cured by the application of the back of a parent's hand, firmly to the ear of the young offender. If applied early enough in the development of the behavior trait, one or perhaps a couple of lessons should be enough.

When I was about 10 I was lucky. A visiting uncle taught me a simple lesson. While playing in the yard I had got a bit too rough, & must have hurt him. I suddenly found myself propelled some distance across the yard, to a painful landing on my butt.

In that moment he had taught not to inflict pain on anyone, unless prepared to accept pain in return. It took only that one lesson, & has served me well ever since.

In all areas, home school & the street the lack of effective punishment is what has led to our current problems. Just a quick glance at Singapore & their use of the cane, & a comparison of public & domestic behavior, there & here, should prove the point to any fair minded observer.

'runner is very keen to paste epithets on anyone he disagrees with. '

and yet Poirot is happy to agree with the author that you Bec is a child abuser. how sleazy can one be.

runner,

Please post link to where I agreed with the author that Bec is a child abuser.

(I think it's high time that you addressed that nasty little habit of yours of attributing opinions to people that they do not hold)

so not all people who smack children are child abusers Poirot. Why does it have to be dragged out of you?

Where and when did I say that I concurred that all people who smack their children are abusers?

I didn't say that, but merely offered my opinion on the subject.

Your the one who stumped up here, not specifically to comment on the matter at hand, but instead desperately sizing up the right angle to toss your pie in Poirot's face.

Better luck next time.

: )

caught out again Poirot