OK So it's good to say "No" to kids. But it's better to also give reasons (not sermons)when we say "No". It wasn't good when it was "No, because I said so!".
That was a power struggle, and I would hate to see us go back to those bad old days.
It would be even better if we said "yes" to kids more often - "Yes" to spending time with them, going for walks, playing cards, paying computer games with them, listening to them, watching TV movies with them and chatting about what we see.
We could say "Yes": to having a decent sized back yard, instead of a massive house with no garden, "Yes" to playing a game in the yard, going to the park, and not making every sporting activity a thing about winning. "Yes" to just hanging out together with kids, instead of half the other stuff that we do without them.
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com

It's always good to hear from a grumpy old man.

Nothing like the good old days: riding 'round in the back of utes; no seatbelts; staying out in the sun all day (what was skin cancer?): especially when these memories are remembered through a child's mind and understanding. Sure there might have been different mores then: the violence that was never mentioned; the lack of respect for education; the fact the the cop who booted kids up the bum may have been the one who became corrupt, but I'll stop with the spoliers.

"A neighbour would tell the policeman, who might tell the boy’s father when he saw him in the street or the pub." Quite, then: "The boy would be sent to the woodshed to wait with his pants around his ankles until his father was ready to come out and whack him." and now we pay the price with learned domestic violence.

The fifties were, well, fifty years ago. I can just imagine some old blighter in 1950 saying how much better it was in 1900!

I have no problem with most of your six suggestions. They might go some way to remove the effects of the influence of those (or their parents) raised in the fifties. As for number six: that's the US system and their levels of literacy and numeracy reflect the inadequacies. I’d add a seventh: get academics into the real world every couple of years or so.

Another great article of Mr West's. Whilst I don't jump to some of his conclusions so hastily, I tend to agree with the bulk of his argument, encourage others to brainstorm as he has, and appreciate his habit of offering solutions in his writing.

A fairly under-researched, unspoken issue in contemporary society is the downfall of Australian youth: changing trends in what they do and think in and out of the classroom, the increasing difficulties of their education as a result, and what it means for our future.

Anti-reading begins with parents and worsens due to the technological evolution's gadgets which offer a new level of intellectual interaction beautifully aimed at kids through glorious advertising campaigns, subtle of course to the eyes of parents looking for a quick fix and a way to shut their babies up. Pardon the pomposity, and allow me to offer some examples - xBox, Playstation, crap on TV and (some) crap on the net. These are fast-becoming an irreversible detriment to youth. They offer nothing tied to history, literature, science or the arts. Censorship? Impossible.

It is too easy to blame the system along the lines of that 'well schooled poorly educated' rant. Schools haven't lost the plot, the kids have. It is time for some well-researched Federal initiative. The way children think is becoming increasingly hard to tap into. But where to begin? Is an ultra-modern future-predicting pedagogy in order? As asked elsewhere here at OLO and in other media circles, should we assess the relevance of exactly WHAT our kids are taught in school and change it to provide kids with a new perspective of contemporary Australia using essential elements of written past and present? An acquaintance of mine suggested that the introduction of alternative teaching methods, of say Steiner or Montessori into the mix could help. We are nearly ready to call for a fresh no-bullcrap way of teaching our kids. I've decided that Mr. West's 6 constructive necessities are a fine starting point, and the general notion of his article is one that should provoke thought amongst intellects of this country.

How the NT government is bringing in kiddy politics, political officers and sundry socialism to every kid in the NT.

Q to House of NT from Ms Sacilotto:

Can the minister tell the House about the latest government initiative to improve reading skills of students in Territory schools?

ANSWER

Mr Acting Speaker, I thank the member for Port Darwin for her question because, as I have been saying in the House the last couple of days, there is nothing more important than literacy and numeracy, and certainly getting our kids to read. I was really pleased to be with the Chief Minister at lunchtime today at Wanguri School in my electorate with the fantastic preschool students and announcing this program. ... zero to eight years. Every parent in the Northern Territory will get a copy of this kit.

The Chief Minister’s Literacy Achievement Awards recognise the literacy achievements of students, and it is going to be awarded in every classroom across the Northern Territory, encouraging our kids to raise their proficiency. The most improved student in that particular classroom will receive a Chief Minister’s Award, and a Book Pack program which will see members visit schools to read to their students and to donate books. ... our job is not done.

... It is important that all 25 members who have been elected to represent the people of the Northern Territory engage with our schools. I know we all do, and this is just another tool to assist members ...

I cannot finish, Mr Acting Speaker, without thanking the Principal of Wanguri, [] who is a great school leader, [] and the preschools. It was fantastic today and the Chief Minister and I had great pleasure in reading to those kids Bring Rain Coming. It is a great book and I will be donating many copies in and around my electorate

Happily, and as a result of the stricter parenting of yesteryear, the world is a much better place. After all, it is those who enjoyed authoritain parenting who now run the world today...and look at the great job they are doing.

No further proof needed, of the amazing benefits on offer to the universe of the old 'spare the rod, spoil the child' adage of old.

Seriously, so long as we treat children as enemy we will fashion poor futures for themselves, and so for ourselves.

Jono ,no one mentioned authoritarian parenting.Children must have boundaries as do responsible adults ,otherwise we all will wallow in anarchy.It is a very long bow that extrapolates a disciplined childhood to the problems the world now faces.If anything we need more discipline and character to face these challenges.We all have become less selfish and egocentric.

Peter West speaks the unpalitable truth and must of us don't like it because it will take a lot of effort by parents and our education systems to remedy it.We need more discipline and respect.Parents need to once again learn the art of raising children,the most important job on this planet.

to Peter Jh

"Learned domestic violence" from getting a whack in the shed ?

Well the current crop of secondary and primary schoolers were pretty much brought up in the 'no smacking/don't say NO' miellieu and look at the fantastic result. Assaults against teachers and violent disrespect at an all time high. (according to teachers)

Lack of respect for authority, willingness to try to king hit a teacher of foul mouth him/her with impugnity.. except probably as South Park indicated in Team America that if Kim Jong Ill will not cease his Nuclear program "Our president will write you a strongly worded letter !" there !...take that. Thats about the strength of school discipline these days.

So, we have a generation of teenagers which include many who are confused, assertive unstable and violent.

I lived in fear of Mr Lee at secondary and '6 of the best'...but only fear of doing WRONG... The pain to the hand was quite sobering on the mind, and heck.. I don't recall ever being willing to be 'violent' to others except in cases of defending them from predators or thugs. I never even hated Mr Lee. The only time I resented it was when I got it and was innocent.

Punishment from Authority figures, when rightly administered to those who KNOW they will 'get it' if they play up.. does NOT re-inforce 'violence as a solution to disputes' it reinforces the fear of doing wrong, and rightly so.

Your argument falls in a total heap, when we consider that our ultimate social sanction is..FORCE and VIOLENCE administered by the Police force against those who refuse to comply with socially acceptable behavior and embark on armed robberies, Rapes, assaults and other crimes.

The presupposition underpinning your argument is flawed, on both a theoretical and experiential level, it just makes a good sound bite "Don't resolve disputes with violence" is probably one of the shallowest, slogunist, incomplete and biased statements that has gained currency in todays misguided social faculties.

Earlier in the year, the NonTeritory government unleashed seven hard-core socialist, GFN into the school community. They were brought up from down south. They were given political schooling in house at NT gov, and then released with the disguise of being 'school councillors'. There task is to 'help' the kids who are suffering under Labors 'Bring back the biff' regime in schools. The kiddies are to be brought in and debreifed until they are turned to Labor, after which school will be much easier for them.

I wonder if people are satisfied with this strong-arm tactic of the state agaisnt our kiddies. Are the parents? Or would it be best left to the 'expert' political officers of the Left who are the NTG. Should teaching by teachers be banned, in that case? Should we adults all volunteer to go to the countryside?

Is the NT becoming a nanny state? ala Singapore. The NTG announced last week (Demanded) that the NT become more like Singapore, so perhaps it is all coming true.

Boys need diversions and most do not have fathers.

They do not have diversions readily available to get rid of energy and to test themselves and risk-take in reasonably safe ways.

Boys are also victimised and sledged by some zealots and professional whingers in the community. To take an example, if a few young boys on cycles appear in a park they are immediately regarded with suspicion by any thirty something year old woman nearby. That is because the lie that boys are somehow dangerous has been spread by the lesbian dominated feminist movement.

However, boys also have absent fathers. Even where their father is at home, he more likely to be surfing the Net than engaging in activities of interest to his son.

I strongly disagree that boys were well served by their fathers in the post WW2 years. I very strongly disagree that the solution is more work and more beltings. I very very strongly disagree that boys should be coerced into the unthinking obedience and kow towing to authority that the RSL and other authoritarians see as a solution for everything.

It is simple really:

- boys need to be validated as boys by society and we should never allow ratbag radical feminists to demonise them though the media and through a skewed school curriculum;

- boys need their dads to take and interest and do something with them. They should also join them up with the local Scouts where they can take advantage of an outdoor adventure program under good supervision;

- boys are vulnerable and need an arm around the shoulder from older youths and men, which is regrettably uncommon in a society where the family and the extended family are being dumped on and destroyed through social change that has been implemented without any attempt at community consultation and consensus.

Boys are the canaries who are showing us through their frequency of suicide, depression and withdrawal that all is not well in the community. Blaming and belting them is just more of victimising the victim that we see in politics these days.

I don't think Peter was saying that we should belt anyone regardless. Just that some careful rethinking of this idea might be needed, making sure that kids and adults were protected.

I am cautious about saying "it's all the fault of the feminists" - the Muslims, the Christians,or of anyone, really.

It is true that boys are scary for many teachers and many parents and their boisterous energy frightens people into blaming them, suspending them and expelling them.
Years ago a boy got the cane for misbehaviour. If used in moderation, yes some harm was done on occasions, especially at the hands of sadistic teachers.

Today a boy who misbehaves is suspended and expelled from school. Permanently. And he learns no more at school and is kicked onto the street. Is he better off with this approach?

Likewise, parents are scared of giving a kid a very occasional short smack; or putting a child in his room, or doing SOMETHING to tell him (or her) NO.
Instead we have kids out of control. They can go on and on and take drugs, cause crime, and parents don't know how to discipline them.

Can't we find a better way of managing boys' energy? There has to be a better way than what we have at present. Come on, guys, suggest some improvements.

A photo in the newspaper of a police riot squad PRACTISING their routine for the coming summer to cope with drunken teenagers out of control rubbishing the streets, rubbishing other's homes and gatecrashing other's parties.
Teenagers being given enough dole money to leave home after a spat with parents who insist on good behaviour. This was in my family, it happened.
I have seen underage children openly carrying cartons of grog through the streets. Where are the police?
I feel sorry for these young people, by the time they really grow up, they are going to be dead beats, alcoholics with no future.
It doesn't have to be that way.

Cornflower... you very VERY disagreee with ..? :)

Ok..point taken. Your passion is duly noted.
Lets not misunderstand that 'smacking' or a belting is a substitute for all the things you mentioned. No way. In fact.. if fathers can achieve those things, corporal punishment would seldom be needed. In fact its usually only needed when they are in the 2s and 3s unless exceptional circumstances arise.

Most powers stuggles are worked out when the kids are around 2-3 I feel.

Radical feminists are a sorry bunch.. must be just about the loneliest people in the world.

BONDI PETE.. how are things there as the warmer weather comes ?
any evidence of car loads of thuggish louts cruising looking for trouble yet ? Please keep us informed. If you have any connection with the junior footy/rugby clubs, might be an idea to work out some very effective communications procedures and some basic self defense skills. (Happy to help there if you need) jjjdrmot@yahoo.com.au

GENERAL we need to get away from a number of things in debate.
1/ "If they disagree with me they hate me" Or hate others.
2/ "Just because one course of action is mentioned, it does not mean taken to the extreme or to the exclusion of other means."

BOAZ_David

If you use a thump or two to 'train' boys how then do you train your dog/s?

Hate to think that you have woken up to using praise and encouragement for dogs but not for boys.

Or is the corporal punishment about meeting your needs not theirs?

Maybe your heart is in the right place, however there is a lot of solid evidence against smacking and corporal punishment.

Cornflower,smacking or caning does not hurt as much as the social derision.To be embarrased or excluded intellectually or made feel inferior by perceived social defects which is not illegal,causes far more damage.

We should not go back to the bad old days of caning as the reactionary tool of discipline,however in some schools it is a great deterrent.The fear is often greater deterrent than the actual pain.Discipline is a complex structure of fostering respect for the individual,giving them hope for the future with the abilities they have,having clear boundaries in which they can operate in safety,all within a caring environment,laced always with humour and love.

It is almost an impossible task to educate children on masse who come from socio-economic deprived backgrounds.These poor housing estates just amplified all their problems.We have generations lost because of the lack of love and discipline both at home and school and we are now pay all paying the price in crime and drug abuse.Our leftist leaning soft option education systems have made their plight worse.

The best way to reform hardened deliquents is to put them in a rual situation,give them real responsibilities and if they don't tend he cows etc,guess what,no breakfast.You run a hard disciplined ship and you will get results if you show you care.Now all the hand ringing do gooders will not allow this tough discipline because it infringes on their rights.Well I say the neglecting of children with this no boundaries mentality,as perpetrated by our socialist Govts is the ultimate infringement of rights.They have fostered criminal neglect.

This state once set up a so called Boot Camp to teach difficult youth some self discipline. Just as it was ready to roll, the nay sayers started screaming about the poor little delinquents rights and the scheme was abandoned.
The trouble is the 'nay sayers' will stop anything positive but will offer nothing to replace that original idea.So nothing gets done and those who genuinely care lost heart.
Why are children allowed to get so out of hand,they go on to make bad parents who breed more unruly children.

Worth having a look at:

"Hundreds of NSW children subject to AVOs"

http://www.optusnet.com.au/news/story/abc/20061022/11/domestic/1770581.inp

Arjay, couldnt agree more. In order to learn cause and effect, and consequence-based thinking, kids need to be brought-up in an environment where the consequences are real, reasonably immediate and not life-threatening. Your 'dont tend the cows, then no breakfast" is a great example of this. I grew up on a family farm, in a one-parent family, surrounded by people that loved me, but who wouldnt hesitate to give me a clip behind the ears if necessary. Of course every now and then, us kids would run riot and damn the consequences. Well we got our hides tanned for it and generally rightly so. As the eldest I copped a few that I really didnt deserve, but thems the breaks.

I am now bringing up my own family, and while I dont want to be authoritarian, my kids will be expected to act within set boundaries, and when I say no I mean it. Sure we'll probably have some falling outs, and there will also be the odd occasion when I relax the rules and let them have their way - that doesnt hurt occasionally, so long as no one is going to be hurt by it. And yes, I smack my children, thoughly mostly not freqently, and never hard enough to hurt, just sting. Cornflower, I also whack my dog if he plays up - I have found the best training of a dog is done via a mixture of reward and discipline. I have been rewarded with a generally well-behaved dog that is unerringly loyal. That's the difference between cats and dogs - smack a cat and he'll just crap behind your lounge. But that's a topic for another debate!

Some well-respected research looked at 3 styles of authority:

laissez-faire

autocratic

democratic

Which of these has to be the model for parenting - when we have to teach kids that not all adults can be completely trusted; that they can get electrocuted; that some foods have transfats that clog their arteries.

We need authoritative- not authoritarian - parenting to help kids mature and grow. 50 years ago most kids left school at 15, all by 17. Almost all were in work at 19.
Many kids today are in prolonged adolescence, go to uni for years, and are still staying at home with Mum and Dad in their late 20s or 30s. They aren't independent adults, yet aren't children.

The movie "Failure to Launch" shows one family struggling with a 30 year old who won't become independent.

Governments need to get in and help parents more. And somehow we have to encourage kids to learn and grow, while giving them an occasional prod of some kind. Being a Mum or a Dad is bloody hard these days.

Bondi Pete

Authoritative parenting, which I would favour too, is at odds with the corporal punishment you and others have been suggesting.

I am not opposed to the idea of punishment where necessary, but that does not equal inflicting physical pain, nor does it imply that techniques like shaming should be used (it would be counterproductive). There are plenty of alternatives and maybe a Google of authoritative parenting is required.

I do not resile from my call for diversionary activities.

For youth at risk diversionary programs offer a viable alternative for many.

Any parent who resorts to belting a kid has really lost it and should remove himself or herself from proximity to the child before things get out of hand.

Those who still believe that a 'clip around the ear' is good for children, should read about shaken child syndrome.

Cornflower,you have not addressed emotional abuse whereby teachers and parents can socially ostracise children by their authority with legal impunity,yet corporal punishment remains illegal.Corporal punishment does not pigeon hole or deride children socially,which can be totally soul destroying.

There is a vast difference between a smack by a conerned parent,and an enraged alcoholic taking out the frustrations of his/her own inadaquacies on some innocent child.It is time we let parents make the hard decisions that shape their childrens destinies and keep the legal disease out of our lives.

Arjay

Teachers who physically, emotionally or psychologically abuse students should face counselling and disciplinary action. Their colleagues would agree with that.

However there are problems at the other end of the scale too. Two first grade teachers at the local primary school assured me that they were afraid to put an arm around any of their young charges who was in need of reassurance or comforting, because they could be hauled before authorities by some overzealous, protective parent.

It so happens that both of these teachers were women with impeccable records (and they are teaching the children of children they taught previously), but if they were young men teachers I would still be outraged at the impact on us all of an increasingly litigious, PC society.

It seems that politicians and bureaucrats react to the noisy few in society who may know little about youth while the silent majority, preoccupied with living, only react when newspaper headlines claim problems exist.

Parents need to engage with local schools to support administrators and teachers. Surely an hour or so at the P&C is not too much to ask, even if voluntary work is not possible.

However it goes without saying that the parents of disruptive students are rarely seen working in the tuckshop.

I think many of today's problems go back to the 60s when parenting seemed to morph from parents who set firm boundaries to provide children with a sense of security, to parents who want to be their children's friend. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being you child's friend, especially with older children, but I don't think it should be the primary purpose of parenting. Parents are older than children and can make far reaching decisions that children just can't see, so sometimes there's nothing wrong with simply saying, I do know better; do what you're told.

Unfortunately most problems are to do with boys. I think there's lots of reasons for that. It's undeniable that 40 years of a relentless feminist attack on masculinity has had its impact. Some changes were necessary; others were gratuitous.

We seemed to have forgotten how to raise boys. That outdoor childhood with organisations who channelled boys' energy into constructive pursuits has been discredited by allegations of child abuse. The organisations themselves have been under assault by feminists. Look at the scouts, surf clubs, choirs, and many sporting organisations that have been modified to cater to girls. By catering to female tastes they're not always as attractive to boys.

The education system has been comprehensively feminised too. Curriculums, teaching methodologies, disciplinary methods have all been modified to better suit girls. It's no wonder boys are tuning out.

DADS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!
Has anyone noticed that many comments entitled "Parents" are really written about and/ or by, mothers?

Somehow generic parents are always mums.
Dads are usually left out of the picture or just the token comment is included.

Furthermore, few people venture to say anything bad about mums as a group. Yet there seem to be plenty of people wanting to slag off at dads. We have so many stories about deadbeat dads, delinquent dads, and so on.

I wonder how far this has gone in the devaluation of dads and the reduction in their authority?

Are feminists to blame? Or won't dads stand up for themselves? Are they all too busy working? Drinking in the pub? Couldn't give a rat's ass? They should care about the reduction in their authority.

Dads and Mums usually teach kids different skills. Mums teach about emotional connection, friendship, family things.

Dads teach about getting and keeping a job, buying property, all sorts of financial affairs, business ethics and so on.
But then all this may have changed in the last 50 years as the feminist revolution changed things. For the better, of course.

Like most issues that face us today, the kids rule is a diverse problem.
Yes, the break down of families is one major factor, along with the breakdown of communities.
The single parent, the working mother.
Anxieties, bolstered by the media, permeating every area of our lifes.
Advertising trying to define who we should are, how we should be living, making us feel incomplete and inferior.
Children’s bodies: adult sexuality.
Non-stop violence on our screens, isolation of children for protectionism.
Diets littered with chemical this, additive that.
I pity the poor child born to the unurtured world of today.

when the leftist psychologists told the world that it is wrong to discipline children they had as much vision as they have nowadays-none. why don't we ask those "experts" from 30 years ago what they make of the situation now. make the parents responsible for the kids' behavour was the latest i heard. great ! make discipline for kids at home or in school a criminal offence but when the kids derail blame the parents and the school system.
so long as we are silly enough to let these taxpayer funded psychologists interfere in our lives we're all on the same low mindless level as these experts.

Arjay I so agree with you.

People wonder what is happening to our youth but they dont do what needs to be done to find out because they are scared of what they might hear and what might need to be done.

Somewhere along the line they should ask the children as the vast majority know what the problem is.

Bondi Pete, you certainly have some good generalisations there. Not so sure that these all fit into today's society, what with all the changes that feminism brought about.

Mum's teach about emotional things, eh? How about emotional bullying and emotional blackmail. Plenty of women I know are expert at that! And you can see their daughters copying them. Both men and women have their bad points as well as good, and these get passed onto the next generation as well.

I dont think that most people have a problem with Dad's as parents, except maybe for a few hardcore feminazi's, but the thing is that mum's make most of the parenting decisions, so parenting discussions centre around mum's actions (or lack of). Few dad's seem to care about how their child is educated (apart from "good" or "bad"), or examine their own behaviour to see what aspects are being picked up. Now, before anyone jumps down my throat I am aware that there are notable exceptions and these are to be applauded. But you only have to turn up to a P&C meeting to see where the balance lies. But this is something that has been the case for many years - its not a recent development. Not sure how you change this.....

Cornflower, I believe its shaken baby syndrome, recognising that the danger lies in children aged under two. No harm to a 15 yo comes from a flick to the ear-lobe. If your worried about shaken babies, you should concentrate your efforts on the over-zealous dads and granddads who enthusiastically bounce young children up and down in the thought that they are doing such a good job in engaging with their children.

An old joke told in our family is

All kids need a pat on the back. As long as it's often enough, hard enough and low enough.

Not to encourage harm to kids of any kind, but an occasial small slap might save a lot of the arguments that we see.

Well mums rule in the family...
maybe after kids, as Peter said.

Poor old dads get pushed aside.

Rudyard Kipling wrote in 1911

When the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside.
But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When Nag the basking cobra hears the careless foot of man,
He will sometimes wriggle sideways and avoid it if he can.
But his mate makes no such motion when she camps beside the trail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws.
‘Twas the women not the warriors, turned these stark enthusiasts pale.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

If corporal punishment works so well why not mete it out to adults?

I can see it now: woman receives six strokes of cane across the buttocks for littering Mall. Unlikely.

What about the cane for girls in school? Unlikely.

Come to think of it, why are boys always the target for floggings? Same reason why young men are sent to war?

What about some gender and age equity?

I have no problem with girls getting the cane if boys will. Provided that punishment is meted out fairly, based on the consequences or potential consequences of the mischief engaged in. The problem hence is that the consequence of the mischief that boys get up to is generally of greater significance than what girls will do. In days past.... playing with guns (hopefully this is a thing of the past), sling-shots, bullying animals (kicking dogs, pulling wings off flys), physically harming others... need I continue. The actions that girls take tend to have less immediate serious effects, so they have been less likely to be punished to the extent that boys have.

That said, I think that the cane is probably a little severe in all but the worst cases (eg those boys that made that video in Victoria should cop the cane on a daily basis for the next year or so - make the consequences real and immediate, as putting them in jail is only going to be more likely to turn them into hardened little crims).

Likewise parents should have the right to physically discipline their children. What do you suggest to talk a persistent toddler out of sticking their finger in a power point. "No" and removing them from the situation only works so much. At some stage they need to realise that if they persist, they are going to be hurt. Given that the choice is between a dead baby and a smack on the hand, I'll take the smack on the hand thank you very much. It doesnt take much of this before baby realises that Mum or Dad means no (and yes I have circuit breakers and power point covers, but not every house that I visit does, so I consider teaching my child that these are dangerous and to be avoided as accident-proofing my child). A little pain for long term gain. And really, these sort of smacks are not sourced in anger or meant to hurt or harm the child. They are a source of control and teaching from concerned parents.

I don't think that effective discipline is ever a black or white solution.It all depends upon the individual.Some people are very sensitive personalities and will respond to reason,while others need a wack.

If we look at our humanity in evolutionary terms,our present civilisation has only evolved in the last few thousand years,when homo sapiens has been around for 2 million years.Now for most of our genetic evolution harsh environmental disciplines have dictated our lives.If our ancestors didn't get up and chase the Bison,they starved.Life was harsh and short and so was the discipline.Now in the last couple of hundred years,we have controlled our environment,and there hasn't been the necessity for the same discipline,so we have suffered decay both emotionally and physically.

Unless our families and schools impose an effective artifical discipline to replace the environmental ones of our past,we will go the way of all the other great civilisations.

Cornflower - "What about some gender and age equity?"

I hope not, young kids do stuff adults would go to jail for.

If a kid hits another at school he or she might score a suspension unless the attack is very serious or one of a long string of them. If I did the same at work I'd at least lose my job and possibly do a jail term.

Do you really want age equality?

In reality we should be using the consequences for bad choices most likely to result in better choices next time round.

There has already been a thread (started by Boaz_David) on the the general discussion area about spanking and I don't plan to revisit that here.

Age equality is a nightmare if you want to start applying adult consequences to children, they are not ready for it.

I did start a thread on a toolkit for disciplining kids trying to gather ideas for effective strategies for disciplining kids (including the age appropriate bit). It died fairly quickly thru lack of interest.

People were much more interested in talking about spanking than in discussion alternatives, a point I found rather interesting.

R0bert

RObert

You miss the point - other countries do have flogging for adults.

It strikes me that some contributors would have flogging for kids but not for themselves.

Generally adults insist that if they are treated with respect and understanding they will learn. Maybe they could try the same with their children.

I agree that parents do need to learn to say, 'No'. My wife and I do this and keep control of our children who do behave themselves out in public. However, you appear to have simplistic views of why society is in the dog house.

Firstly, churches have proved that they can not be trusted with our children as they rape them then protect each other. Not to forget the other forms of abuse. People rightfully do not trust the institutions of the church.

One very main factor of the destruction of the family is interference into the family by governments and left wing minority politics.

In Western Australia, a parent can not even hold a child by the wrist while reprimanding them as that is a criminal offence. Now that parents in W.A. can't discipline their children, youth crime is out of control and parents are being criminally convicted for not controlling their children when it is the politicians who should be in prison for causing this mayhem.

Time to stop interfering with families and let them be.

Further to my points on capers of the NT government, parents this week have learned that the NT government has introduced suicide to the curriculum. So, if one doesnt meet the party thought as described by unleashed MLA's, or if one doesnt get along with the 'councillors', there is a third option in the curriculum.

Parents are outraged.

http://ntnews.news.com.au/

http://www.news.com.au/index/0,,17001,00.html

Cornflower, "Generally adults insist that if they are treated with respect and understanding they will learn. "

I think that most of us accept that deterants are part of the process. As an adult they play a smaller part than they did when I was younger and my views on ethics were less of an issue. They still play a part when I don't agree with a law.

The balance between deterents and personal values is different for each of us and probably changes for each of us at different stages of our lives.

If I ever found myself in the position of facing a couple of years jail and had an alternative of a couple of strokes with the cane (of the type that was used when I was at school) I know which I'd pick.

If you are talking equality then compare apples with apples. There is a big difference between the kind of flogging dished out to adults in the countries that use that as a punishment and what I understand proponents of corporal punishment for children to be supporting.

As I said earlier I think the issue is about finding the approach that is most likely to encourage a child to make better choices in the future. A few days off school does not seem to be a particularly useful solution to that.

R0bert

Taking responsibilty for your actions and learning that there are consequences for 'bad' behaviour, and respect for others in general, should be taught to children when they're young, regardless of gender, or if they are in a one or two parent family. It can be taught in different ways, smacking or not etc etc. But some parents lack common sense and so we see kids running amok. My (11 yo)step-daughter has been bragging about her malicious and violent behaviour against other kids at school......when her father approached the (custodial) mother about his concerns and worry for his daughter acting this way, he was sworn at and told it wasn't a problem. With a role model like that, why would she act any different?

There is a world of difference between flogging a child and smacking it. One suggests a lack of control on behalf of the administrator. Children respond differently to controls, boundaries and instruction and the adults teaching and looking after them need to be able to respond to individual children in ways appropriate for them.

A humourous side - a friend of mine took to slyly pinching her little boy when he was unruly in public, given that it is illegal to smack him. This worked a treat until one day in the supermarket he turned around and shouted "stop pinching me Mum, that hurts". Bugger!

i agree with you
the youths now a days are really wild
atleast most of them are
but this is the 21century
we have to come up with
better salutions
dont u know how much teachers
abuse kids
dont u know how much parents
abuse kids
dont u know how much police officers
abuse kids
u think its better to give them
authority when there the one
thats makin things worst
it certainly wasnt no kid
that made mc gluggys
it certainly wasnt no kid
that begged for mc gluggys
adults took them for treat
if adults hadnt they wonnt
need it
if adults hadnt introduced them to junk food
they wouldnt be eatin it 2day
maybe its adults who need trainin
what kinda parent cant say
no to there kid
man u got ur facts mixed up
its not becuz there scared
its becuz they dont care
its becuz of them that youths are
runnin wild
i should know
am not a adult
am a kid
with strong parents
and parents who doesnt give
teachers authority over me
and u dont see me runnin wild
u got ur facts mixed up
i suggest u straigthen them out