Boaz YOU opened YOUR discussion with a PERSONAL anecdote.

You could’ve made general comments about disciplining children and then stated your POV.

But no, you chose to make a personal anecdote and now you complain when your actions are commented upon.

Tough.

I have no doubt your daughter loves you – that’s the amazing thing about kids they love their parents despite all the mistakes parents make. I still love my dear departed dad even though he was an alcoholic and compulsive gambler. He wasn’t exactly a ‘good’ parent either – in different ways to you. However, I think I prefer his parenting to yours anyday, you were lucky your daughter didn’t run away as so many kids do who are abused by their parents.

And this is the crux of the matter, some kids can tolerate physical abuse better than others. Lucky you.

My point is that corporal punishment is simply indicative of a failure on the part of the person administering the punishment to find reasonable, logical and fair means of establishing the rules of their household.

Saying. “I’m not perfect” is OK if all you did was administer a light spank to the bottom of a 3 year old. But belting a 12 year old – that’s abuse, that’s beyond mere imperfection. If you didn’t want to be taken to task upon that admission then you never had to bring it to the discussion in the first place.

continued

R0bert

I guess I didn't make a clear enough distinction for you - I was responding the Boaz's actions regarding his 12 year old daughter.

However, where does one draw the line?

I can remember my mother, just once, wacking my behind when I was about 5, I can't remember what it was for, I know it didn't hurt, let alone leave a mark. I guess I'd been really impossible, but that was only once and, for me, it was a significant event. I know at other times, if it was really serious, both my parents sitting and talking to me about what I done or thought I'd done. I was asked about my behaviour. I learnt very early about the rules my parents had regarding acceptable behaviour.

I see parents who regularly smack their kids - not hard, but because it happens so frequently the kids just don't take it seriously.

Also, I was caned at school once for something I didn't do - in front of the entire class. I have never trusted authority since.

Boaz called his discussion 'to smack or not' - you'd hardly call what he did mere smacking - sorry I just can't fathom someone who repeatedly claims self righteous superiority, actually trying to justify what he did to his daughter.

What did he do to his kids when they were younger? Of course he'll say they are all fine now. But have they gone on (or will they go on) to hit their children when there are suitable alternatives to corporal punishment?

Where does it end?

Where is it appropriate to draw the line if you do choose to hit your child?

RObert,

I’ve been criticized on another thread for stretching the definition of child abuse, but your description of your ex makes me think this could apply here as well. I’d describe a person whose upbringing has left her with “little idea of the consequences of her actions” or had “not learned to restrain herself” as neglected in a fundamental way. Don’t get me wrong – I’m not in any way against the disciplining of children: in fact it’s crucial to the development of a healthy social being.

What we need to consider is the lessons learned through corporal punishment. Reading your posts on OLO you strike me as being in possession of a mature, well-functioning brain capable of looking critically and sensibly at your experience. Not everyone is so endowed, especially when they’re young, or under various psychosocial, hormonal or chemical stresses, and this is where we run into problems.

Much of the child abuse literature emphasizes that parents can sometimes have a lot of difficulty negotiating that blurry line between physical discipline and physical abuse. There’s also good evidence that physical discipline generally carries at best short term benefits, often at the expense of long term boundary setting – which is the main game here, I think.

This is a topic that has always puzzled me.

Why is beating one's children something that needs extra legislation?

We already have laws that cover assault, and I certainly don't believe that the excuse "but officer, I am the [12 year-old girl's] father" is at all valid.

The only difference should arise at the time of sentencing, when the fact that she is only twelve years old should merit the perpetrator a far longer sentence.

Preferably with a tattooed cellmate called Bubba.

From my own observation, beating a twelve year-old girl says an awful lot more about the parent than it does about the child.

The willingness to commit physical violence on someone smaller, weaker and in a somewhat subservient relationship to oneself is a significant indicator of character.

But it is probably a very Christian thing to do, what do I know?

wow...this is quite something.....a feeding frenzy no less, with me as the tuna.

Robert and Snout.. wise words from both of you. Good to see some participants are looking at the issue.

err Scout you next, would you mind referring me to any place where I have declared my 'self righteous superiority'? I don't recall saying such things, I've always described myself as a sinner saved by Grace, the only 'righteous' One is God.

I'm not sure also how 'smacking' grew to 'beating'.... the connotations are kind of different.

Dear Pericles, you claim not to believe in God, hence, all issues of right and wrong...as I've long "taught" you, are relative. Your portrayal of a big bully inflicting 'physical violence' on a 'physically weaker, subservient teenager' can have only one goal at its heart.. "self righteousness" ... see, I can do it too. But the reference point you appeal to is.... ? Chimps physically discipline their offspring. Your basis of differentiating us from the rest of the animal world (By your presuppositions) is...what ?

Violence is an innappropriate term to use in regard to "corporal punishment", (which is the more appropriate term) and I believe we have a cultural understanding of common sense when it comes to such punishment.

Yours or anyone elses aversion to it, had better have a better basis than 'my opinion' or your words mean little.
I suppose you would describe a doctor inflicting 'pain' on a patient to remove a splinter as 'violent' ? No, not at all, he 'hurts' the patient but does no harm.

There were MANY occasions where I could have 'lost it' and "whacked" my daughter up to and after that incident and did not, but that was a special circumstance which in my fatherly view was appropriate at the time, so that's where I stand.

Pericles the 'bad Christian' ploy is beneath you mate.

The most important guidelines in my view for corporal punishment are:

a) Nothing physically dangerous which can damage.
b) They are CLEAR on the reason for it.

Snout, Scout and others I'll agree that the lines can be hard to define. I listed some parts of that early in the thread (especially the never when angry item) that helps.

Beyond that any part of parenting requires the same kind of judgement calls. I'm not convinced that physical punishment is any more risky than other form of punishment when they turn into abuse, possibly less. A sore butt is easier to get over than growing up being told you are worthless or with the idea that you parents don't care enought to discipline.

I intend to drop off this thread, I think I can be better occupied looking at other options on my toolkit thread. Even for those of us who have some space in the toolkit for smacking (small letter, not capitals) it should only ever be a small rarely used tool, not sitting at the top of the box with a worn handle.

Cheers
R0bert