Thanx Rizz...
your input is appreciated.

I applaud your emphasis on the 'speaking to first,and the warning etc and smack (or other punishment) as a last resort'..

May I ask what is your own background please ? (like is it Anglo aussie or are you from an ethnic background, if so, which one ?)

cheers

i am a 16 yr old white australian girl

i also wish to give warning to parents or people who do smack that sometimes other people do call child protection when a child is smacked even if it was a light smack on the bottom that does not leve a mark, i know this coz it happened to me agter a hour after the smack we had the police at our door

Thanx Again Rizz

yep... sad that people would call the police unless something very serious was going on.
Smacking should always be a last resort, and be avoided as far as possible.
A parent needs to use instinct at times... as there are moments when a smack simply will not do the job of teaching the child the boundary.
Deprivation of some cherished activity can often see them 'CHOOSING' a smack to get it out of the way and get back to something they love like TV or video games etc.

I think sometimes it takes MORE strength as a parent to actually enforce the 'deprivation' method compared to the simple whack on the bum.

Look at some other issues also Rizz.. see what you can contribute to them.. see if they have much relevance to you.
I'd be interested in your thoughts about females in front line combat. I started that thread this morning in the 'general' section.
I just rang the Senators office and gave him a piece of my mind :)

Thanx Again Rizz…yep... sad that people would call the police unless something very serious was going on.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 2 October 2006 1:39:13 PM

For a start let’ s recognise the euphemism – ‘smacking’ – it is an action of hitting someone, whether it is called smacking, beating, striking or anything else the action is the same.

I think Rizz’s experience exposes the double-standards around this issue more clearly than any other example that has so far come forward. If Rizz was hit by her boyfriend it would be DV and, according to current social mores, a v serious issue and completely unacceptable.

If Rizz is hit by her father (according to you) it is acceptable. This is logically inconsistent because the action is the same, either the action constitutes abuse or it does not. According to your logic whether or not the action is abuse depends on the identity of the perpetrator. But since the identity of the perpetrator is independent of the action it cannot logically be an issue in determining whether or not an action constitutes abuse.

This rebuttal does however presume that you (David) subscribe to the current attitude that DV is serious and is unacceptable – if however that is not your position perhaps you would like to admit that.

Rob 'Domestic Violence' is something normally meaning violence between adults. Husbands and wives, or.. excessive physical violence towards children I guess.

My position is that smacking should be limited in impact, contextualized, administered fairly and used as a last resort.

There are many situations in family life where to take your approach of 'big picture training' is simply not workable. How many times have you had to tell children 'STOP that now... stop it.... STOP!'
with the explanation that what they are doing is
a) Dangerous
b) Annoying
c) Generally unnacceptable.

but they jussssssst keep on doing it.

We had a simple but usually effective system. "1.....2......3"
They were warned, that if they did not cease the activity by 3, they would be smacked. So, if they wanted to avoid this painful experience, they would conform.

Now.. I know that on the surface it could be said this is teaching them to 'resolve issues of conflict with violence' but I simply disagree. They are not mature enough at 2 or 3 to comprehend such grandiose ideas. When they do mature, they 'get it' that it was all meant to bring them into line with socially acceptable behavior.

I 'got it' and I'd say that 90% of Australians 'got it' because I don't see 90% of Australians starting fist fights over the slightest disagreement. In fact, what I observe is that most Aussies will go to the utmost lengths to avoid physical confrontation. Perhaps this is a positive side of early childhood smacking ? Perhaps there is this aversion to behavior or confrontation which can result in pain ?
Perhaps the 'early childhood pain' embeds in their psyches the idea that 'persistent anti social behavior will result in pain' hence they are LESS likely to be anti social.

I believe that corporal punishment (as a last resort) administered in a context of family love, is neither hurtful or wrong.

We seem to have a fundamental philosophical/psychological difference of opinion here. Personally, I think culture and history is on my side in this discussion.