Johnny Rotten, maybe you are missing the point. My ex had no responsibity to discipline me. Her hitting was done in anger and was about her own wants rather than my, her own or others safety.

I don't particularly like smacking, rather I see it as a tool that can be more easily managed than some other discipline tools in very difficult situations. It's a tool that should be in the bottom of the toolbox, only dragged out where the other options available at the time appear to be a higher risk to the child or others.

As Celivia points out it can be difficult to judge betweeen discipline and abuse with smacking but I find that it is easier than with some other forms of discipline. Emotional abuse or even reinforcement are even harder to judge.

It requires self control and judgement on the part of the parent as do all other forms of discipline.

I heard the excerts of Alec Baldwin's message and would agree with fairly much all of the comment I've heard on it so far. What he did was inexcusable and so was making the tape public.

Is that the way he deals with life normally? Some comentators suggest so. Is this the result of the stress of a bitter custody dispute with the child being used as a pawn in the dispute? The release of the tape might suggest that.

I'd disagree that the release was worse than the initial act except for the aspect that the release probably took time and was therefore more likely to be a deliberate strategic act rather than someone having a bad moment.

Regardless of what leads up to it adults need to make responsibe choices where their kids are concerned.

As you close your post with the comment regarding money being spent on anger management and the like let me close mine with a hearty endorsement of that sentiment.

Robert

Ranier,
“I see these rights to declare as rights that belong to the beings they are in the present, rather than to the adults they will become.”
Beautifully said! I had to think about it for a little while but it makes perfect sense.
The present child, indeed, is what needs to be valued. The future of the child, or the future person the child will become, will fall into place automatically when the present child is taken care of properly and peacefully.
The future person only exists in our mind, the child is ‘here and now’.
This is one of the smartest statements about children I have ever read.

In general, and partly to RObert,
Even though a smack on the bottom may be acceptable from a parent’s point of view, we need to think about the physical violence/discipline issue from the child’s POV.
Children do not automatically differentiate between different kinds of abuse, e.g. one form of abuse (adult abusing another adult) is criminal, socially unacceptable and wrong while another form of abuse (adult smacking child) is lawful, socially acceptable and right, even encouraged by some!

Keep it simple for children: Smacking, slapping, being violent towards other people is abuse and is always wrong. If a child sees that her/his parent is being abused by the other parent, and then the abused parent hits the kid, then what message gets across to the child?
S/he will believe that hitting people is the right thing to do and may, for that reason, may make aggression part of her/his life.
Parents should set an example.

The only reason parents feel they ‘need’ to have available the tool of smacking in their toolbox is because they ‘think’ they need it- because they lack proper parenting skills or lack patience.

In my opinion, physical abuse automatically includes emotional abuse. What about losing trust?

The fact that psychological and emotional abuse (even without physical abuse) are unacceptable and even harder to judge than physical abuse itself doesn’t mean that nothing should be done about physical abuse.

Besides: Smacking increases pedophile abuse risk.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21594731-2,00.html

Celivia, I still don't see any good reasons for singling smacking out. Pretty much every argument against smacking can either be applied directly to or has a close parallel with other forms of discipline.

I may be less bothered by the physical aspect because I tend to regard emotional abuse/assault as a greater risk than physical abuse/assault (or at least the really bad physical abuse leaves marks). I know there are exceptions and it's not clear cut and agree that physical abuse also delivers emotional abuse.

The important bit is that parents (and others) are consistent and caring in their discipline. I'd much rather see the focus on good parenting skills rather than on smacking. If that results in smacking never being needed then well and good.

R0bert

RObert,
I also would rather see ALL forms of abuse to be targeted equally.
Preferably, there should be a public education campaign, which, like you said, should focus on good parenting skills rather than merely on smacking.

The only reason I can imagine that the campaign focuses on smacking rather than on the other forms of abuse is that physical abuse is more obvious, more recognisable and therefore easier to target.
I am nevertheless glad that ‘something’ is being done, that they are starting somewhere in this big jungle of abuse. I hope this campaign is a first step.

I don’t call any form of spanking a reasonable form of discipline. Light spanking might not directly cause bodily harm, but its purpose is to cause a child pain.
Discipline does not have to include any form of abuse. If smacking is allowed there is the danger of escalation as well.
I’m positive that a lot of severe child abuse cases started off as mild ‘punishments’.

As I said in one of my earlier posts, I don’t know the content of this campaign, but I am hoping that it is not *just* a warning not to smack children but that it includes some information on positive alternatives, or directs the parents to educational resources to help them with their parenting.

It would be great if there could be a free helpline for parents who need to discuss the problems they have with discipline and misbehaviour; one that advises and supports parents 24/7.

The campaign is a good first step in making parents aware, but this needs to be elaborated on and backed up by education and limitless support for parents who need it.
Or perhaps I am too idealistic.

I don't think a gentle smack in the first instance is psychologically damaging at all. For instance, a child reaching for power point. I do admit that my children have an uncontrollable aversion to electricity.

I think smacking can be an excellent way of developing trust. RObert try this with your son, that's if he is old enough, stand eyeball to eyeball and let your son slap you on the cheek, now you slap him, now he slap you and keep going at this. I do this with my son to warm up sometimes and he or I wouldn't do it unless there was complete trust. We are both adults. Faack off - am too.

Now that’s the bogan parenting program. Oh don’t forget that when he turns 18 he has to down a jug of Guinness in one go or his best mate gets to punch him in the balls. Maybe if some men (and women) knew what pain was they wouldn’t be so keen to inflict it to control others. Maybe if some men knew how to control a punch they’d realise you can settle someone without hurting them.

I also disagree with the idea that a parent can’t be a friend. I think psychologists who think that being a friend with your child is wrong because it suggests a pleasing attitude and an inability to draw boundaries is just new-age pap. I think you should cultivate a friendship with your children in the true sense of the word. We are always Mum or Dad and every person needs to know what a true friend really is - someone who refuses to “walk away” . http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5624#78389

My experience tells me that using violence (especially in schools) to control only produces children determined to jack the system. It only instils defiance or fearfulness. Parents who are firm and fair and only smack when absolutely necessary –not as an ongoing day-to- day method because they are too indifferent (or short tempered) to be bothered with an explanation – usually have children who listen and respond in a positive way.

Celivia the opposite of being idealistic is inauthenticity. The opposite of idealism is corruption. I think therefore I think I am thinking that I am thinking thoughts that I think are correct. I am correct to think that they are my authentic thoughts therefore my idealistic thoughts are open to corruption from forces seeking to control my authenticity and thus corrupt my thinking. That’s what happens when you indulge in too much smack me/smack you with your offspring.

Rainer. Can relate to teacher violence. Just made me fight harder at school. Home was heaven. Mum and Dad firm and fair (looking back) and couldn't catch me when I was naughty anyway.