Why you shouldn't spank your child
November 25th 2006 03:34
The idea is spreading. Sweden was the first to completely ban corporal punishment in 1979, and has since been followed by 15 other countries. Corporal punishment in schools has been outlawed in 107 states.
The Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children provides a list of supporters. Its aims are endorsed by, among others, UNICEF and UNESCO.
There are various arguments from legal authority, including the judgments of higher-level courts, and the recommendations of United Nations committees and their opinions on treaty interpretation.
But the moral arguments seem to boil down to two: a rights-based claim, and a consequences-based claim:
"Hitting people violates their fundamental rights to respect for their physical integrity and human dignity, as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Children are people too and equal holders of human rights... Corporal punishment... has been found to be a threat to the healthy development and welfare of children and their societies, and an ineffective form of discipline or control. Constructive, non-violent, child discipline is needed. It should be formulated and applied in a manner that respects the human dignity and rights of the child and understanding of child development." -- from a summary of a UNESCO report, 15 June 2005, "Eliminating Corporal Punishment -- The Way Forward to Constructive Child Discipline"
Information on possible consequences, and on parenting without corporal punishment, is available from the global initiative, from Wikipedia on corporal punishment and on spanking, and from private sites such as this or this. But claims made against corporal punishment would include:
-- It doesn't work. There is short-term compliance but less long-term obedience.
-- It escalates into further abuse, especially since the amount of force required might have to be increased over successive punishments.
-- It destroys trust and respect between children and parents/teachers.
-- It causes psychological problems in the child and in the adult the child becomes -- subservience to authority or rebelliousness, resentfulness, aggression, depression, shyness and inhibition, insecurity, mistrustfulness and feelings of being unloved, lowered self-esteem, generalised fear, stress and anxiety.
-- It correlates with higher rates of drug abuse, alcohol dependence, delinquency and crime, and violence. Corporal punishment teaches the acceptability of violence and extends the cycle. Children who are hit grow up to strike their own children and spouses.
It's true, however, that a correlation is not a causation, and that there's no necessity about these outcomes -- a child who is struck won't necessarily turn into a vicious adult.
So, it is claimed, there is room for corporal punishment being justifiable under some circumstances.
Replies to pro-corporal punishment arguments would include (adapting from the global initiative site):
Children need to be disciplined. -- But corporal punishment is a very ineffective form of discipline. The fact that parents, teachers and others often have to repeat corporal punishment for the same misbehaviour by the same child testifies to its ineffectiveness. In the countries where corporal punishment is banned there is no evidence to show that disruption of schools or homes by unruly children has increased.
Parents have the right to strike their children. -- Children are not their parents' possessions. Children are entitled to the protection of human rights along with everyone else.
Children need to be smacked for safety. -- Of course you can pull them out of danger, and teach them about it. But if you strike them you're confusing the message and are distracting the child from the lesson to be learnt.
It's just a little slap. -- Firstly, the little slap still causes pain and is intended to do so. People who are violent against women don't get away with arguing "it was just a little slap". Secondly, there might be psychological damage without physical damage. Thirdly, "minor" punishment causes unexpected injury; children are small and fragile. Ruptured eardrums, brain damage, and injuries or death from falls are among recorded consequences.
Now, what you make of these arguments will depend, of course, on a whole host of other beliefs you might hold. For instance, do you believe in human dignity and human rights, or is all rights-talk "nonsense on stilts"? Are you persuaded by the psychological evidence? And how effective do you find alternative parenting techniques?
For my part, I'd argue as follows.
What is the purpose of any punishment? You lock people up to directly prevent harm to the community, to satisfy the community's bloodlust for retribution/revenge, to deter commission of similar crimes by the offender or by anyone else, and to rehabilitate the offender.
But in any of these cases, punishment seems to stand in need of justification. That is, when you inflict suffering or physical damage on a person, or limit their freedom, you're doing something that, on the face of it, is wrong: you need to justify why it's right after all.
In the case of corporal punishment, I would suggest, firstly, that evidence is increasingly against the efficacy of deterrence/rehabilitation, at least on my reading of it. This, like global warming, is an empirical matter, and a matter of whose authority you listen to.
Secondly, corporal punishment does seem efficacious in short-term prevention, and, as I have already mentioned, no one would suggest that the possible negative effects are inevitable (although it's also true that, at the time of punishment, you can never be sure that negatives won't eventuate). So there are quite likely to be situations where the good outweighs the bad, and where punishment is the best option. Such an argument is advanced, for instance, by David Benatar.
Lastly, as to retribution/revenge, I'd grant that this also is a possible defence. But I'd suggest that, in a civilized society, the entire category should be consigned to the dustbin, along with most other murderous impulses that evolution has given us and that linger with us.
Notes
-- Images are from: this website.
-- Thursday 1 April 2010: A quick thought... and this isn't an anti-corporal punishment thought, but is simply supposed to provoke insight: If you believe that parents should be unrestricted -- that it should be completely up to parental discretion -- as to whether or not to strike a child, what do you think about nannies, daycare workers, teachers? Should they also be allowed to strike children? If not, what are the relevant distinctions between the cases?
-- Tuesday 4 May 2010: It's probably worth mentioning that many "primitive" cultures don't strike their children, and anthropologists are often surprised on observing this. For instance, Claude Levi-Strauss remarks (John and Doreen Weightman (trr), Tristes Tropiques, 1955, pp 369-70): "When thwarted, children often hit their mothers and the latter do not protest. Children are never punished, and I never saw anyone beat a child or even make as if to do so, except in fun." -- Of course, what works in one culture and environment might not work in another.
The Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children provides a list of supporters. Its aims are endorsed by, among others, UNICEF and UNESCO.
***
But the moral arguments seem to boil down to two: a rights-based claim, and a consequences-based claim:
"Hitting people violates their fundamental rights to respect for their physical integrity and human dignity, as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Children are people too and equal holders of human rights... Corporal punishment... has been found to be a threat to the healthy development and welfare of children and their societies, and an ineffective form of discipline or control. Constructive, non-violent, child discipline is needed. It should be formulated and applied in a manner that respects the human dignity and rights of the child and understanding of child development." -- from a summary of a UNESCO report, 15 June 2005, "Eliminating Corporal Punishment -- The Way Forward to Constructive Child Discipline"
Information on possible consequences, and on parenting without corporal punishment, is available from the global initiative, from Wikipedia on corporal punishment and on spanking, and from private sites such as this or this. But claims made against corporal punishment would include:
-- It doesn't work. There is short-term compliance but less long-term obedience.
-- It escalates into further abuse, especially since the amount of force required might have to be increased over successive punishments.
-- It destroys trust and respect between children and parents/teachers.
-- It causes psychological problems in the child and in the adult the child becomes -- subservience to authority or rebelliousness, resentfulness, aggression, depression, shyness and inhibition, insecurity, mistrustfulness and feelings of being unloved, lowered self-esteem, generalised fear, stress and anxiety.
-- It correlates with higher rates of drug abuse, alcohol dependence, delinquency and crime, and violence. Corporal punishment teaches the acceptability of violence and extends the cycle. Children who are hit grow up to strike their own children and spouses.
***
It's true, however, that a correlation is not a causation, and that there's no necessity about these outcomes -- a child who is struck won't necessarily turn into a vicious adult.
So, it is claimed, there is room for corporal punishment being justifiable under some circumstances.
***
Replies to pro-corporal punishment arguments would include (adapting from the global initiative site):
Children need to be disciplined. -- But corporal punishment is a very ineffective form of discipline. The fact that parents, teachers and others often have to repeat corporal punishment for the same misbehaviour by the same child testifies to its ineffectiveness. In the countries where corporal punishment is banned there is no evidence to show that disruption of schools or homes by unruly children has increased.
Parents have the right to strike their children. -- Children are not their parents' possessions. Children are entitled to the protection of human rights along with everyone else.
Children need to be smacked for safety. -- Of course you can pull them out of danger, and teach them about it. But if you strike them you're confusing the message and are distracting the child from the lesson to be learnt.
***
For my part, I'd argue as follows.
What is the purpose of any punishment? You lock people up to directly prevent harm to the community, to satisfy the community's bloodlust for retribution/revenge, to deter commission of similar crimes by the offender or by anyone else, and to rehabilitate the offender.
But in any of these cases, punishment seems to stand in need of justification. That is, when you inflict suffering or physical damage on a person, or limit their freedom, you're doing something that, on the face of it, is wrong: you need to justify why it's right after all.
Secondly, corporal punishment does seem efficacious in short-term prevention, and, as I have already mentioned, no one would suggest that the possible negative effects are inevitable (although it's also true that, at the time of punishment, you can never be sure that negatives won't eventuate). So there are quite likely to be situations where the good outweighs the bad, and where punishment is the best option. Such an argument is advanced, for instance, by David Benatar.
Lastly, as to retribution/revenge, I'd grant that this also is a possible defence. But I'd suggest that, in a civilized society, the entire category should be consigned to the dustbin, along with most other murderous impulses that evolution has given us and that linger with us.
***
Notes
-- Images are from: this website.
-- Thursday 1 April 2010: A quick thought... and this isn't an anti-corporal punishment thought, but is simply supposed to provoke insight: If you believe that parents should be unrestricted -- that it should be completely up to parental discretion -- as to whether or not to strike a child, what do you think about nannies, daycare workers, teachers? Should they also be allowed to strike children? If not, what are the relevant distinctions between the cases?
-- Tuesday 4 May 2010: It's probably worth mentioning that many "primitive" cultures don't strike their children, and anthropologists are often surprised on observing this. For instance, Claude Levi-Strauss remarks (John and Doreen Weightman (trr), Tristes Tropiques, 1955, pp 369-70): "When thwarted, children often hit their mothers and the latter do not protest. Children are never punished, and I never saw anyone beat a child or even make as if to do so, except in fun." -- Of course, what works in one culture and environment might not work in another.
| 242 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
MS Paint Art
I strongly believe in not spanking children. It is wrong. But I think parents need to learn basic parenting skills and stress management techniques to allow the family to function a little better.
I also do not believe in putting up photos of bare bottoms, nor do I believe blogging is a suitable place to consider some of the issues you put forward. They are distasteful in the extreme. And quite frankly, disgusting.
One wonders about the audience to whom you are addressing such issues.
Spanking is an acceptable issue, I'm not sure that showing bare bottoms is, especially in view of some of your other posts.
Others, don't rush to Adrian's defence please, he is quite capable of defending himself. There is no need to treat him like a child.
I feel sure many will agree with me, but the less attention those others attract the better.
There is also a lot of other crudities and fostered foul language on these sites that need to be cleaned up.
Censoring points of view is one thing, being a party to unacceptable practices is another.
katyzzz
Comment by ChrisM
one question for you katy (and no, im not rushing to his defence, your opinion piqued my curiosity is all)...how does showing photo's of the consequences translate into being party to unacceptable practises? (and if i misunderstood your point, please disregard this) is a war time journalist who takes photo's of the civilian dead party to the crime which killed them?
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Brief response.
"I also do not believe in putting up photos of bare bottoms".
-- Well, you can predict my reply. If we're going to talk about damage to children, let's see what we're talking about. More information can only be good.
"nor do I believe blogging is a suitable place to consider some of the issues you put forward."
-- And you can predict my reply on this as well. I don't see why blogging is any less suitable than any other context; in fact, I see it as more suitable. Blogging is essentially about expressing opinions and discussing them; it's a subsection of the political sphere in general. Censorship of speech is abhorrent anywhere, and particularly in realms where ideas struggle.
"They are distasteful in the extreme. And quite frankly, disgusting."
-- Well, I imagine you can also appreciate my belief that anything and everything should be discussable, including opinions I might disagree with, including questioning basic beliefs I take for granted.
You've said on a previous occasion that you don't want to be forced to justify anything. I respect that view, partly because I think there's always a point where the rational disappears into the irrational -- but presumably you can also understand mine to want to be able to answer any question raised as rationally as possible, in the hopes of making progress. Even if someone says to me, "Black is white", my impulse is to take the allegation seriously rather than to dismiss it out of hand.
In a Catholic country, Protestants are abhorrent, and vice versa. But this is no reason either should be censored.
"There is also a lot of other crudities and fostered foul language"
-- Frankly, I'm against word-taboos, so I think foul language is a good thing. I don't really understand applying moral concepts to censor speech (to me, morality is about suffering and happiness, not about cultural habits).
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
-- I don't have kids myself, nor children under my charge, so the allegation could be raised that I don't have first-hand experience of the problems of unruly children.
-- As to negative reinforcement/system of punishment generally... I personally see it hard to get by without one. Even with children -- I reckon you might be able to avoid striking them, but I don't know about avoiding all other forms of punishment.
There are general questions to be asked about how far the power of the state should extend over the individual, but I'd agree with those who claim it should extend at least as far as regulating force between individuals. And I think prisons and police and the threat of punishment are necessary for this; at least at this stage of human evolution (who knows what humans might involve into in two million years?).
I don't believe current systems of punishment rehabilitate very much or teach anyone anything. But they are obviously efficacious in achieving certain results by way of prevention and deterrence.
This doesn't mean that I think prisons and police are ideal. I'm with the Confucians/Marxists/critical legal studies/Foucauldians/civic values folk who believe that increased regulation is inherently bad, even if it's necessary. And I'm with liberals and libertarians who think that increased government power is inherently bad.
Kant thought that it was possible to solve the problem of good government even for a race of devils; but most people these days tend to think you do need some sort of civic values...
Comment by The Voices in my Head
The Voices in my Head
The pictures you have displayed in relation to spanking a child is absolutely misleading and irresponsible. The pictures you show here are plain and simple abuse. There is a GREAT deal of difference between spanking a child and abusing them. If you do not see that, then there is no point in discussing the issue at all. But I will anyways...
What do you believe in as a suitable punishment? Time out? What about the parents who have left their children in time out for hours and days? What about children who are locked in their bedrooms. I am sure you would agree that time out is a suitable punishment, yes? As with any punishment, it, too, can be taken to extremes. As with anything, it is all a matter of self-control and not punishing a child when you are angry.
What about children who are starved? Raped? Adrian, there are far worse things out there and yet, you use inflammatory pictures to drive home your stand against spanking. It's a bit rediculous, Adrian.
And finally, Adrian, what right do you have to tell me how to raise my children? Is it alright that the law steps in to tell people how to raise their children as long as it sits well with you? What if the law started to step in regarding religion telling you that you must raise your children in a certain faith or not at all? It is all the same thing, whether you agree or not.
This is an irresponsible post in the sense that it doesn't show both sides...it shows your side. Your opinion, which is fine. However, make it known that those bruises did not come from a spanking but a beating. There is a world of difference between the two. Remember this, Adrian. Being a good writer means presenting facts...NOT sensationalism...quite frankly, I am surprised at the tilted view you have given here.
Voices~
Comment by Luke
Old Movies
Cane Toad Warrior
The fact is, some children need smacking.
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
If you're a good, considerate parent you don't need anything other than words to motivate your children. Resorting to violence to get your view across is cowardly, irresponsible and violates the right of young, impressionable people who need love and support especially if there's something they need to learn.
Unfortunately some ppl may get off on pictures like these, so I'd avoid showing them unless absolutely necessary.
Comment by Damo
They are different words but unfortunately I think your post is grouping them as one thing.
In the perfect world where children are all innocent results of a perfect enviroment no child would ever misbehave. Where this perfect world is I have no idea. Just try matching wits with a five year old and you will see what a true power struggle is. A theoretical system of solutions is great so long as the theory is based upon fact rather than supositions on human psychology and behaviour.
The questions is one of corperal punnishment and serverity. Not simply one of to smack or not to smack. The images you have selected show nothing more than child abuse and without question it is both illegal and adhorent to the vast majotrity of parents.
Just as adhorent to parents is psychological punnishments which is the other alternative to corperal punnishment. Perhaps one of the most damaging techniques I seen used is the 'Silent Treatment' of a misbehaving child. Socially alienate the child until it conforms but if the child refuses to conform then what do we have. Humiliation of a child is another form of punnishment. Which makes me ask why are you showing the faces of abused children? Would that be humiliating later in their lives?
Ultimately parents are resposnsible for the welfare of their children and answerable for what influences they give their children. Governments are not responsible for the raising of our children and it will be a cold day in Hell if I ever let them, but I digress.
Should you not be asking if all corperal punishment is wrong even if it causes no injury or psychological problems? On that issue rather than accusing the vast majority of parents of being child abusers, there could be a reasonable debate. Turning this into a legal issue would mean that children would see their parents punnished and sent to prison. Perhaps they would be removed from the parents and placed in foster care or a state run institution. I wonder how psychologically damaging that would be to the child. Let us not ask if the child would be haunted by guilt and self hatred by the such events, even if they are a real possibility.
Comment by Anonymous
A smack is a short sharp slap, which in 23 years of parenting (4 children) I have issued about 10 times in total, it never left a mark, longer that a red skin flush for a minute.
It worked.
Abuse is systematic beating, which I have never done, and am against.
It doesn't work, because it is not done as a discipline method, it is done because the parent is an abuser, not a caring loving parent.
When I have issued a smack I have done so with an explanation as to why they are getting it, what it is they have done wrong, and how they can do things right next time.
I have also done it as a last resort, they have been warned, ignored the warning, warned of the consequences of their action, ignored that, and then been given the smack. No they did not repeat their behaviour, as the 'experts' suggest.
And as usual, the 'experts' giving us this so called knowledge, are not parents themselves.
Comment by Sarah White
coolgirlsar to the rescue
One Too Many Chocolate Bars
Like others have mentioned there is a big difference between what you are saying a smack is and what others consider so. Those photos indicate more of a beating than just a tap on the hand/bum/leg/arm. I don't personally agree with smacking and try not to resort to that kind of punishment there are other methods to try first, but sometimes a child needs a tap on the hand to tell them no.
It is sad and so awful that there are poor children out there in the world who unfortunately do suffer at the hands of their parent/s/carer/s but those of us who are parents and darn good parents at that and don't abuse our children and love them dearly to bits shouldn't be chastised for a little tap on the hand.
But everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Out of interest how do you think a naughty child should be dealt with? Sorry if I missed you mentioning this I'm currently "under attack" from my 3 year old son and his crocodile.
Comment by Daressi
Kids should be spanked from time to time . In my opinion , when children does something wrong , parents should explain what is wrong with that action. If children does not respond to talk another step is spanking, or else I'm sure children will abuse parents. Discipline is very important for children development. I can not understand parents who allow everything to their children. Who likes Molly Codie kids? I don't that's for sure.
P.S. I don't have my own kids yet
Comment by Anonymous
You may be disgusted all you like. I have four children, who have all been spanked, not abused. They are lovely people who everyone loves to be around. They always have been. No one has ever rolled their eyes at me in a restaurant because I do not have control over my children. You make it sound as though your children misbehave, you talk to them in a loving voice and they never do it again. That is rediculous and you know it. One parent to another, that is utter bull.
Let me tell you a story about talking to your children only. My aunt felt similarly. She never spanked her children, nor did she ever raise her voice to them. My nephew was five years old. One day, they were outside playing in the front yard. My nephew took off running towards their lake in the back yard.
My aunt told him to come back, to not do it. He giggled and laughed, he didn't know any better. By the time she began screaming, 'NO!' he had run into the lake where he drowned...they managed to get him out, recuscitate him three times on the way to the hospital, where he went into a coma that he stayed in for the remainder of his life, until he was 14.
What happened here, PMC? Your technique didn't work here, did it? A child paid with their life for that mentality. How responsible was that? How loving was that? I would much rather known that the child was afraid of a swat on the behind than to think that running into a lake would carry no consequences. By the way, she talked to him about the lake EVERYDAY. It was a routine and she thought by the repetitive talking, it would help him to understand the danger.
If she had set boundaries with consequences in other areas, so that he understood that no meant NO and that to do otherwise, would have made him understand that when she said NO that day...he would have been afraid to go one step further. It would never have happened. He would still be alive today. It was a useless tragedy all for the sake of not wanting to use a punishment that would have kept that boy out of that lake.
Contrary to your disgusting opinion that people get off on smacking their children, my children were smacked -(not any longer and not in a long time, they have learned acceptable behavior)- to keep them out of lakes, to keep them from antagonizing dogs, to keep them safe and alive.
Regardless of whether you like it or not, this issue is not as clearcut, black and white (or blue) as you would have people think.
The only reason I am posting this anonymous is that my aunt, the same aforementioned aunt, does visit Orble. Otherwise I would have no problem displaying my name.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Too many things to respond to, but here's some general replies, mainly in reply to Voices.
Re the images. Now, they're from the anti-spanking website listed at the bottom of the post, and form part of the anti-spanking campaign there. They are comparable to advertisements that depict gruesome possible consequences to smoking, speeding, drink-driving, drugs, running across train tracks, etc.
People have objected that they are inappropriate and misleading and irresponsible. As to "inappropriate", I personally think such advertisements are perfectly legitimate: (1) on free speech grounds; and (2) in terms of the efficiency of conveying a message. As to "irresponsible", this seems to presume that spanking is fine before even asking the question.
As to "misleading"... Not everyone who smokes ends up with an amputated leg; not everyone who is spanked suffers this degree of physical harm. But doesn't the audience recognize the advertisement as an exaggeration designed to provoke thought or make a point? When I look at them, I see at least these three important allegations: (1) that these are possible consequences to spanking, however unlikely you think them, just as an amputated leg is a possible consequence to smoking; (2) that this degree of damage was acceptable to some parents/educators; and (3) that spanking and abuse are on a CONTINUUM; they are quantitatively, not qualitatively different.
Now, personally, I don't think these things are misleading (I think they're probably true). And I also think they are important things to say.
Re "what right do you have to tell me how to raise my children?", I don't understand this point at all. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying to someone "It's good to feed children omega-3 and bad to feed them McDonald's". So I don't think there's anything wrong with saying, "Some people believe that spanking is bad for your child -- and here are the arguments."
If the point is rather about the intrusion of government into the private realm, and the assertion of a parental "right" to do anything they like to their child, that is another discussion. But the entry point to it, as mentioned in my article, would be the counter-assertion of the "rights" of the child against the "rights" of the parent.
Part of my reason for posting this post was to make clear that I don't support child abuse, which seems to have been what people read into the previous series of posts on age of consent. Another reason was that I wanted to present the arguments of anti-spankers -- because I'm sympathetic to their claims (along with the United Nations, UNESCO, UNICEF, 16 countries, etc), and because, in Australia, this side appears to be the underdog, the never-argued-for side.
Now, I don't think it's inherently unfair to present one side to a discussion; and I don't believe my presentation was in manner unfair. For instance, it didn't fabricate anything. And I mention at the end of my post: "Now, what you make of these arguments will depend, of course, on a whole host of other beliefs you might hold. For instance, do you believe in human dignity and human rights, or is all rights-talk 'nonsense on stilts'? Are you persuaded by the psychological evidence? And how effective do you find alternative parenting techniques?"
I take it that most of the pro-spankers disagree because of one or more of these reasons. Some ask what alternatives there are; others express general cynicism of experts or argue from personal experience ("spanking is obviously justifiable in this scenario"; "spanking never hurts people in my experience", etc).
I mainly have three things to say in reply.
Firstly, there is a rights argument as well as a consequences argument. I think all the comments, without exception, address the latter and not the former.
Secondly, there is the question of blanket rule. To take an example from Nagster, there might be particular cases where speeding is justified, but it's better to past a blanket rule limiting kilometres per hour. -- So could it be the case that spanking is justified in particular cases, but that it is better, as a matter of policy, to impose a blanket prohibition, or a statuory presumption of "unjustified"?
Thirdly, I want to add the general note about the evidentiary worth of particular circumstances. The arguments people give are fair -- the commenter desribes an incident, places an interpretation on it, and makes a conclusion about the necessity or justifiability of spanking. And they might or might not be perfectly correct. But these things are hard to judge from another's perspective. How does the reader know, for instance, that the commenter is not mistaken about interpretation, options, necessity? And even if the particular case is correct, what does this prove about the matter in general? How else except by empirical investigation, statistical study, could a claim about spanking in general be substantiated?
Comment by Hope
Gifted Parenting
Freelance For Life
Comment by The Voices in my Head
The Voices in my Head
Here is my biggest problem with this post. It isn't so much with you personally. I have said it before and I will say it again, I love your writing. My problem stems from the fact, that aside from your obvious attempt to lure readers with inflammatory pictures, you have no children.
Yet, you find yourself worthy to tell parents how to raise their children. This all by itself is humorous. Despite your misguided attempt here to be an authority on this subject, children do not come with manuals..and no one has ever written a child rearing policy that works for every child...so you think you will be the first? That's a healthy self-esteem you have there, Adrian. Do some research on THAT.
I can't wait until the day your future children are raised, perfectly, without blemish from your parenting...Please, do post on that. No, in fact, write a book on it. It will be a runaway smash.
However, despite your complete lack of authority, much less personal experience to give pointers on parenting, your title did, in fact, tell me how to raise my children. I didn't ask for your advice. You do not have children. That is like a virgin giving advice on how to have the best sex. You may have read a lot of books on the subject...you may have seen a lot of pictures...maybe even a few videos, but Adrian, my friend, you are still a virgin.
One could also use your blanket rule statement in regards to your post, in which you suggest that children may not be harmed by sexual contact from an adult...put a blanket on that, Adrian. Quickly.
Voices~
Comment by Lilla
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
Before I go out in the garden for the day.... my heart goes out to these kids in your pictures... truly... how dreadful...I won't get into the semantics of whether they should be shown or not, because I believe the cause of the website you took them from ... and the reason for you taking them... is honest enough. Why is looking at beaten women (or men) any better than the horror of beaten children?
RELISATION 1 – So many children are ‘bad’ because parents have lost the ability to understand the value of nutrition and water upon the mind and body. Today's chemical cocktail diet may be responsible for much abuse on both sides.
I have two children and I have smacked both, once each when young... it wrenched my heart so much each time... I decided I would never smack them again... and I never have.
I agree there is a difference with a short smack and long abusive beatings… but by the same token, any parent will know that part of what children need to do is test their world boundaries and the safest place is through their parents and siblings. Part of the process is for kids to push against the parents as a microcosm of society to test how far they can go and what the limits and punishments are… Parents don’t own children true, but they must push back least the children not learn where societal boundaries are (as perceived by each family) or risk becoming rebels without a cause, destructive to themselves and those innocents around them. So, how does a parent push back with enough force to clearly allow the child the ability to understand that retribution can be swift and life can be lost by stepping over the lines of the rules...?
REALISATION 2 - Only totally selfish people are child abusers…. probably those who cannot cope themselves and are from a long line of abuse, or intolerance.
By spanking a child I quickly discovered I was not allowing my child to understand the mistake… like hitting a dog three days after it did do-doo’s. I had to become the first to take on the responsibility, hypocrisy was not going to cut the mustard… a rude awakening to realise I had to make sure that the child understood the rules first. I had to become a better person and change my world view... I had to work hard to understand motivation, behaviour and the change in peer pressures... basically it meant that I had to ENGAGE with my kids. Most of all I had to learn to LISTEN TO THEM and encourage them to speak openly (like this post) as the world changed.
I have not been able to wallow in the complacency of having reached the peak of a good life of my own… from which I can foist my viewpoint onto my children whose world is different to the one I lived in. Basically, I learnt that whilst core values remain the same throughout time… simple traditionalism and dogma for its own perpetuation would never be enough to be able to succeed in teaching correct behaviour and societal values.
REALISATION 3 – You teach best by example and not all abused children end up abusers themselves. Each child has a unique programming already inherent when they enter the world.
I learned early that I had to get educated and EXPLAIN EVERYTHING to remove doubt and fear!!! Kids have come to change the order, they know what they want to do and parents are here to help them reach their full potential… nothing short is good enough… that means change and sacrifice ... raising children is a world of compromise and exhaustion… especially when time is short (or gone) and you must be somewhere else… but I learned that the world was not as important as my kids .. Kids need your TIME, otherwise don’t have them.
REALISATION 4 – Child Abusers are sick people, and mental help should be mandatory within society.
By using open communcation channels and REASON my husband and I have not had to use physical abuse, 'time out" and long silences. I have seen what damage seething, silent parents have done to their young offspring...but reason and open conversation, offer a child the ability to reason for themselves and the irreplaceable (role model) truth that patience and tolerance is needed to maintain balance within established boundaries which offer protection.
Basically any parent will tell you that its never perfect, but I believe you have a head start if you practice what you preach … and the biblical sense of doing unto others what you would have them do unto you is never as prominent. You must remember that you were a teenager once yourself … don’t loose sight of it if you want an easy transition…
Remember; your children will be picking your nursing home one day… you are only a temporary phase, don’t ever think you are all that!
QUESTION – are abused children better off with an abusive parent or taken out of the situation into (possibly equally abusive) foster care?
Lilla ...
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
I'm sorry that for your aunt's loss. It sounds like even though she gave constant warning about the dangers of the lake she wasn't able to effectively articulate the risks involved, which brought sorrow to all. But just because she wasn't able to communicate in the best possible way doesn't in any way make spanking a viable alternative. (And I've seen children deliberately disobey their parents as a way of punishing *them* for being smacked.)
I am not a parent, nor do I have to be to firmly believe that the only acceptable way to impress something upon someone is in a non-violent way (by which I mean that the verbal equivalent of smacking is just as insensitive). There is no reason why children won't respond to a well-articulated evokation of danger, and the only pain that should be felt is that of not communicating well.
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
> QUESTION – are abused children better off with an abusive parent or taken out of the situation into (possibly equally abusive) foster care?
If there is someone willing to take up similiar responsibilities to a parent then I believe that child should be given the opportunity to be part of a non-abusive environment.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Lilla -- thanks for the feedback! I think your comment deserves to be elevated to the status of post.
Voices -- I don't presume to be an authority. The post presents the arguments of anti-spankers, and, at the end of it, I give my own opinion.
Is it fair to say that you're suggesting two things -- (1) that I'm not allowed to present such arguments unless I'm a parent; and (2) that I'm not allowed to have an opinion on the matter unless I'm a parent?
As to the first, I'd want you to elaborate why exactly you think that only parents can present arguments on parenting.
Consider if I said that I am a parent. Personally, I think this would make no difference to, "Studies report that violence lead to violence". The grounding of the statement doesn't, at least on the face of it, have anything to do with being a parent or not being a parent, or being for or against spanking.
As to the second, am I not allowed to think wife-beating bad unless I have a wife? Am I not allowed to not allowed to disagree with a politician unless I'm in his/her position? I personally think that people should have opinions on whatever they like, and should talk about them, and should openly leave them to be confirmed or refuted.
You also comment, regarding blanket rules, "One could also use your blanket rule statement in regards to your post, in which you suggest that children may not be harmed by sexual contact from an adult...put a blanket on that, Adrian. Quickly."
Okay, I've elaborated on this in that post. But, basically, my response is "Yes one could."
I'm assuming you would then make the claim that I'm inconsistent. And I'd have a lot to say to this, but perhaps the main thing is this.
"At the moment, I'm inclined to replace 'age of consent' with 'age of protection'. Under this model, people who cross whatever age is stipulated are presumed to have engaged in non-consensual relations -- but have the ability to demonstrate that there was in fact consent.
I don't have an opinion on what laws should be made in relation to spanking and children. But I wouldn't be unsympathetic to a law that had a similar presumption of wrongness -- open to being rebutted by a demonstration of justifiability."
Comment by Damo
Should we pay heed to all UNESCO or UN submissions or reports?
Since may don't get approval and many report contradict each other It starts to look like a very fallible source. There is always the chance these reports were influenced by a powerful lobby groups. Such a the recommendation that parent be prevented from searching their childrens rooms for drugs. "ref:Rights of the Child..."
Should Corperal Punishment be given the status of a violent act?
If so then anyone who has smacked their child for any reason, including most people in history, should now considered a criminal.
What is disaplin? Who has created the modern definition of it and what is their philisophical leanings. This could be just a Nurture vs Nature fight using children as the emotional weapons.
Who is ultimately responsible for the welfare of your children? The State or the Parents?
If you say the State, then what if it is an abusive state policy set up by ideologues? How many people are comfortable with every value that the State is trying to teach their children?
The psychology of it all?
Not an exact science by any stretch and is often prone to being discredited. There are a good number of people who have little trust in the community of psychologists because they have heard the strange thing some of these people have been pushing. "Repressed memories...." For every psychological theory in favour of one concept there are just as many against.
Comment by Daynah
It is more useful to find ways of helping parents to cope with the demands of life and their children. If new parents can be given instruction on positive ways of disciplining children they will be less likely to lose control of a situation or strike a child in anger. That said, in a life or death situation, you do what you have to do to get the message across. It's tough being a kid, but being a parent is often no picnic either.
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
If I was really bad, I got a smack. Now and then. Not alot.
I was never abused. I never felt abused. I never ever, what I would deem most important, felt UNLOVED.
My parents loved me, I knew it, and I always knew why I got a smack, those few times I got one.
That fact, plus the fact that i was never HARMED as obviously those in your pikkies were, is what I would say constitutes the difference between abuse and 'smacking'.
Comment by Chantal
I was smacked as a child, with the wooden spoon, twigs, etc. I was a pretty naughty child and my parents were great people. I have a healthy relationship with both of them to this day. My mum never wanted to smack her kids and by the time she got to my youngest brother, she resisted the urges even though we were terrors. I dont think being hit did me any damage and I certainly think I learnt each individual lesson.
Nowadays, the legality of hitting children is a bit different to how it was in my parent's day and in light of this, I think we have different expectations of what's appropriate.
Whilst I don't believe my parents did anything wrong then, I'm conflicted now. In a way hitting children is somewhat barbaric. Would it be appropriate to smack the bottom of a friend who did you wrong? Why, then would you do it to someone who a. probably doesnt know better and b. Is so much smaller than you.
I can't make an official judgement because as Voices has brought up, I am not a parent myself and who knows what my children will do and how I will react. I know my mother honestly never expected it would come to that.
I'd like to think I'd never hit my child and I'd like to think that with the law as it is, parents would set a good example and abide to it's terms. There are ways of disciplining a child that don't involve violence, no matter how "minor" it's considered to be.
Comment by KylieW
Celebrity Obsession
I love that you blog about topics that quite obviously (from the amount of negative comments I've seen) inflammatory to some people. However, I think need to be discussed (pushing them under the proverbial rug doesn't make it go away).
Obviously, the pic's that you've posted are evidence of abuse, not a smack.
Sometimes, when a child is a bit too young to understand reasoning, a think a little smack on the hand or something like that which gives them negative reinforcement that they associate with that action is not a bad thing necessarily. However, like anything, is not a solution in itself. Do I believe in grabbing the wooden spoon and giving your child a hiding for something? Absolutely not. A smack on the hand when your toddler goes up and tries to put his hand into the fan? Yes. I'd do that.
But then, I don't have kids, so I can't judge or say for certain what I'd do (though, I must disagree with a couple of comments left that say that you can't have an informed opinion on this if you don't have kids. Practical experience, no. But informed opinions...absolutely).
KylieW
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
Comment by PokerPro
But I recongise that there's always people who take it too far though.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Well, assume, firstly, that spanking works (though I personally think that, at best, you never secure obedience through force, but only compliance); secondly, that there's no other parenting technique available; and thirdly that the other problems associated with spanking are, in the particular circumstances, considered less important (issues like the child's psychological development, and trust between child and parent).
Well, when you ask about scope, there is a difference between the moral question and the legal question.
Legally, should a law be passed that, in its terms, outlaws spanking and leaves no scope? -- I'm less interested in this question, but it's being debated in New Zealand at the moment. I've pasted below one sort of argument that can be marshalled for it.
Morally, are there no exceptions?
Well, depends mainly, I think, on your moral beliefs regarding two issues: Is spanking morally wrong in itself? And, if so, can the means ever justify the end? So there are four cases, though I think they simplify to three. But, personally, I'd answer your question "Yes". Yes, there are conceivably exceptions.
1. You don't believe spanking is wrong. In this case, the question of "means vs ends" doesn't arise. It only arises when something stands in need of justification. The question of the appropriateness of spanking becomes purely a consequential one, and little different from "Are there times when one should write with ballpoint rather than with pencil?". There might be situations where there are only good consequences, or where good consequences outweigh the bad.
So in this case the answer to your question is "Yes".
2. You do believe spanking is wrong, and you don't believe the means justifies the ends. This sort of position is familiar when speaking of human rights generally. Would you torture an innocent person to save a million people, etc? Would you violate a right for the sake of consequences? Some people wouldn't.
If you believed this, the answer to your question is "No".
3. You believe that spanking is wrong, and that the ends sometimes justifies the means. If you believe this, then the answer to your question is "Yes". There is scope for spanking, because there are possible circumstances where the end justifies the means.
How common these circumstances are, and whether in practice you'd recognize them, are different questions...
=====
"The Press", 24/02/2007, Editorials, Page 21
"A ban on smacking is the right way forward for New Zealand"
The passing of the anti-smacking bill through its second reading at Parliament was a welcome step towards dealing with child abuse. It is to be hoped that the law change’s tentative progress signals a new responsibility in the way New Zealand children are treated by their parents.
But the measure still faces major hurdles in its remaining parliamentary stages, notably from a proposed amendment in the name of National MP Chester Borrows, which would render Green MP Sue Bradford ’s bill almost meaningless.
Those MPs who had the courage to support the bill ’s second reading should not now allow its anti-smacking message to be diluted as it works its way through the crucial stages to becoming law.
Smacking children is an issue which can arouse strong emotions.
The opposition to Bradford ’s bill is derived from a "spare the rod" mentality and the fear of the intrusion of State authorities into the rights of parents to discipline their children.
Just how far the most extreme and irrational opponents of the bill will go was shown by the CYFS Watch website death threat against Bradford this week.
But MPs have an obligation not to be cowered by the fear of a middle-class or religious backlash against them if they vote for the bill. In this respect, Labour adopted the smart tactic of block voting on the issue, making it more difficult for any of its individual MPs to be targeted for supporting the measure.
Other MPs who supported the bill’s second reading but are now wavering should also stand firm.
They must regard the bill as an opportunity to demonstrate their own boldness and leadership by doing what is right for society, not what might seem politically expedient for themselves. That is part of the responsibility which should go with being a member of Parliament. They should not contemplate supporting the weak-kneed compromise being promoted by Borrows, which would still allow a parent to administer a trifling slap, defined as one which causes redness but only for a short time. In effect, it would create the logical absurdity of inserting a smacking provision into an anti-smacking bill and is simply an attempt to curry favour with those who want to retain the parental right to administer corporal punishment.
Trying to define what is trifling or transitory physical punishment has the potential to become a legal minefield. More importantly, it goes completely against the intent and the spirit of Bradford ’s bill. She quite correctly says that if Borrows’ amendment is passed, then there is no point in her bill proceeding at all, and it should be withdrawn.
Those MPs contemplating supporting the Borrows amendment should be reminded of the recent Unicef report which found that New Zealanders ranked towards the bottom of developed nations in taking care of their children. The report was simply the latest in a seemingly endless stream of evidence of the extent of child abuse in this country.
By itself, the anti-smacking bill is not a complete answer to New Zealand ’s child-abuse problem, but it is one necessary measure in tackling this social ill. It sends a clear message about what is acceptable in the treatment of children -- and that violence is unacceptable.
Those who raise the spectre of the police intruding into law-abiding families and asking trivial questions about the discipline of children are being far-fetched; they should reflect on another scenario, that perhaps the police will be able to use a law change to more effectively intervene earlier in families suffering domestic violence.
Smacking is a form of discipline which belongs to another age.
Other forms of legalised violence have been outlawed, including the administering of corporal punishment in schools, which was banned almost two decades ago. The home should be at least as much a sanctuary to a child as the classroom.
Bradford’s anti-smacking bill will not prevent the worst cases of child abuse, such as the death of the Kahui twins, for the origins of this sort of violence lie deep in our society. But the bill will play an important role in driving a change in attitude towards the treatment of children. It should be passed without amendment.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
THE person(s) behind the Internet threats against Sue Bradford demonstrate why we must repeal section 59.
If someone is so incensed at not getting their own way that they would contemplate violence to make their point, then one equally needs to be concerned about the safety of children in their care.
[...]
David Hill
from Oamaru
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by PokerPro
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
There seem to be two key arguments against the proposed anti-smacking legislation.
The first, and perhaps the most spurious, is that, "I was smacked and it never did me any harm". This reasoning would never have allowed us to develop as a society; it is a resignation to the status quo.
The second argument revolves around parents’ rights. What about the rights of the child? At no other time in life is physical abuse permitted against another. Why should children be different? The need to smack children ultimately stems from another issue that must be addressed in conjunction with this legislation. Parents are not taught how to parent and many lack the communication skills to discipline their children in more appropriate, non-violent ways.
Parents often smack their child for being naughty without trying to understand why the child behaved so. And there is always a reason, we just need to work to find it.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
This one is a little more centrist -- it wants there to be an anti-spanking bill, but its attitude to spanking is much more permissive than mine.
Marlborough Express, 14/03/07 Editorials, page 4
Support the anti-smacking bill
Today MPs get to debate MP Sue Bradford’s controversial anti-smacking bill. Intense lobbying means the MPs have come under a lot of pressure in deciding how to cast their votes. This time it is not politics that should dictate their decision, but the welfare of children. This is an important opportunity to send a message that violence against children is unacceptable.
That point has got lost in the confusion over what the bill and various amendments might mean as it has laboured through Parliament's legislative process. Ms Bradford's intention is to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act which allows reasonable force for parents to smack their children.
The problem has been defining what is reasonable force. Court decisions have lacked consistency.
While a New Plymouth jury decided that a father smacking his four-year-old son which caused bruising was unreasonable, a Timaru jury found it reasonable that a mother hit her 13-year-old son with a riding crop and a bamboo cane.
In a climate of despair over repeated child abuse in this country, Ms Bradford has sought to make it clear through the law that it is not okay to hit children. It is a move MPs and the public should be clamouring to support. Instead there has been a shameful barrage of opposition with lobbyists condemning it. Their greatest concern is that smacking a child could become a criminal offence. This is an overreaction to a well-intentioned piece of legislation.
A select committee that has considered the bill has added a clause allowing a parent to use reasonable force to stop a child engaging in offensive or disruptive behaviour. It also added another which allows parents to use reasonable force for the purpose of performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting. This is a common-sense response which recognises that parents are not going to let their children rule the roost or run out of control.
To suggest that the police are going to regularly arrest parents for lightly smacking their children is ridiculous. The police will have guidelines and will be able to make judgement calls in the same way as they do with other allegations.
The intent of the legislation is to stop violent parenting. A law change in itself will not do that, it has to be part of a wider educational push to change attitudes, but it might make a parent pause before lashing out.
The bill is not PC madness, it is a chance for MPs to help to make a difference for the better in our community. They should vote for the bill.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Tapu Misa
New Zealand Herald, 14/03/07, page 17
Cycle of violence must end
After my last epistle on parenting and the repeal of section 59, a reader asked how many children I have. Three, I said, thinking how much more impressive it would have been for my parenting credentials if I’d been able to say seven.
But with only three, I felt bound to add, a touch defensively, that they were nice kids and not the out-of-control spoilt brats who, we’re constantly told, are running amok in the country’s supermarkets.
[...]
Of course, everyone talks about investing in children, but more often than not it’s just lip-service. Will we be able to say in 10 or 15 years time that we’ve done everything we could have done in this country to take care of all our children?
Not on the evidence so far.
Take that Unicef report which placed New Zealand at the bottom of the OECD for children dying from accidents or injury, and in the bottom third for immunisation rates, teenage pregnancies, the length of time parents spent with their kids, and having parents out of work.
Or the lament of Family Court chief judge Peter Boshier about the increasing callousness of young offenders -- many born just after National’s tough love programme of benefit cuts and market rents.
Or the 2006 report of the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, which gave us three out of 10 for the care and protection of children, and urged all political parties to publicly acknowledge "the collective responsibility of all New Zealanders to ensure the care and protection of all children".
The council said "poverty, social exclusion and family violence" was a continuing reality for too many children.
So I’d really rather not talk about smacking again, except that as Maori Party leader Tariana Turia noted in a speech last month, "the decision to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act is exactly the type of investment we need to be making if we are committed to our children living in an environment free of violence".
It was critical that "a line in the sand be drawn ... the time has come for a strong message of no hitting to be promoted in every possible way".
And hardly anyone disagrees with that. MPs from all sides of the House accept that Parliament needs to send a clear message "to lower the threshold of violence against children in this country"; that section 59 was being "used as a shield to conviction by some parents and guardians who have obviously abused their children"; and that children should have the same protection as adults under this country’s law.
So what’s the problem? For Turia it’s the fear that Maori and Pacific Island parents are the ones most likely to be "targeted and criminalised".
But given the higher risk of abuse for Maori and Pacific Island children, it’s fair to say that this is where the message needs to be heard loudest.
A doctor, arguing against Sue Bradford’s bill, tells me that he’s witnessed frequent and inappropriate use of physical discipline against children by Maori and Pacific Island parents, that they are "the prime users of excessive physical discipline" and that "this form of physical discipline is well known to result in impulsive violent acts later in life".
I wish I could disagree with that, but I’ve too often witnessed it myself.
There have been many times I’ve wanted to intervene, with the full force of the law behind me.
The bill, as amended by select committee, allows parents to forcibly remove a child from danger, or physically restrain them from hurting themselves and others.
Despite the scaremongering, parents won’t be prosecuted for enforcing timeout -- not under this bill, anyway. That’s already covered under Section 209 of the Crimes Act, as a technical kidnapping.
You might have noticed there haven’t been many prosecutions under that, either.
Comment by Mom of two mentally disabled sons
If you spank a child out of an angry reaction to what they have done … THAT IS ABUSE!!!
Anytime you raise your hand to your child out of YOUR ANGER, that constitutes ABUSE not punishment.
If you smack them because you are mad, how is that a punishment for what they have done? It’s not, it is punishment for pissing you off, ummm where’s the logic in that? What did you teach them?? Not to do it or to fear what might happen if they piss you off? So the point here is for them to FEAR you? If that is the case then how are they to come to you when they need help or something serious happens in their lives? Your choice to spank that way isn’t punishing them .. That’s you losing control of your temper at a child’s actions, which is ABUSE.
I do have to say from a psychological standpoint that when you discuss the spanking issues, those that spank and support it, I find more likely than not to respond in a violent rant in favor of spanking, and to me that points to the volatile nature itself of spanking and not being in control of ones emotions. I Can only imagine throwing out that type of uncontrolled anger towards a child when they piss you off and the type of spanking they get from that uncontrolled reactionary anger.
I will finish my statements with the following information, I have two boys, with the following diagnoses.
17 yr old, Bipolar with psychotic tendencies, OCD, ADHD, Learning Disabled, Asperger Traits, Tardive Dyskinesia, Scoliosis with 10 degree curve.
13 yr old, Autistic with Sensory Integration Disorder, OCD, ADHD, Learning Disabled, Bipolar Type I, Tardive Dyskinesia, and Tourettes.
They have had years of therapy of all kinds, speech, ot, pt, sensory etc, also gone to so many doctors, pediatricians, developmental pediatricians, neurologists, neuro psychiatrists, regular psychiatrists, endocrinologists, gastrointerologists, and so on , so many in fact that I have lost count, but despite all they have been through I am proud to say they are both in regular education and both are honor roll students and the oldest was just inducted into the national honors beta club.
So it can be done, parents just need to put some thought into parenting, if you try you can come up with other ways.
Some examples used on my kids:
Get a dictionary, tell them they have to copy so many pages as their punishment, the learn while they are punished, but they don’t know that. Also if they complain about it, keep adding a page, warn them to stop fussing about it once more and you add 2 pages and so on until the fussing stops and the punishment starts being implemented.
Have them mow the laws of the elderly or disabled in your neighborhood. Have no one like that in your neighborhood then have them mow any neighbors yard or your families or friends yards. This includes raking leaves, etc.
Have them scrub the outside decks.
Have them volunteer at local shelters, so something good is coming out of them being bad and they can see how grateful they should be for what they have, yet are giving to those who aren’t as fortunate as they are.
I have literally thrown out my oldest sons tv, when repeated other punishments failed to work. Too many parents go, oh my I wouldn’t do that, I paid good money for that, well guess what? An item shouldn’t be more important than your child learning right from wrong. And oddly enough a 13 inch tv that sucked before because it was so small is an awesome thing when the kid has to earn the money to get another one. All the sudden that 13 inch tv is totally cool, cause they can’t go without it and it takes too long to get the money together to get a bigger one and guess what? He never did that same thing again so there was no reason to toss out another tv.
Have them scrub floors
Clean windows
Blow the driveway
Clean out the garage
Etc. etc, you get the picture. There are other ways, plus when you discipline like this, they learn necessary life skills for when the day comes that they leave the home on their own.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
I don't have much to say in reply... But here's some thoughts.
You make me wonder... How can the difference between spanking and beating ever be clearly defined? By the number of slaps? By the degree of force? By the type of implement used to deliver the strike? By the wrongness of the action being punished (if it's a punishing blow)? By the gravity of the danger averted (if it's meant to be some sort of preventative blow)?
It seems to me an impossible area in which to give crystal guidelines...
I don't know what the implications of this vagueness are, but I suspect the fact could be used both pro- or anti-smacking. For instance, it could argue for greater parental discretion, or for greater encouragement of not smacking.
I'd agree... I pretty much think NO action should be taken out of anger...
You make me think of criminal law in general. When you set the sentence for an offender, you take into account prevention of crime, deterrence of future crime, setting an example for the community -- and then you take into account the community's interest in retribution.
But what's retribution? It's something like revenge, or an eye for an eye, right? It's the satisfaction of the community's anger and sense of what justice demands.
I personally don't believe that criminal law should be retributive at all... I'm in the minority... But if a person does believe in retributive justice, then that's some sort of basis for arguing that one should (or that people do) take retribution into account when punishing children -- that child punishment is not just about the child's well-being...
There have been cases in the New Zealand context where anti-smacking politicians have received death threats, and threats against their children! And, presumably, it's precisely because of these sorts of people that a government might want to lessen or take away parental discretion over what's appropriate and inappropriate use of force...
But (though this isn't what you're doing) one should be careful about writing off the whole anti-smacking position based on a few whackos, you know...?
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
=====
Herald Sun 19/5/07, page 16
By Carla Danaher
Most parents still smack kids
DESPITE a growing anti-smacking movement, a new report reveals that most parents still smack their children.
A Queensland survey of parents found that 71 per cent smacked their kids occasionally.
When asked how likely parents were to use smacking as a means of punishment, 43 per cent said they were likely or very likely to give a single smack with their hand.
And 10 per cent of parents said they were likely or very likely to spank their child more than once with their hand or another object, like a wooden spoon or belt.
Report author Prof Matt Sanders said the findings were a wake-up call to educate parents about alternatives to smacking.
"It’s still a reflection that we’ve got a long way to go," Prof Sanders said.
"I think that when parents are using a lot of corporal punishment it’s often a reflection that they’re not aware of more positive alternatives." The study, conducted by the University of Queensland’s Parenting and Family Support Centre, also found one in three parents reported their child had a behavioural or emotional problem in the previous six months.
Twenty per cent of parents reported being stressed and 5 per cent were depressed in the two weeks before the survey.
Australian Childhood Foundation CEO Joe Tucci said the number of parents who smacked had dropped significantly in the past 20 years.
==
Rich: My smacking guilt
by David Fisher
NATIONAL'S ONLY remaining supporter of the anti-smacking legislation has spoken for the first time about the guilt she has felt smacking her own children.
Education spokeswoman Katherine Rich, a mum of two, has also spoken of being isolated on the issue in her own caucus as the few supporters for the bill have vanished.
Rich ’s sole remaining compatriot Waitakere-based MP Paula Bennett is expected to pull her support on Tuesday as a poll of West Aucklanders shows little support for it.
Other National MPs who initially indicated they would support it -- Simon Power, Jackie Blue and Paul Hutchison -- have already fallen in line with the rest of their caucus in opposing it.
The issue is expected to flare up again this week when the legislation returns to Parliament on Wednesday. Rich, who lives in Dunedin with husband Andrew and children Jonathan and Georgia, said she would never smack her children again but had smacked her son a handful of times in the past.
"I smacked Jonathan a couple of times but I’m deeply ashamed of that. I’ve thought about those situations and it was more to do with my tiredness and inability to cope than trying to find genuine ways of directing him.
"The time when I just totally lost it because ... sometimes you just lose all tolerance ... he turned around to me and said, 'Mummy, why did you do that, you ’re supposed to be happy’.
"I decided very early on it didn’t serve any purpose. I recall seeing the fear on his face when I raised my hand. I realised I was the one out of control -- he was just being a child." She said one of the two occasions that she could remember smacking, came after Jonathan had placed himself in danger.
"I realised how silly it was to deliver a message about safety by hitting someone. It would have been better to pick him up and remove him from the situation." Rich said she was hesitant to tell others how to raise their children. But, in her household, the family now used 'time-out’ for the children, or television bans, to deal with misbehaviour. She could recall being smacked once as a child after breaking glass in the family lounge while bouncing a netball off the wall.
"This debate touches everybody ’s life. The reason grandparents are exercised about it is because they perceive this whole debate as being a reflection on their parenting. It shouldn ’t be about judging people." She said she was not expecting to be left as the lone National Party voice supporting the bill.
"It’s not really as I had predicted.
"But you don’t change your mind because it gets lonely." Years of research and much thought had gone into her decision to support Green MP Sue Bradford ’s bill, which removes a defence for assault for parents who use physical discipline on children. It was a serious decision because it was out of step with the party’s view.
"At the start, it wasn’t just me. But should I change my mind because I’m the last one?
"You come to Parliament to make judgements and this has been one of the biggest political issues. Sometimes it ’s important to just show some strength.
"Should I collapse in a great heap now because it ’s tough? What kind of a decision maker would you be if you flip-flopped because you ’re on your own." Rich said she had been lobbied by fellow National MPs, but she had not actively sought support in the party.
She had also decided not to voice her views in Parliament, where many MPs have opted to speak on the issue. "That is out of respect for the party. Its position is pretty clear." She hadn’t expect her stand to have wider implications. "There are always consequences of holding an alternative position." In this case, the consequence was that she stood out and her family became a target when one smacking advocate made a threat aimed at Rich’s children. "That rocked me to my core. When we go into politics you expect a certain amount of criticism. It ’s quite a different thing when your family are involved, particularly when you have small kids. That would be the toughest period." She said she was "surprised" the police had decided not to lay charges but would not question the decision. "She’s a mother with a young baby herself and I don ’t want to add to the challenges she’s already facing. I know what that ’s like." Rich also spoke against the pro-smacking lobby’s support for the Timaru woman who was found not guilty of assault after discipling one of her children with a riding crop.
The woman is currently facing fresh assault charges relating to another of her children.
"There has been some unfortunate hysteria about this issue. Take the Timaru horsewhip lady -- she should pipe down because there is more to that case than the media is reporting.
The pro-smackers should not use her as a poster girl for parenting."Many extreme and public cases of child abuse involved parents who thought they were using appropriate force," said Rich. The repeal of Section 59 would send a message that using physical force against children was not appropriate.
"Criminalising is such an emotive word. If you drive at 101km/h, that doesn ’t make you a criminal. But if you drive at 140km/h, then it’s far more clear-cut.
"The whole debate has been about parents’ rights. Most of the debate I ’ve listened to hasn’t been about children at all. I believe children should have the same rights as adults with assault laws. Parents will still smack their kids. This bill won ’t stop child abuse but it sure helps convict the people who engage in it." Ideally, said Rich, she would rather parents stopped smacking altogether. "You won’t stop it because a lot of it happens when parents are at their wits’ end.
"But it would be good if we found other ways to guide our children."
==
Canberra Times, 7/4/07, page 2
Parents told not to smack
A $2.5 million taxpayer funded campaign to warn parents not to smack their children has drawn mixed responses from parent groups arid child experts.
The guidelines will be issued by a child welfare agency supported by the Federal Government and will be available in 16 languages.
The Every Child is Important program, developed by The Australian Childhood Foundation, advises parents that smacking children teaches them that violence is acceptable later in life.
The foundation says physical punishment can have an adverse impact on children ’s emotional development and "teaches children that violence can be an acceptable way to solve problems".
"Physical punishment can undermine a child’s sense of love and security," the guidelines say.
"They can often become anxious, fearful or rebellious." Chief executive of the Australian Childhood Foundation Dr Joe Tucci said parents should not have to hurt children to teach them a lesson.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
===
Daily Telegraph, 09/06/07, page 9
PM didn’t smack but it’s up to parents
PRIME Minister John Howard has never smacked his children but doesn’t want it outlawed because he does not want to tell parents how to discipline their children.
An anti-smacking law passed in New Zealand last month prompted the Australian Democrats to call for the Federal Government to protect children from physical punishment.
A taxpayer-funded campaign is also discouraging the practice.
When asked if he had ever smacked his three children, Mr Howard said: "No, actually I was a bit of a softie in relation to that.
"We were not into, sort of, physical discipline.
"That’s us. I’m not telling other parents how to run their lives." The Prime Minister said that disciplining children was entirely a matter for parents.
"I do not believe the law should be changed," he said.
"There are laws which punish people who abuse children. But reasonable discipline is not abuse.
Can’t we just have a commonsense approach to these things?"
====
Courier Mail, 02/06/2007, Qweekend, page 12
Is it okay to smack your children?
DR JOE TUCCI CEO, Aust. Childhood Foundation, Sydney: Children don’t have to be hurt in order to learn a lesson. They learn through repetition. Adults don’t pick things up the first time round, neither do kids. Smacking might stop them from doing what they’re doing but it doesn’t shape their behaviour, which is what you’re trying to do.
GABRIELLE WALSH, Australian Family Association, Melbourne: As a parent of seven kids, I believe it’s a useful tool if used as a last resort in a range of strategies, and certainly not in anger.
LIZ GARDNER, Nurse, QEII Family Centre, Canberra: We are mandated to report any smacking. If we felt it was abuse, we would report it.
PROFESSOR MATT SANDERS, Clinical psychologist, founder Positive Parenting Program (Triple P), St Lucia: The problem is that when parents get angry, they can whack harder. They can bruise the kid. We would never recommend it. It models aggression. And no-one else can whack your children. By law, teachers can’t whack your kids. It creates a form of inconsistency.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Abbott call sparks outrage
Corporal punishment in schools could be the answer to a spiralling discipline problem, federal Health Minister Tony Abbott said today.
He made the controversial comment after watching footage of a vicious attack on a Melbourne schoolgirl.
The grainy vision from a mobile phone showed a teenage girl repeatedly kicked in the head and body by two other teenagers.
Abbott said the footage showed that current methods of discipline in schools were not working.
"I mean, we've taken corporal punishment out of the schools because we think that's brutal and yet our playgrounds seem to be becoming more brutal than ever," he told Channel 9 today.
"Maybe a little bit more discipline in the schools would prevent some of the ugliness that we've just seen."
Corporal punishment was outlawed in NSW schools more than 10 years ago.
The Federation of Parents and Citizens Association of NSW spokeswoman Sharon-Roni Briggs said Abbott's comments were a cause for concern and did not reflect community opinion.
"The P&C Federation have serious concerns about this," she said.
"Bringing back corporal punishment might be something Tony Abbott is personally interested in, but certainly solving violence with violence is never the solution.
"There are reasons it was outlawed in the first place."
Abbott said punishment in schools was a different situation in his day.
"When I was a kid at school, if you got up to mischief you were punished -- not severely, but nevertheless you were punished."
Comment by Kris Osterhout
Just...wow.
I have seen some people on here with views so alarming that I personally wish I could alert the authorities.
In response to all who feel "a little slap" is the responsible thing to do: we have programs in the world who spend millions of dollars to ensure that animals don't get "a little slap". When dogs get more preferential treatment than children, things are wrong with this society.
As a person who has taken four years of Advanced Leadership Training, let me tell you -- there are hundreds of ways to motivate and create purpose, all without physical threatening.
Long story short -- if you spank your child, it shows you are ignorant. You cannot think of another way to get your child to do what you want other than bullying. You cannot find an intellectual alternative (and there are hundreds of alternatives).
Think about it this way - the bully on the playground gets the money from the nerd...how? By exerting their physical superiority. They certainly aren't the smartest group of people.
If you hit, you have ran out of options. If you've run out of options, you've stopped trying. It equates to giving up on your children.
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
Dear Kris,
Thanks very much for the comment. I suppose one thing that I need to add to this post (when I've got time) is a list of alternative measures to spanking.
Another thing I should do is go deeper into the reasons why spanking is claimed to be ineffective. But I suspect people will claim, among other things, that an aversion is more likely to attach to the punisher than the crime.
=====
Another newspaper quotation, to add to the collection... Text of this is somewhat scrambled, but you'll get the gist. I suppose one issue is how to know the difference between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" force.
Mercury (Hobart), 15/9/07, page 38
Parental control vs the law
This woman was convicted of assault this week for smacking her daughter but it’s more complex than that, as MARIA RAE reports
THROUGHOUT her trial, Michelle Cooper sat wide-eyed and bewildered as to how she’d ended up in the dock.
Like most teenage girls, her 14-year-old daughter had a rebellious streak. As in most relationships between mothers and daughters, there were heated exchanges.
Yet unlike most parents, the mother of seven resorted to a violent act of discipline that landed her in front of a jury on a criminal charge.
For some time Cooper’s daughter had been testing the boundaries of her freedom with both parents. While living with her father conflict was common and she was often grounded. At the girl’s suggestion, she moved out and went to live with her 46-year-old mother at Primrose Sands, south of Hobart but her difficulty with parental control continued.
Cooper tried grounding the girl as well in an effort to curb her waywardness. With growing desperation and as the relationship became more strained, she turned to counselling and her local doctor to help her but nothing seemed to work.
Mother and daughter ended up in tense arguments and at times the teenager, who was taller than Cooper, would raise her fists and voice in frustration.
On May 15 last year Cooper learned her daughter was sneaking out at night to meet boys.
She went to find her and realised the girl had wagged school with a friend.
It was that kind of behaviour Cooper was concerned about and struggling to cope with.
In what Justice Peter Evans called an "overzealous and misguided" endeavour, she tried to teach her daughter a lesson. Using lace curtains, she tied up the girl, facedown and starshaped, to bunk beds, pulled down the girl’s tracksuit pants and underwear and struck her up to five times with a wooden hearth brush on the buttocks.
The blows were hard enough to make the girl suffer the humiliation of wetting herself. She began crying and after Cooper fetched her a towel, she was untied and told to clean herself up.
Cooper had got the idea of using the usually innocuous household item while listening to an anecdote at a funeral: the deceased’s son had related in his speech how his mother once used a hearth brush to bring him into line.
Cooper may have decided then it was a socially acceptable way to control a child.
However, this week a jury found her guilty of a criminal act and she was convicted of assault.
The judge, recognising her actions in trying to stop her daughter taking risks had backfired, did not sentence her. He indicated she’d suffered enough after losing the care of both the girl and a younger daughter.
He described her as a mother of "mixed success" who would have to live with the consequences of her actions.
"I do not consider it necessary to punish her further," said Justice Evans.
Adolescent psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg says it saddens him the relationship reached the point of violence.
He believes corporal punishment just doesn’t work with teenagers. As the author of The Princess Bitchface Syndrome: Surviving Adolescent Girls, he’s well aware of the trials that accompany parenting.
"Teenage brains are a work in progress," he says. Until they are fully formed at the age of 23, he says their ability to control impulses and plan ahead are not what girls are good at; also, at 14, being with their friends is the only thing a teenager wants.
"You can’t make a teenage girl do anything," he says. "They have a particularly sensitive issue to control." Using certain language can trigger the sensitivity so that the parent will lose every single time.
"There comes a time when the kid will dig their heels in because they don’t think they’re being heard," he says. "If you shout at a kid, they’ll just shout back. Kids learn what they live." He says the key is to remain calm and seek a compromise. "What would have been a better strategy is negotiation," he says.
However, if a child is acting in an aggressive and unruly manner, he says, there may be something underlying the behaviour that needs specialist attention.
"It goes beyond the family doctor," he says.
Qualified child psychologists would be able to determine whether a child has a mental illness, such as depression or anxiety.
The state’s Children’s Commissioner Paul Mason has sympathy for Cooper because he says the present laws blur the lines of what is acceptable in disciplining children.
"You don’t need a licence to become a parent and you don’t learn how to deal with difficult children," he says.
He says it’s clear the mother was concerned about her daughter’s behaviour.
"The way she went about it crossed the line," he says. "I sympathise with her because parents generally seem to believe that defence entitles them to hit their children.
"The law does no such thing," he says. "It’s still a criminal offence." It leads also to ambiguity, he says, about when pain and harm are acceptable to employ.
"Pain is not OK and harm is not OK," he says. "It harms a child’s psychology and makes them more likely to be law-breakers and bullies -- school bullies are assaulted at home and that’s where they learn it." He says corporal punishment is ineffective because it fails to teach a child.
If the defence of "reasonable force" is abolished, he argues that parents will find other ways to get children to comply.
At this stage the State Government is not considering changes to the law; Attorney-General Steve Kons says changes are not necessary because of other laws.
"The child protection and family violence legislation both address the question of violence within families, both physical and emotional, and enable an appropriate response," he says.
to know when she’s crossed that line." For Mason, the case has again raised the issue that the defence of using reasonable force to correct a child should be abolished.
In arguing in Cooper’s case, Crown prosecutor Catherine Rheinberger used the example of a parent forcefully pulling their child away from a road and smacking them as an act which the jury might find reasonable.
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
Showing the effects of violence
AN INFANT’S brain is hardwired according to what they experience in the first three years of their life.
Repeated exposure to violence can set them on the course to learning difficulties, relationship problems and a life of crime, according to the Brainwave Trust.
The charitable trust aims to give children the best chance in life by educating people about the impact violence has on the brain ’s architecture in children under three.
Police officer Jane Valentine-Burt recently spoke to 30 people at Whangarei ’s Family Violence Interagency Forum, facilitated by Whangarei police.
The forum includes a range of agencies which deal with family violence situations.
International research shows repeated exposure to violence - even just hearing shouting and hitting - can negatively effect infant ’s brain development, says Ms Valentine-Burt.
"Just watching or being in the house where it ’s happening is enough," she says.
The trust promotes early intervention and education.
"We want education for parents so they understand what they ’re doing around their children is going to have a life-long effect."
Ms Valentine-Burt says if young children are exposed to violence, their brain becomes wired for hyper-arousal.
In the long-term it affects their learning, their reactions, their relationships and often leads to a life of crime.
"They don’t learn that human beings are trust-worthy or that the world is a safe place," she says.
Ms Valentine-Burt has worked for 11 years as family violence coordinator for the police.
She is currently on leave without pay to spread Brainwave Trust’s message to community leaders, judges, doctors and agencies.
"The message is that children need to stop being exposed to that violence by whatever measures," she says.
Karen Edwards, Whangarei police family violence co-ordinator, says very often police see children under three involved in family violence situations.
The Whangarei Family Violence Interagency Forum has been meeting monthly since the start of the year to have a co-ordinated approach to family violence.
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
Labour's backing for the smacking legislation which removes the defence of reasonable force for parents facing child abuse charges sparked one of its biggest declines in popularity since it got into government.
The latest poll shows Labour back on the path to recovery, with 40 per cent support, just 5 points behind National. But it suggests some concerns about government interference have stuck.
Six months on from the introduction of the new smacking laws, however, those working at the coalface say fears that sparked the backlash have proved unfounded.
Police are due to release a major review of the change within weeks, but family law and child welfare experts say there has been no noticeable change to the way child violence is being reported.
There have been just two media reports of possible cases of parents being reported for smacking, with no action taken, while Child, Youth and Family reports there has been no significant rise in child abuse notifications since the law change.
Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro said there had been a campaign run by Christian fundamentalist groups which ordinary parents had become caught up in.
Their [aim] is to run a bigger political agenda and I think they need to be honest about that. I think they used this as a tactic to position a bigger political debate. Since the change the sky hasn’t fallen in, parents haven’t been charged in overwhelming numbers and children haven't been ripped from their families because they received a smack on the hand.
Police Association spokesman Stuart Mills said the anecdotal evidence was that not much had changed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen a lot of people at the courts for assaults on their children for minor smacking.
Comment by lindalue
If a teacher or principal inflicts this type of wound on a child and you report it to child protective services as child abuse you will be told they have nothing to do with anything that happens at school, you must contact the school superintendent. The school Superintendent has a vested interest and is not impartial.
In some states such as Mississippi if that school employee followed the school policy they have ammunity from civil suit.
If corporal punishment is legal in your state the school may be able to administer corporal punishment without your consent.
There are many questions I have concerning this issue such as, If you allow someoneto hit your child how can you know the temperment of that person? The amount of force they are going to use? There can also be a sexual component, how do you know their intent? We as parents can opt out corporal punishment but the child is often given a choice between CP or another form of punishment. Children often choose CP, if they choose it then do you really think it is an effective form of punishment? It is estimated that 1%to 2% of children who recieve corporal punishment seek medical attention. I find that alarming.
Who is going to stand up and protect our children in school? If we inflict these types of wounds it is child abuse. But if they do it we as parents basically have no rights. What is wrong with this picture??
Comment by Marius
- "Back in the day" doesn’t exist. Children across any nation repeatedly, not once or twice, but repeatedly broke rules that required them to be disciplined by their parents or school. Children and teenagers were just as "bad" as they are today, 30, 40 50 or any amount of years ago. But it seems that crime is LESS than it once was, it seems children are MORE educated than they once were, child "spanking" has been proven to be ineffective to current methods. The only time people bring "see the lawlessness, if we could spank our kids it would all go away" into an argument is to ignore the fact it didn’t before and isn’t going to help now.
As for "spanking" itself, there are quite a few legal problems people seem to flat out ignore to.
- There is no cut off between "a light smack" and abuse. At all. I do not mean there is no difference, but there is no legal cut-off. Self-defence has this, yet it cannot be applied to child discipline because it is subjective, while self-defence is not. A "light smack" can, and does, leave the bruises you’ve shown in your OP. Definitely not always, but it can occur. How do you give a "light smack" to a child that has bones so brittle a "light smack" can break his or hers arm? These are things those child "smacking" advocates forget. But more importantly, they forget these legal questions...
- What specific amount of pressure may a parent or guardian use, as a average standard, to smack their child?
- How many, as an average or daily cut-off, may a parent or guardian frequent these smacks upon a single child?
- In the case of allowed pressure being applied to smack a child by a parent or guardian creating large bruises or serious physical injury, does it become abuse or a allowed, but disapproved, by-product of the discipline?
- At what age may a child or teenager begin to be smacked?
- At what age is a parents or guardians right to smack a child or teenager cut-off?
- Is smacking, by the legally qualified standard, allowed to be carried out by non-guardian parties (including parents, excluding law enforcement and teachers), without a parents or guardians permission, if a child is misbehaving in a public or private place without their parent of guardian around?
- If is isn’t, does it qualify as abuse whereas the parents same action does not?
And heres the biggy...
- At what point is a child or teenager NOT allowed to defend themselves against smacking?
Exactly why is a child not allowed to "say no" and upon which, and a parents continuance, they defend themselves.
That would make a good case, a child being "punished" for non-illegal activities, knocking old daddy out cold after being repeatedly told to stop by the child. Is the child or teenager suddenly not allowed to defend themselves against invasion of their person? Such laws didn’t even exist back when "smacking" a child was allowed, even in schools. There has never been a law that disallows a child, at any age, to defend themselves against physical attack.
Problem is, seems many of your readers will have NO answers to the many of the questions above. Hell, many cannot have answers in our current legal system.
Perhaps some of those reading this however, will be less ignorant of the world, stop blaming everything on "them damn punk kids", and stop to think that despite "it working on your kids", it doesn’t as law or national policy. And it certainly isn’t going to make your problems go away.
You’d think people who went through it would have learnt history first hand and never forgotten. Seems im wrong.
Comment by Anonymous
If not why do anti-spanking websites have those perverse but also misleading and emotive pictures of childrens bums? The reasonable inference is that they don't think they have a strong enough argument and have to resort to things like that.
How about some common sense?
“It doesn't work. There is short-term compliance but less long-term obedience.”
Why bother when we all know of countless examples where that is patently wrong including often ourselves?
” It escalates into further abuse, especially since the amount of force required might have to be increased over successive punishments.”
I’m not going to dignify that .
“It destroys trust and respect between children and parents/teachers.”
Not even respect for teachers. In every school I attended the most physical teachers were the most respected and admired. As long as they were fair and respectful.
Heck I don’t remember any teachers getting assaulted when corporal punishment was used now it seems to be a real issue. The children don’t respect them.
“It causes psychological problems in the child and in the adult the child becomes”
The first example says it all subservience to authority or rebelliousness two conflicting directions.
“It correlates with higher rates of drug abuse, alcohol dependence, delinquency and crime, and violence.”
So since corporal punishment has been dropped and more parents are sparing the ‘rod’ drug abuse, alcohol dependence etc. has declined? Do you really think we are that gullible?
“Corporal punishment teaches the acceptability of violence and extends the cycle. Children who are hit grow up to strike their own children and spouses.”
Nonsense. Most people who have been hit haven’t turned into spouse abusers. Yes they hit their children because they know it works.
“It's true, however, that a correlation is not a causation, and that there's no necessity about these outcomes -- a child who is struck won't necessarily turn into a vicious adult.”
Don’t forget issues like unrepresentative sampling and confounding variables to produce such demagoguery.
Josh
Comment by Marius
Comment by Anonymous
Most children fear spankings immensely. I think it is perfectly acceptable for a parent to use spanking or at the very least the fear of one, as a means to illuminate how not disciplining yourself can lead to unpleasant repercussions. It is better for them to experience the pain of a sharp little spanking now, and learn the value of self-discipline, rather than the harsher blunt trauma of police batons and brutality in the street, and the trauma of jail time. Telling a child that no one has the right to hit them, ever, under any circumstance, especially their parents and teachers, and that these same custodians of their journey to adulthood can be jailed for disciplining them, only gives an already immature mind leverage to conclude that the authority in their lives is impotent, and largely full of conjecture.
Certainly, children are human beings with the rights of any other human being. You don't have to teach a human to be human. You do however, have to teach a human how to become a productive citizen. A parent's most important task is to produce productive citizenry. Children do not necesssarily come into this world predisposed to productive citizenry. They are from the moment they are born, a person with their own agenda, world paradigm, and drive to get what they want. Without proper stewardship, children can quickly develop sociopathic habits to get what they want like lying, cheating, stealing, etc., all things that do not yield what most people consider productive citizenry. For children who understad the need to listen and obey, who can be reasoned with, and respond to mild reproach, spanking should never be an issue, but to think that all children fit some innocent mold spits in the face of the idea of human diversity. Some children are predisposed to vigorously testing the boundaries set for them by the authorities in their lives. To deny a dangerously willful child the benefit of a sound spanking, is only fueling their growing lack of respect for authority, and gives them no personal incentive to place the greater good above their need for instant gratification.
I am a parent and an educator. I have seen the kind of problem a second grader with absolutely no fear of authority can be. I have seen the waste that a fifteen year-old can become when they haven't been shown how to discipline themselves. Just as I have seen how terrible an affect child-abuse can have on the development of a stable person, I have also seen how spankings can constructively convey lessons. My children are all successful adults. Not one of my boys has been to prison. They are all professionals, skilled tradesmen, or in the military. Nor have one of my daughters fell pregnant before they were married. They all went to college, graduated, started careers, got maried and now have families of their own. I never, not once, hesitated to spank when I deemed it necesssary. I never left my children looking like the bruised and scarred children in the post, but they all knew one thing: avoid the whupp'in.
I believe that though they may have hated the whupp'ins, they never doubted my love for them. Nor do they now. I belive that demonstrative punishment like spanking should be balanced with just as much demonstrative affection. I, to this day, kiss and tell my babies I love them. I held them when they were little and still hug them warmly now. Would they have turned out the same way had I not spanked them? Maybe, but I doubt it. I admit, some I found myself spanking a bit more than others, but children are all different and require a parent to be able to adapt to their needs as individuals when it is necessary. Certainly, abuse can only lead to disaster, but to deny a child in need of a sound whupp'in the benefit of one, can lead to just as much heartbreak and disaster.
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Anonymous
Since you have a long list of questions and you want me to answer your question my best guess is that you want the "biggy" answered.
"- At what point is a child or teenager NOT allowed to defend themselves against smacking?"
The real life significance of this question is dubious but it would be a point where the discipline was less than the common sense level where the level of spanking was abuse rather than discipline. Sorry if that sounds back to front but your question sounds back to front.
To extend the trivia further the hypothetical big kid with a bad attitude overpowering their parent probably would get away with it anyway as it is hard to imagine them getting charged.
I suspect if anyone had such a big kid as to run the risk they'd be looking desperately at alternative forms of discipline and I suspect that if any kid had that type of attitude they would be in a correctional facility already.
Josh
Comment by Marius
So majority trumps the rights of the minority, eh?
You are extremists in being worse that the "extremists" that the Anti-Smacking people apparently are. Except the latter are not extremists.
But, an extremist would be ignoring that they are wrong, their method has no standing and they insist on being allowed to do what they want, despite legal rights of others and they having no legal reason why they should be.
"Why are you trying to create a clusterfuck wanting people focussed on all those extreme situations and unimportant or irrelevant details when the simple fact is that spanking is a good idea for many parents? It is a valuable tool for disciplining. Do you lack confidence in arguing against normal parental corporal punishment?"
You mean those legal standpoints? Or did you just think "spanking" was an actual legally defined set of laws.
It's people like who use ignorance and simplicity to state "well, we should just lock up all the guilty people, if we know they are guilty they shouldn't get to appeal".
Sigh.
"Since you have a long list of questions and you want me to answer your question my best guess is that you want the "biggy" answered."
All are legally viable. As ive said.
I suggest you change your grasp of the law where repercussions not covered under a blanket law have to be defined.
"The real life significance of this question is dubious but it would be a point where the discipline was less than the common sense level where the level of spanking was abuse rather than discipline. Sorry if that sounds back to front but your question sounds back to front."
I'm sorry? Dubious? Haha, yes, im sure when your 70 year old father comes along and smacks you on the back of your head for not meeting your work quota you'll be just fine with it.
Oh, im sorry, that can never happen of course. And of course he obviously "wont" be allowed. Thats how it works, im sure. Just as an 18 year old or a 1 year old should be allowed to be "smacked" to.
Ignoring the question as you have done is not going to make it be any less of a valid of a question.
You have failed, just as ive said, to answer ANY of the questions ive presented that you would need a legal standing for in the legalization of "smacking", In fact, you've intentionally ignored the one question you feigned to answer with "its dubious that this could happen" or attempted to say that the only way a person could defend themselves would be if it was abuse and not "smacking".
So, instead of explaining away a situation that DOES occur and WILL need a legal standpoint with "oh, that cant happen and if it did, it would be abuse and not "smacking" perhaps you can answer the question.
"To extend the trivia further the hypothetical big kid with a bad attitude overpowering their parent probably would get away with it anyway as it is hard to imagine them getting charged."
Again, so not its a "oh, it couldn't happen, they wouldn't get charged".
Situations like that HAPPEN. You are going to have to deal with that rather than, like this argument, you just ignore it and assume you are still right because of that ignorance.
"I suspect if anyone had such a big kid as to run the risk they'd be looking desperately at alternative forms of discipline and I suspect that if any kid had that type of attitude they would be in a correctional facility already."
Again, it has, does and will happen again.
I gave you some questions, instead of nitpicking and ignoring one of them you failed to answer with a claim of "oh it probably couldn't happen" that I have refuted by the fact it does, I suggest you answer.
These are legal standpoints. If you want to advocate legalizing "smacking" I would suggest explaining what you want legalized.
- Marius
Comment by Marius
You do realize that a child or teenager at ANY age was no disallowed from defending themselves in the face of even allowed physical dicipline back when it was LEGAL.
A child could not be charged, even when it was legal (or just not illegal) to spank a child, if they defended themselves according to the legal definition of defense.
- Marius
Comment by Anonymous
Not at all. You are not losing any rights whatsoever if you don't succeed in imposing an urealistic viewpoint on the general population. It is about parents' rights to meet their parenting obligations and childrens' rights to have a proper upbringing.
"You are extremists in being worse that the "extremists" that the Anti-Smacking people apparently are. Except the latter are not extremists."
An extremist is someone who is at a polar end of opinion. That basically takes in all anti-smacking people given the majority view. For smacking people it would require an extreme end of this majority view. For example whipping with horse whips should be given to children in line would be an extreme albeit exagerated view.
"But, an extremist would be ignoring that they are wrong, their method has no standing and they insist on being allowed to do what they want, despite legal rights of others and they having no legal reason why they should be."
Finally a point of agreement.
"Or did you just think "spanking" was an actual legally defined set of laws."
There is no set of laws. The issue is protecting children from abuse which is covered by a prohibition with a suitable exemption for normal discipline.
"All are legally viable. As ive said."
That doesn't mean I agree. For example I hardly think that the PSI pressures involved in physical punishment should be at home in criminal law legislation. You asked what specific amount of pressure should be involved.
"I'm sorry? Dubious? Haha, yes, im sure when your 70 year old father comes along and smacks you on the back of your head for not meeting your work quota you'll be just fine with it."
If that hypothetical situation were to occur I would hardly assault the poor old bugger. Perhaps to think that way you don't have that type of respect for your parents? Were you smacked?
"You have failed, just as ive said, to answer ANY of the questions ive presented that you would need a legal standing for in the legalization of "smacking", "
It is already legal. Isn't criminalization of it the issue being debated?
"So, instead of explaining away a situation that DOES occur and WILL need a legal standpoint with "oh, that cant happen and if it did, it would be abuse and not "smacking" perhaps you can answer the question."
Well if we turn it around to when can a child defend themselves it would be when the level of force applied is obviously abuse. Self defence would be available to defend against a criminal assault. Again if or when that happens I doubt that the child will get charged with assault. For a start their dad would probably be rather embarassed about reporting it.
"These are legal standpoints. If you want to advocate legalizing "smacking" I would suggest explaining what you want legalized."
Nothing of the kind. I just don't want naive do gooders creating a further problem for society.
Josh
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Anonymous
Really Long Link
this child obviously feels entitled to do whatever she wants without fear of consequences. you can't give kids the authority to control their own discipline. you want to tell them that no one can hit them, ever, and then leave a good talking to as the only mechanism to control them? as if something as volatile and self-centered as an adolescent has the tools to control themselves like adults? idiot. you better wake up and realize that children need to be controlled until they mature to the point that they can control themselves. if you need to beat their ass to do it, so be it. sure they are human and all that, but they are primitive beings who need control and guidance. I bet if that fool in the video had any real consequences looming over her head this tantrum would never have occurred. I was just waiting for some grown person to reach out and slap the spit out of her loud mouth. you see how her tone changed when someone moved to counter her nonsense: she told that person "you have no right! you have no right!" but she obvioulsy felt she was witihin her rights to cuss that elderly woman out that way and fill that subway car with her speech impediment. if anybody has ever need their ass beaten, it was that girl. those pictures above may look awful, but I am open to the possibility that they had it coming. I'd rather stripe my kid up and save him from himself than see him dead in the street because I was too soft to put a hurtin on him. I'd rather smack his lips swoll shut before he performed like that girl in the video, disrespecting that woman, and dishonoring her people and community. I'll beat his ass blurple. and you know what? if you get in my way, you can get some too.
Comment by Anonymous
Try to look at things from a new point of view: it may just be more correct than your current inherited dogma.
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Mojavegreen
Comment by Mojavegreen
Comment by Anonymous
Sure respect is essential. The reason we are only discussing the benefits of corporal punishment is because this page has photos of abused children in a flagrant attempt to associate it with normal corporal punishment and sufficient misguided comments on corporal punishment that we felt the need to speak up.
Kids require respect, food, sleep, shelter and more things than will come to the top of my head. But they also need appropriate discipline. Otherwise they might become criminals or feel comfortable addressing shortcomings in their misguided argument by deviously putting photos of something else on an internet site in the pretence that it is related. Since we don't want people to turn out like that we felt the need to speak up on one particular topic - corporal punishment.
Josh
Comment by Kerry mollie
Comment by Anonymous
I INTEND to be Prime Minister one day...just give me the pay rise now...
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Anonymous
I had a principle once though, who couldn't touch me, tell me off on his office one day after getting into a fight on the playground, that I was a good for nothing little criminal who would never amount to anything. He wouldn't let me in college prep. I was very hurt and depressed, and embarrassed to tell my mother. This man, without laying a finger on me, had touched a sensitive part of my self-esteem and re-affirmed fears I had about myself. It shook me, because on certain levels, I believed him. Of course my sudden change in demeanor and depression caught my mother's attention, who eventually got to the bottom of things. She ended up enrolling me in private school, which we could afford because of the scholarship I won for high entrance exam scores.
So here we have a set of circumstances where I might've ended up bruised like in the pics above, but because of the how and why I was spanked like that, it was actually beneficial, wheras a few simple negative comments tossed angrily my way did more to hurt me than any spanking ever did. It is the spirit in which the discipline is delivered that is most important.
As for the actual severity of the bruises, I can tell you from experience that you would wince from sitting for a few days, but they constitute no major injury. More recently, I remember pledging my fraternity in college, my behind looked like that and worse. This is not to say that serious injury cannot occur, because it can, but you can't judge its severity from the bruising. The pain would fade long before the funny colors would. I will say that spanking should be localized to the buttocks, and not the back, chest, face, etc., and for small children, spanking fingers with strong retort should be ample, followed with reassurances of love.
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Anonymous
What is it?
Humiliations, spankings and beatings, slaps in the face, betrayal, sexual exploitation, derision, neglect, etc. are all forms of mistreatment, because they injure the integrity and dignity of a child, even if their consequences are not visible right away. However, as adults, most abused children will suffer, and let others suffer, from these injuries. This dynamic of violence can deform some victims into hangmen who take revenge even on whole nations and become willing executors to dictators as unutterably appalling as Hitler and other cruel leaders. Beaten children very early on assimilate the violence they endured, which they may glorify and apply later as parents, in believing that they deserved the punishment and were beaten out of love. They don't know that the only reason for the punishments they have ( or in retrospect, had) to endure is the fact that their parents themselves endured and learned violence without being able to question it. Later, the adults, once abused children, beat their own children and often feel grateful to their parents who mistreated them when they were small and defenseless.
This is why society's ignorance remains so immovable and parents continue to produce severe pain and destructivity - in all "good will", in every generation. Most people tolerate this blindly because the origins of human violence in childhood have been and are still being ignored worldwide. Almost all small children are smacked during the first three years of life when they begin to walk and to touch objects which may not be touched. This happens at exactly the time when the human brain builds up its structure and should thus learn kindness, truthfulness, and love but never, never cruelty and lies. Fortunately, there are many mistreated children who find "helping witnesses" and can feel loved by them.
By: Alice Miller
Comment by Anonymous from Nova Scotia Canada
Comment by Marjori
Comment by Anonymous
I think we have to be very careful in the way we spend our time judging things...being armchair critics writing Oprah Winfrey letters about how the shoes she chose that day just didn't match her outfit. To spank or not to spank, that is the question, but there is a huge grey area when it comes to spanking. If you call it beating, then I guess that is not spanking, that is beating. If you are out of control when you give your child a so called spanking, then it is not a spanking, you are out of control. I have 2 children and I DO NOT BELIEVE in physically touching children. However, I do think that possibly on some rare occassions with very young ( under 4 years old, but over than 1 and can understand simple discipline) completely co dependant toddlers, a smack on a diaper clad bottom when you have asked and explained their naughty act over and over again can sometimes be beneficial. But to smack a child on open skin, throw them over your knee, hit them on the legs, torso, arms, head, etc. is just plain abuse.
As a society, we also have to understand that so many parents work, have little family, friend or community support. Have never been to parenting programs and sometimes I think some parents spank not out of violence, but out of a fear and a deep love for their children that if they do not discipline in this manner, their children will become out of control and wild. We need to have compassion for parents, especially single Moms or Moms in an abusive relationship, who cannot cope anylonger. Even the best of people will snap under severe stress. It needs to become a community effort of support and teaching parents proper parenting techiniques and proper eating and sleeping habits because so many kids now are hyperactive because of poor food habits. There are so many things to change in this society. Let's not judge and help support good parents. And, for the one's who beat their kids, well I am sure they know they are being abusive and we should stay vigilant and protective as a society to be aware of severe physical punishment and a child with bruises is not a child who received a mild spanking, but one who is being beaten and abused. So, overall, I do not believe in touching children at all, we need to protect the innocent and we need as a society to clearly define the line between discipline and abuse.
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Paper Doll
Guess what because of people like you crime is rising and increasing, not decreasing because discipline has been taken away from parents and school hands.
Comment by Desk Jockey
The Bible States: (Old Testament) Sirach 30
He who loves his son chastises him often, that he may be his joy when he grows up.
He who disciplines his son will benefit from him, and boast of him among his intimates.
He who educates his son makes his enemy jealous, and shows his delight in him among his friends.
At the father's death, he will seem not dead,
Whom he looks upon through life with joy, and even in death, without regret:
The avenger he leaves against his foes, and the one to repay his friends with kindness.
He who spoils his son will have wounds to bandage, and will quake inwardly at every outcry.
A colt untamed turns out stubborn; a son left to himself grows up unruly.
Pamper your child and he will be a terror for you, indulge him and he will bring your grief.
Share not in his frivolity lest you share in his sorrow, when finally your teeth are clenched in remorse.
Give him not his own way in his youth, and close not your eyes to his follies.
Bend him to the yoke when he is young, thrash his sides while he is still small,
Lest he become stubborn, disobey you, and leave you disconsolate.
Discipline your son, make heavy his yoke, lest his folly humiliate you.
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
Firstly, you have to understand that what you're reading is a collection of arguments against spanking, in the context of a personal blog, a diary, which in turn is about exploring ideas.
As for this particular post, I don't think that it's wildly imbalanced, given that its purpose is to collect anti-spanking arguments. Throughout the post, I actively point out places where reasonable minds might differ.
I certainly don't want to impose any viewpoint on you, or on anyone.
Do you wish to impose a viewpoint on me?
Secondly, for the record, I am more anti- than pro-spanking, and you're correct that I don't have children. Certainly, if you yourself have children, then your opinion is infinitely better informed than mine in terms of parenting experience.
But surely people without children are still allowed to have an opinion?
I don't have a wife, but surely I'm allowed to have an opinion about wife-beating? I'm not Islamic, but surely I'm allowed to have an opinion about wearing burqas? I'm not part of an African tribe, but surely I'm allowed to have an opinion about genital mutilation? Etc.
Thirdly, aren't there still grounds on which childless people could reasonably base an opinion?
For instance, everyone has been a child, and many people, as children, have experienced corporal punishment.
Also, there is impersonal evidence both for and against spanking (psychological studies and so forth), there are personal beliefs (for instance, Christian or Buddhist, rights-based moral systems and consequences-based systems, etc), and there is reasoning and thinking about all of these things.
Fourthly, how much does personal experience count for?
There are many people who have written comments in reply to this post who have attested that they have been spanked, and there were no significant negative consequences -- and there is no reason to doubt them.
There are also people who have written against spanking, speaking about negative consequences they did suffer -- and there is no reason to doubt them either.
Can any one person speak for everyone?
Can you judge how big or small an issue is based purely on personal experience?
Can you make claims about whether spanking causes crime to rise or fall, based only on personal experience?
There is nothing wrong with basing an opinion on personal experience -- personal experience does count for a lot, and it's better than nothing. But surely there's a point at which one really does have to go stats-hunting? Where, instead of speaking in terms of personal experience, you have to start collecting data about how large groups of people are affected?
Lastly, I have to ask (and I don't intend any impoliteness) -- did you read the post, or are you reacting to the images?
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Anonymous
It has been shown that there are whole societies where corporal punishment is not employed at all, and which are very successful in raising those children.
On top of this, I can testify that I was never myself punished with any kind of violence as a child, and that I turned out just fine. Growing up, I knew many other children whose parents did not resort to corporal punishment, and some whose parents did. It was undeniably obvious that most of those who were punished physically had a harder time developing basic social skills, and often dealt with more emotional problems.
The fact is that it is a completely unnecessary and generally ineffective method that has absolutely no place in our society.
Comment by Anonymous
Try to look at things from a new point of view: it may just be more correct than your current inherited dogma."
You do realize that the law requires children to be properly supervised, ie, controlled, for their own safety. They are a protected class of citizen that the adults in their lives are compelled to keep safe or be charged with negligence. These ISSUES you seem to associate with the concept that children need to be controlled are what are commonly known as parental responsibility. These dangerously quack opinions of yours that are supposedly validated by virtue of your training and expertise only serve to give license to an inherently unstable population to not respect authority, and undermine the authority of parents and limits the means by which they can exercise their duty as parents. The idea that children do NOT need control is irresponsible and reckless, and is a danger to the general welfare of children who deserve the benefit of supervision and instruction.
Comment by Anonymous