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.
Images are from: Really Long Link[LINK=http://www.nospank.net/main.htm" target="_blank">Really Long Link/LINK].
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.
***
Images are from: Really Long Link[LINK=http://www.nospank.net/main.htm" target="_blank">Really Long Link/LINK].
| 215 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
Health Focus
Poetry Lighthouse
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
Book Club
Old Movies
Cane Toad Warrior
The fact is, some children need smacking.
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Daily Inspirations
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
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
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
Enviro Warrior
An Extra Ordinary Life
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
Daily Inspirations
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
Daily Inspirations
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
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
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
Downwrite
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
Downwrite
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</