A lack of smacks is behind the attacks

acotrel says:

07:37am | 15/08/11

@ Julia
I rarely smacked my kids, and I don’t try to train my dog (a pit bull terrier)  by smacking it.  There is such a thing as positive reinforcement.  And you need to realise that by using negative reinforcement you are creating a problem for yourself and others.  Bullying is rife in our homes and in workplaces, and the cycle must be broken.  There are some amongst us who believe in authoritarianism.  Authoritarianism stifles creativity.  David Campbell’s strong approach to putting down the riots in rhe UK might be effective in the short term.  However it has the potential to exacerbate the situation, and cause a revolution.  A better way might be to investigate the causes, and if necessary change the social system.  And that doesn’t mean simply chucking money a the problem.  I suggest the riots have more to do with the ‘big picture’ than what it has to do with domestic attitudes towards child rearing.

Bazza says:

07:48am | 15/08/11

ACOTREL, stop slapping your salami.

Michael says:

07:53am | 15/08/11

A decade of Labor government, say what you will, but you are seeing the result of cleaning up years of suckling from the public teat, people wont like it, try taking a bloke’s beer at the pub and see the tantrum he throws.

Now take a nation’s youth and tell them their party is over, even the wealthy have taken to the streets to smash and grab iphones and jeans, it’s a society allowed to go to the dogs, no discipline, no respect no expectations placed on these people to grow up and take their place in society.

The smack is a metaphor for responsibility and consequence of actions, there isn’t any.

acotrel says:

08:12am | 15/08/11

@Bazza You’ve obviously never had one of the little darlings walk up behind you and belt you over the backside.  It happened to me when I was visitting friends, who were in the habit of belting their kids.  The little bastard thought that if he didn’t like you, he could do that.  Violence breeds violence!  I am personally capable of decking any attacker and giving him a good kicking - I don’t do that stuff.  If you belt kids thay believe that stuff is socially acceptable.  It’s one of the reasons we have people being bashed in the night club areas of Melbourne.  It starts at home!  It continues on the streets and in workplaces.

rob brown says:

08:22am | 15/08/11

Acetroll needs a slap, he, and the people like him ARE the problem.

acotrel says:

08:26am | 15/08/11

@Michael
Go to England and have a look!  You’ll see little villages crammed into va lleys, surrounded by huge empty rural estates.  The difference between the haves , and have nots is startlingly obvious.  If you have a social system which denies opportunity, then kicks people wjhile they’re down, you must get a reaction.  The Brits are much more politically aware than Aussies.  I believe what we are seeing is a reaction to a social system which promotes class differences.  And a new conservative government and the GFC have fired it up. We have a little of that in Australia.

acotrel says:

08:50am | 15/08/11

@Rob Brown
‘Acetroll needs a slap’

Easier said than done!  Want to try?

Tubesteak says:

08:52am | 15/08/11

A good hard walloping whenever they step out of line is the only effective method of disciplining a child. They’ll learn how to behave soon enough.

Michael says:

08:57am | 15/08/11

The difference between the haves and the have nots is entirely in the minds of the have nots.

A have mind, means you think in terms of what can I do for myself to have more.

A have not mind, looks at all the things they don’t have and then looks for someone to blame.

Ooh look, there’s a wealthy person with opportunities, they must have deprived someone else of their opportunities the greedy bastards, so they could greedily have more, poor chav me, i’ll nick it then

You don’t have to go to London to see this mentality, it’s here in Australia right now in a suburb near you, i see it daily,  not in the circles i move in, more the ones i drive past on the way to work and home.

acotrel says:

09:15am | 15/08/11

@Michael
‘Ooh look, there’s a wealthy person with opportunities, they must have deprived someone else of their opportunities the greedy bastards, so they could greedily have more, poor chav me, i’ll nick it then ‘

That’s not the mentality at all. I suggest that most of the people we’re talking abvout are so indoctrinated that don’t even know why they are existing without jobs, living a boring welfare dependent life.  All they probably know is that they feel depressed and hate everything around them.

Engo says:

09:19am | 15/08/11

@ acotrel

Don’t know about the vast majority rioters being particularly politically aware, especially children as young as 12 or even 9.

I don’t know very much at all about the English social system, though I doubt it is designed to kick people while they are down. I’ve heard that the government will even give you a free car if you can provide a doctors certificate that you can’t catch public transport and cannot afford your own car. Very generous, I think, and certainly not something done here.

Don’t try to make it into something bigger than it was.  This wasn’t an egyptian-style, largely peaceful protest against a totalitarian government. There was no big message or attempt at revolution. This was violent scum simply out for free stuff and the chance to break something.

Kipling says:

09:30am | 15/08/11

The article clearly articulates a RANGE of disciplinary measures, yet, the obvious focus comes back to smacking. In essence using physical force to dictate the behaviour of the child.
Consider how you would feel if someone used physical force to dictate your actions, nothing to do with right or wrong, just behavioural change through threat of or infliction of violence. Now, is that really the type of relationship you want to have with your kids.
The quality of the RELATIONSHIP has far more impact on how your kids turn out as adults. Whilst it is hard to admit as adults, none of us listened all that much to our parent, kids don’t listen. That does not mean they don’t observe and absorb information though. Your kids see how you respond to life and that forms the blue print for the adult they will be.
What a whole lot of parents did when smacking was (seemingly) taken of the agenda as an option was to give up on their kids and not provide any disciplinary boundaries. That has developed the misfit generation we are presently at the mercy of. People too lazy to expand their tool box beyond basic violent power and control techniques. I am sure none would appreciate a stranger giving their little Johnny or Joanie a kick up the arse as a reprimand, many would be affronted and potentiall threaten of visit violence on said stranger. Yet none of them would acknolwedge or even recognise the ludicrous double standard of defending their own right to brutalise their child.
Whilst I would not advocate banning smacking, it should always be recognised and acknowledged as the tactic of desperation when a parent has no other tools in the box.
Looking at some of the disrespectful repsonses posted here I have no doubt that the responders children will turn out disrespectful and rude regardless of how many smacks they cop. The are getting disprespectful behaviour model to them piece meal.
Children are not a RIGHT, they are a responsibility and, clearly, we are becoming less and less responsible with each generation. It doesn’t bode at all well for the children as yet unborn….

Jade says:

09:36am | 15/08/11

@ Acotrel, I have two American Staffordshire Terriers.  My oldest one was smacked when he was naughty and my youngest wasn’t.  The oldest one is the best behaved now and knows who the leader of our “pack” is and the youngest is a rude little bitch who thinks she is in charge… obviously the positive reinforcement with my younger dog didn’t work as well as the smacking with the first one. just saying…..

Loxy says:

10:10am | 15/08/11

Acotrel - I’m in my 30s and the vast majority of my generation (including me) were smacked as kids. There is no problem or violence with my generation that you say is caused by smacking, for the most part we all turned into respectful adults. It’s the generations coming through without that structure and discipline guised under al this positive parenting rubbish that are causing the problems. I have two kids and I’ve tried positive reinforcement and it is largely unsuccessful. The only thing that really works is a good smack.

Direct says:

10:28am | 15/08/11

Kipling, threat of violence is precisely what drives our legal system.

If you cannot legally defend yourself against accusations from other people, violent men will take you by force and place you in an environment where you will be physically assaulted and raped.

The legal system is simply a larger version of a frowning parent with a leather strap waiting to beat you if you step out of line.

acotrel says:

10:44am | 15/08/11

@Loxy
I’m 69.  I came from a generation which WAS smacked.  Street violence was the norm.  Gangs of kids were out and about every Saturday night bashing people.  I have no bottom front teeth, and a nose that’s been straightened.  So don’t tell me about violence, I know what it ‘s about.  The legacy is that if anyone starts a fight with me, I’m the one who’ll finish it.  And that’s not something I’m proud of. People need to learn to keep their hands to themselves - what comes around goes around!

acotrel says:

10:53am | 15/08/11

@Jade
Gender differences might be the reason for different behaviours.  My dog has been kicked by me after he’s brutalised other dogs which haven’t done the submission thing.  He doesn’t understand that when it happens to him.  All it does is create problems.  These days I never let him near other dogs, and I never hit him.  I feed him, wash him, exercise him,and tuck him up in bed every night. He absolutely loves me, and he’s never threatening towards newcomers to our house. Negative reinforcement is usually a mistake, it rarely changes behaviour

acotrel says:

10:57am | 15/08/11

@Direct
‘The legal system is simply a larger version of a frowning parent with a leather strap waiting to beat you if you step out of line’

And it doesn’t work!  Our jails are full of repeat offenders.

acotrel says:

11:43am | 15/08/11

@Tubesteak
‘A good hard walloping whenever they step out of line is the only effective method of disciplining a child. ‘

Eventually kids grow up.  What do you think will happen after years of negative reinforcement, when the kid turns around and clobbers you?  What are you going to do - excommunicate him/her?  How will you know when to stop hitting your kids?  Does that happen at age 21, or 18? Or when you believe it’s time to relinquish control (age 99)?

Budz says:

12:21pm | 15/08/11

Interesting acotrel, you are suggesting rehabilitation over straight out punishment. I personally think the rehab works a lot better over the long term.
And when it comes to hitting your kids, well I don’t have any, but I can’t see me hitting them. I think there are so many other options of punishment that are non violent that you don’t need to smack them.

Tubesteak says:

01:08pm | 15/08/11

acotrel

If you can’t teach a child how to behave before they are 10 then you are an absolute failure.

Knocking them into line every time they step out of line soon teaches them how to act and behave.

Spare the rod, spoil the child.

rob says:

01:11pm | 15/08/11

Anytime you like Acetroll…and it will be easy…

Kassandra says:

01:20pm | 15/08/11

@ acotrel:

Punishment is not the same as negative reinforcement. Reinforcement occurs when the frequency of a given behaviour increases - it is positive or negative depending on whether the reinforcer is introduced or withdrawn.

Kassandra says:

01:20pm | 15/08/11

@ acotrel:

Punishment is not the same as negative reinforcement. Reinforcement occurs when the frequency of a given behaviour increases - it is positive or negative depending on whether the reinforcer is introduced or withdrawn.

Andy says:

01:36pm | 15/08/11

Loxy is spot on, I’m late 20s, have 3 brothers in their early-mid 30s and we have all been very succesful through university, employment, family life etc and all were smacked/actually disciplined as children. Acotrel seriously, positive reinforcement?? How do you positively reinforce a child who has no discipline? As is also noted by Loxy, how can you dismiss the differences in today’s youth from older generations? Due to positive reinforcement, today’s teens are rude little selfish turds walking around in designer clothes (because their parents positively reinforce by buying things…) and have no respect for anyone or thing. Smacking, or at least a threat of smacking, shows the child that what they are doing is wrong and will therefore relate this to something that is the wrong thing to do. The kid who smacked you at your ‘friends’ house is obviously not being smacked appropriately, but more belted as you mentioned, which is not the idea…

RED says:

01:46pm | 15/08/11

Yo acotrel..

“Easier said than done!  Want to try? “
“I anyone starts a fight with me, I’m the one who’ll finish it.”
“I am personally capable of decking any attacker and giving him a good kicking.”

Maybe there’s something to this debate after all, you say you were smacked as a child and have a look how you’ve turned out.

Ben C says:

01:55pm | 15/08/11

@ acotrel

I got smacked by my mother until I was physically bigger than her - not that I used that on my mother, I just used my superior agility and speed to get away from her. That was when I was 12 or 13. My mother started to reduce the smacking, but I still copped an open hand across the back of the head if I did something wrong (still do, actually, when I’m sitting down and my mother can actually reach my head).

I grew up, the negative reinforcement did me no harm, because it taught me what was wrong. You need both positive and negative reinforcement, otherwise children will only know one end of the spectrum.

Duffman says:

02:18pm | 15/08/11

@acotrel. I was smacked as a kid by my parents, threatened with the strap at school, and bullied at school too. The first two were well deserved. I love & respect my parents, and have a respect for authority. The bullying obviously affected me in a different way.
Suggest you go over to England and defend all the rioters going through the courts with the “awww, he was bullied as a child” excuse.
Myself, i reckon they should’ve been disciplined with rubber bullets.

Brett says:

02:33pm | 15/08/11

@acotrel - I had to do a whole lot of research into this at uni, smacking vs not smacking. The research came to this conclusion - Under the age of 6 smacking (or negative reinforcement) had only positive outcomes. from 6-12 it was 50/50. 13 onwards it only had negative outcomes. Essentially under 6 children do not understand positive reinforcment, only negative. By school age positive reinforcement should be easier and become the norm for social and psychological health. By teenage years positive is all you have.

Also in any country where spanking has been banned, child abuse has never dropped. I know you didn’t bring this up, but violent people will always be violent people and will abuse others no matter the laws or parenting style.

Ricko says:

03:15pm | 15/08/11

Acotrel - I’m amazed that you can’t comprehend the difference between discipline and ‘beating’ a child. Nor are you apparently able to tell the difference between pure negative reinforcement, pure positive reinforcement, and balanced parenting.

Your comments show an astounding amount of ignorance to the plethora of people who were healthily raised to respect others by parents who both loved them & smacked them.

Smacking isn’t the only way to raise a child well, but it is a very legitimate one - done for discipline’s sake (rather than out of anger), and the idiocy being spread today about not smacking IS a major contributor to the ratbag kids of today.

MarkS says:

03:19pm | 15/08/11

Positive reinforcement – reward
Punishment – negative action
Negative reinforcement – the removal of negative action

Negative reinforcement & punishment are in fact different things, the best description I heard of negative reinforcement was the relief you feel when you stop banging your head against the wall. 

If you bashed your kids everyday unless they did something that warranted a reward, that would be negative reinforcement.

mick says:

04:08pm | 15/08/11

Good call Julia. 
Unfortunately Australia has been taken over by the politically correct do gooders who are nowhere to be seen when the results of their lack of wisdom of any sort are splashed over the media.
The UK like Australia has its do gooders.  Make the little darlings think that the sun shines out of their precious little backsides.  Then let them do bad things to other people and escape punishment because you wouldn’t want to harm their self esteem.  And so it goes on until maturity when they spend all that they earn and begin complaining that baby boomers have an unfair advantage and they can’t get a house….......or the type of job they want.  Yeh right.
You only have to look at schools to see the disease.  Kids who rule the classrooms, unloading verbal and in some cases physical abuse at teachers who are then targetted for not being able to enforce discipline and promote sufficient learning.
Spare the rod and spoil the child.  It is about time parents started to take control. 
And blow the Child Psychologists.  I suggest that few people would take this profession too seriously as apart from pinpointing obvious abusive households these people are a part of the overall problem and their opinion represents a wave which is going through society.  As with most waves sooner or later it will end and some conventional wisdom may return.

bloke says:

04:32pm | 15/08/11

what happened to an old fashioned boot in the arse???

Thomas Anderson says:

04:44pm | 15/08/11

I will give you a good formula for raising kids:

1. Never hit them.
2. Encourage them to read widely from as young as possible (they should know how to read more or less well, by about 6-7). Kids who grow up without books do not always turn out stupid, but most of the time, they do.
3. Reward good grades at school with a little pocket change, or some other gift. I had a good system when I was in school. I got $5 for an A, $3 for a B, nothing for a C, but for a D, I got taxed $10. For as long as this system was in place (over about 3-4 years), I got 2-3 Ds in total, and many an A and a B.
4. Teach your kids about peer pressure and that only weak minded losers succumb to it.

Nelson Lo says:

06:22pm | 15/08/11

@ Acotrel
I’m not sure if anyone has pointed this out, but its David Cameron. I also agree that David ‘Campbell’, approach is heavy handed approach is very similar to Kim Jong ill. Whats next labour camps?? David Gaddafi Cameron probably enjoys quelling riots with the use of ‘force’. Likening a conservative response to an authoriative regime makes you a simple minded fool, with first world problems. Speaking of which, I need to report the bullying that is rife in my workplace…..feeling like im being punished because the fruit delivery didnt arrive today.

Jarrad says:

08:56pm | 15/08/11

The problem is that Parent’s don’t know how to Discipline without Smacking so they don’t discipline at all and then this is what you get. You can do Positive re enforcement and I still use time out’s on my little girl but she barley ever needs them. I will tell you one thing though she doesn’t hit other kids she is shocked when she sees parents hit their children. Hitting is easy and its something I expect from people who wouldn’t know how to do it any other way or simply want to do everything fast. I spend time teaching my child right from wrong and she will be better for it in the long run. If you smack then that’s your choice My father smacked and I see him once every 2 or 3 years he did such a great job driving me away from him with what I see as his abuse that I just don’t feel anything for him or want to even talk to him. I wont have that with my child. If you want to bring your child up with low self esteem and make them think its OK if someone dose something you don’t like then just hit them then I guess that’s your choice.

John the Zombie says:

09:23pm | 15/08/11

@acrotel. Ever been to the shopping centre and seen how the most well behaved children are the asian ones. Ever wondered why this is the case? Well the reason is that the children are displined at home. When the children do sometihing naughty they get a smack on th bottom or grounded. The children understand the disipline and soon are model citizens. How do I know, well my parents are indian and I was displined as a child and now I am not crazed maniac but someone who hsa got a degree from uni and I am working in a job I love.

Kevin of Brisbane says:

10:27pm | 15/08/11

No moral fabric, no strong values, this is what all our liberal minded folks demand, hey look at the result. Bring back the days where we respected one another, respected the older folks, respected the teachers and police. Get rid of the anything goes polical garbage !!

acotrel says:

10:52pm | 15/08/11

@Red
I didn’t say I was smacked a s a child - quite the contrary.  I learned to look after myself when I was harassed by kids whose parents had belted them.  My parents had the good sense never to hit me. I’m intelligent enough to retaliate in ways you’ve never imagined, and I have a brother who is probably worse.  Nobody would dare hit him.  We are the wrong sorts of people to make into enemies.  Between my two brothers and myself, we rarely fought, however we’ve never been afraid to have a fight - it clears the air.  Belting kids is just bloody stupid, it only creates problems.  Some kids just won’t cop it. -  What do you do then - bash them senseless when they’ve upped the ante too far?

Robert Smissen of country SA says:

11:45pm | 15/08/11

So acotrel is your idea that if you don’t have something you just go & take it? What about EARNING the $ $ to buy it, you know SAVING for it. I struggle to believe that you have kids. I used to work with a child psychologist who had all the answers(in theory) when she actually had a daughter, she was feral & expelled from several kindergartens. Julia t, you get my vote

Demoman says:

01:18am | 16/08/11

I often see parents make empty threats to their children who quickly learn that no doesn’t mean no if you just push a little harder, maybe cry a bit to make mummy feel bad.

People think they can indulge their child’s every whim and then suddenly a few years later become a disciplinarian. By then the child has already developed bad habits and it will be nearly impossible to change them.

steve says:

06:49am | 16/08/11

It’s a consequence of decades of Liberal Socialism in Britain. People have a sense of entitlement and what others should be doing for them. Margaret Thatcher lamented her inability to break this down completely and actually predicted the consequences. “The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money”, Margaret Thatcher. To all the Socialists blaming the new conservative Government (who are not that conservative anyway), the Labor Government left Britain broke and with a mountain of debt. The debt has to be paid back as Britain’s Economy has never grown fast enough to support their borrowing habits. It’s so easy to be a Socialist as you can just go along spending and borrowing with no thought for the consequences. Of course it all comes to a tragic and usually sudden end. This will happen in Australia once the resources boom ends.

Ruari says:

02:27pm | 16/08/11

Any of you mouthbreathers ever think that maybe it’s not a question of “should we always hit kids” or “should we never hit kids”?

Maybe it’s a question of “what works for some kids, won’t work for others”?

After all, that is what (you know) every educational study ever conducted on a group of children has proved.

What’s that? Too focused on your pissing contest for an actual solution?

Yeah that’s what I thought.

jeff says:

11:26am | 19/08/11

acotrel. All you’ve talked about for the past few posts is how good you and your brothers are at fighting. If your missing your bottom teeth and have had to have your nose straightened you are obviously not that good at it. And if you were such a good kid why were you out on the street at night getting flogged up by gangs in the first place? Sounds like you were one of the thugs yourself. And no wonder you never got smacked. Parents wouldnt waste their time smacking a vagrant like you.

Budz says:

02:22pm | 15/08/11

@nihonin: Firstly I’m not a leftard as I agree with both sides of politics on different issues.
Secondly, why does discipline and even punishment have to include violence?
Thirdly, say your boss wants to discipline you to tell you that you didn’t do your job properly, is it OK for them to smack you?

Old Country Girl says:

03:43pm | 15/08/11

Michael, those huge ‘empty’ estates just happen to be the food bowls of the nation.  They also house game preserves and wildlife habitats.  Most of them are the green buffer of grazing land or have farms attached to them.  The villages are where and how they are for reasons going back centuries, many of them requiring close proximity from days when Shanks’ pony was the primary means of transport.  What would you do, build council estates in the bluebell woods that are the ‘breathing spaces’ from encroaching urbanisation?

nihonin says:

03:51pm | 15/08/11

‘Thirdly, say your boss wants to discipline you to tell you that you didn’t do your job properly, is it OK for them to smack you?’  Wow now that really is ‘left’ field.  Idiot question lol

WarBaby says:

03:58pm | 15/08/11

I grew up in an English council estate in a family where money and material goods were lacking.  All of us grew up to be decent people, with one brother being in the RAF, the other starting as a merchant seaman, then in the RAF and ultimately as a police sergeant.  We were probably smacked, but I don’t remember it.  My father had a gentle soul and a military background, so we were strictly disciplined by lots of rules about ‘toeing the line’ and ‘being responsible for our actions’. and ‘doing unto others’  The rot started in the 60s with the ‘bovver boys’ fronting up to magistrates claiming ‘broken homes’ and all sorts of claptrap to get out of paying for their sins.  From there it was all downhill.  Children need love, rules, boundaries and discipline - all of them, not a convenient selection.  If you fail them in that, then they will fail to reach their potential no matter how many video games you bribe them with.

acotrel says:

07:40am | 15/08/11

@retired soldier How many officers have been ‘fragged’ for brutalising subordinates?

Bev says:

09:17am | 15/08/11

usual suspects who have a personal agenda, usually to do with making big dollars by providing improper advice to gullible Gen Y parents

Yes there is an enormous money making machine out there.  A veritable army of social workers, psychologists, counselors, beaurocrats etc whose job depends on there being problems.  The more problems the more jobs.  Why would you solve the problem and destroy your meal ticket.  Bit like the aboriginal industry. Then there are the drug companies pushing the mental line to sell more and more cures.

Bev says:

09:24am | 15/08/11

@acotrel How many officers have been ‘fragged’ for brutalising subordinates?

There is a vast difference between strong disipline and brutality. Strong leadership and disipline makes the difference between an army and a rabble.  Then I wouldn’t expect you to know that would we?

Ben C says:

09:31am | 15/08/11

@ Retired Soldier

As much as I hate your Gen Y bashing, being one myself, I can’t help but agree with what you have said here.

I was brought up being smacked if I did anything wrong - my mother would just grab what was closest to her and one across the backside. It’s how my kids will be brought up, it’s a proven method. You just need to know where the line is between discipline and abuse.

fairsfair says:

09:44am | 15/08/11

@BenC - after perhaps too much frivolity at bathtime, my mum once flogged us with the shower curtain. She, like your mum, was resourceful.

nihonin says:

11:43am | 15/08/11

acotrel, lets all just sit round the campfire and pass round flowers shall we, leftard!  This is in response to ALL your pathetic ‘treat the little ones like they have the mental reasoning of an adult’ responses.  Punishment is what is missing from ‘your’ society, I was smacked as a kid, hell I even got a kick in he arse from the cops and firemen one day for setting off a hydrant, I learnt from that.  Maybe you’re just one of the ‘thick’ ones who can’t learn from their mistakes.

Budz says:

12:26pm | 15/08/11

Why is it only OK to hit your kids if they do something wrong? Why not your partner, husband, wife, friend or work colleague? Because they are kids that makes it OK?

nihonin says:

12:50pm | 15/08/11

Budz, there is a difference between what you leftards say and discipline, discipline is a smack, bashing is not, but you people like to abuse the thinkers with your simpleton comments.

Reid Wright says:

12:53pm | 15/08/11

My parents (mum) used to cane us when we were naughty. The naughty corner was a tiled area, and you didn’t sit in naughty corner you knelt in naughty corner. I’ve never been in a fight and I don’t plan on going troppo any time soon.
The only way to teach a child about actions and consequences is by punishment that results in some form of pain/suffering. I’m not talking life altering pain, i’m talking child level, none bruising, wooden spoon/cane pain, or kneeling on concrete for 5 minutes pain.
Children are resiliant and adaptable and need to be moulded early to become good people. Comparing them to dogs is ridiculous, my dogs will never understand why they can’t sit on the good couch. They don’t pretend the fur on the couch isn’t theirs or plot to sit on the good couch when i’m not around, they respect the rules and follow accordingly.

Ben C says:

02:22pm | 15/08/11

@ Budz

Because children don’t understand consequences until it is too late, they don’t have that mental capacity to work out that something may go wrong. If you smack your child when they’ve done something wrong, you’ve done two things:

1. Limited whatever damage could have been done by inervening early.
2. Taught your child that what they were doing is wrong. You follow the smack by telling them that their actions were wrong, so that they know there is a reason for the smack.

Adults should have the mental capacity to understand consequences.

Richo says:

04:55pm | 15/08/11

+1 one.
Well put.
I’m worried that when we are all in retirement homes we will be bullied and bashed by roving gangs of miscreants that the anti-smacking philosophy has created.
I agree that it may be too late to do anything about the generation of disrespectful teenagers we already have.
Controversial idea: allow adults to smack other people’s kids. School teachers for starters.

Aaron says:

05:27pm | 15/08/11

@Bev, As a Gen Y male I don’t like the Gen Y bashing, although I do understand it as most of my generation has been bought up by Gen X (They real culprits here) who couldn’t bring themselves to discipline their children. Many of my friends who weren’t smacked were absolute bastards and bullies, contrary to what Acotrel stated above. I was smacked by my parents and I’m on my way to finishing up a uni degree and am in a very good relationship. Most of the kids from school who were smacked are now hooked on drugs.

In the next five to ten years when I have kids, I’ll be smacking them, if this state bans it, then I will move away. If this country bans it, I will go elsewhere as I’ll be bringing my kids up in a disciplined household.

Righteous Rupert says:

08:54pm | 15/08/11

@ Acotrel, as an Officer and the son of an Officer, I ask what drugs you are taking. This concept of officers being ‘fragged’ as you put it for brutalising subordinates is something of an overplayed myth that comes primarily from the Vietnam era. When it did happen, it was more a case of the subordinates simply being opposed to authority, brutal or not, or those who felt it was safer to kill off an idiot young officer than have him kill them off due to his stupidity. Seriously man, operational service for my father in Malaya and Vietnam, and me in Bougainville, Iraq and Afghanistan - I have not heard of anyone being ‘fragged’ in a LONG LONG time.

Mat says:

08:42am | 16/08/11

@acotrel Maybe you should have been ‘fragged’ at birth, and saved us from this torment.
No discipline at the early age leads to spoilt brats that are only out for themselves (with a few rare exceptions), these spoilt brats grow up but actually never grow up, but end up as spoilt big brats expecting the government to give them something for nothing. Unless ofcourse the socioeconomic status of their parents means they are able to be a continual life long sponge. All about me, me, me and my game console. Or become the next generation of banksters.
The people that are more successful in life are those that know and respect boundaries, and have learnt balanced discipline, and know that there are consequences for their own actions. These balanced people are not afraid to say they were wrong and apologise.
Note: success is not just fiat $$, but family, friends, relationships, attitude. I don’t see any of those rioters appologising for what they did, just sorry for being caught. What of the child/youth that just push the boundaries, always, what is your wisdom for treating those situations? I suppose hypothetically we could just ‘frag’ em and remove that nastyness from the gene pool.
Maybe just maybe its global cooling (80’s) or is it global warming (90’s)nah ya dumb arse its rebadged now as climate change. What a pathetic species we are thinking we can control the radiation output from the sun. Its that differential radiation between cooling and warming that has morphed the gene pool and removed the ability of self discipline. Climate change caused them to be obnoxious little brats. After 200 odd years of exporting the brains intelligence and risk takers from good old England that has limited the available gene pool. Which has undergone natural selection to evolve a new Hominoid sub species, unter mensch. Hominus Riotis
@ Brett :Thanks for the non bias research.
@ Ben C :Spot on, re: that line between discipline and abuse.

Retired Soldier says:

10:31am | 15/08/11

Ben C says: Ben you may not believe this but i actually have a lot of time for a great many Gen Y people and I spend a fair bit of time with at least twenty of them several times per week.. My beef is with those who have “attitude” and expect everything to be given to them, those who obviously have no regard for themselves nor respect for all that society requires of them. Having said that,  i also agree with you that parents should know when to draw the line on punishment. I’m not sure that a lot of them will know how to do that and that could be one of the reasons for the softly softly approach. Notwithstanding that,  there is definitely an industry that thrives off the behaviour of children and if that continues at its current rate the problem will continue to grow because those in the industry want it to. Thanks for agreeing with me just this once though!

acotrel says:

11:29am | 15/08/11

@Retired soldier.  My mother was smart enough never t o hit me, or let my father hit me either. One of my uncles (about 8 years old) was hit by his mother.  A couple of days he walked up behind her, and punched her in the kidneys.  The bloke next door smacked him over the head one day.  He was later sun bathing in his front yard, and my uncle ran and jumped onto his stomach with both feet.  My uncle grew up and fought in New Guinea.  He used to pull fellas out of the mud while he carried their packs.  He shot the Japanese bloke who ran at him waving a sword.  He accidentally stuck his bayonet into the leg of a prisoner, and said ‘sorry mate, I didn’t mean to do that !’.
  We’re a strange breed, but we always get our own back! Why hit someone and create a problem for yourself?

jf says:

12:28pm | 15/08/11

acotrel says:11:29am | 15/08/11

My uncle was in PNG to. He won an MC. He never talked about his time in PNG.

Looking at your pithy personal anecdotes I think (a) you’re full of shit and (b) your personal experiences of violence and retribution are not a proxy for mankind at large.

Oh, and for the record, I don’t smack my kids but don’t have a problem with anyone that feels a smack works for them.

Ben C says:

02:10pm | 15/08/11

@ Retired Soldier

I have no problems agreeing with you if what you say is what I believe. I’m not sure if you’re with me on this, but I think that compulsory service might do a world of good for some of my cohorts that have unfortunately tarred our reputation in your eyes - that will definitely teach them some discipline and respect for what we have here, the fact that we have had to fight and work hard to achieve anything. As you say, it’s the attitude of some of my cohorts.

Luce says:

10:07am | 15/08/11

If you read the article properly, it wasn’t the level of the grade that was the problem, it was the fact that the mother gave a reward disproportional to the achievement of the child.

Is it realistic or fair to set your child up with the expectation that, should they reach a medium level of achievement later in life, that they will be rewarded with greater spoils than they are worthy of? It sets up a sense of entitlement and the belief that you don’t have to work that hard to get what you want in life, which can lead to a lot of pain later on as the child’s expectations come into conflict with the reality they are faced with.

Michael N says:

10:32am | 15/08/11

TChong - why do you and Acotrel persistently look to blame society for the failings of individuals yet in the same breath, campaign so vehemently for mediocrity? The article serves as a valuable warning for a growing group of people who are (as Retired Soldier says) more interested in being a friend to their off-spring than a parent.

If little Johnny’s attainment of a B was truly ground-breaking then by all means, reward him (just as the author suggests). But in taking so much umbrage from Ms Thornton’s dissmissive stance towards the “Computer games for Bs” program, you go a long way to explaining the difference between the “haves” and the “have nots” yourself.

(And as an aside, to achieve the A, Little Johnny should probably spend less time playing computer games and more time on his homework. All in all, quite a poorly thought out reward scheme…)

nihonin says:

01:08pm | 15/08/11

Michael N asks, ‘why do you and Acotrel persistently look to blame society for the failings of individuals yet in the same breath, campaign so vehemently for mediocrity’ that’s because it’s all the left have, if you’re a thinker, you wouldn’t follow the leader.

acotrel says:

08:18am | 15/08/11

@deb
The only complaint I have about my own kids, is that they have too much to say for themselves.  However I can always get my own way by asking them pertinent questions.  Why would you want to stress yourself by running a command and control system in your own home?  We all need to learn to lead by example. If you have to hit someone to get compliance, when they grow up, it will be the police doing it.

acotrel says:

08:32am | 15/08/11

Deb, If my kids ever played up in a supermarket, I simply said very loudly ‘get away from me!’, and walked off and left them!  A while back I watched a young father trying to stop his kid bashing his own head on the floor of a supermarket.  He was pleading ‘don’t , don’t’.  I found it very amusing - what a victim?

Kim says:

11:22am | 15/08/11

Manners are not something a lot of the older generations have either.  Yesterday a group of 4 women aged in their 40s or early 50s were so loud that others in the train carriage couldn’t hold conversations, meanwhile the teenagers on the train were quiet and well behaved.

acotrel says:

11:51am | 15/08/11

@KIm
Are you the Kim out of ‘Kath & Kim’?  I always get a laugh out of the people you’ve just described.  ‘Dere’s nuffink rong wid Moi’!

TChong says:

08:23am | 15/08/11

Thumper, why do you dress like police?
You have a job that requires you to dress like that?
You go around threatening, slapping people, ?
( but with good reason, you claim)
You can excuse your own violence, (slapping would be considered criminal asssault)  but codemn others?
See no irony ?

acotrel says:

08:48am | 15/08/11

T Chong, I believe there are laws which prohibit impersonating police.  There are some very weird people about, like the ones who became special wardens during the police strike in Melbourne in the 20s!  It must be like the thing about dressing up in uniform, and having power over lesser people?

TomZ says:

08:52am | 15/08/11

TChong, why do you invariably and so rigidly oppose anything that questions the last 20 years coddling in our systems? Do you think it is a sign of weakness to differentiate between acts such as smacking and violent acts such as shooting someone? Have you no ability to discuss context when making statements such as “slapping would be considered [by the left fringe] criminal asssault”?

You were give a brain to reason with TChong, not just to obediently regurgitate left mantra.

acotrel says:

09:09am | 15/08/11

@TomZ
When my kids were at primary school there was a kid who used to bash everyone.  His father used to belt into him regularly, and he took it out on everyone else.  He grew up to be one of the local thugs, and was still bashing people at age 19.  A bloke I knew had a friend bashed by this kid.  He took a rifle and shot him dead in our local shopping centre.  When the father heard the news that his son had been killed, he had a heart attack and died instantly.  If you think this is fiction, I can give you a name and a place!

TChong says:

09:15am | 15/08/11

TomZ
Chill dude.
“Thumper” posts a story about dressing like police , sometimes, and goes around “threatening"and “slapping” peole.  ( Thumpers own words)
Left or Right POV niether here nor there, Thumpers odd story would raise even the most apoliticals curiosity, not least for the point acotrel raises.
Please Mr / Ms Thumper, tell how, why you dress as police, then go around doing whatever it is you do.

Likes Joining Dots says:

10:12am | 15/08/11

@TChong - I can’t speak for Thumper dressing as a policeman, but some businesses do have a uniform that comprises a blue short sleeved shirt, combine that with short hair and work boots and that’s often enough to change peoples perceptions and reactions. I did not have bottles thrown at me, but I did get some choice profanities directed my way when out getting lunch.

The second part about threatening and slapping - I can’t explain that.

Tom says:

11:41am | 15/08/11

TChong and acetrol, “Likes Joining Dots” said it pretty well. Thumper did not go to much trouble to explain it.

@acetrol you used “bash” in your example. The writer did not advocate “bashing” your children and for that matter, nor did Thumper. BTW: did you look at Penbo’s article on middle class people whining about their super? I was suitably admonished.

Brett says:

04:34pm | 15/08/11

I’m guessing he’s a security guard… or were you seeing too much red to understand that bit?

Chris_D says:

05:10pm | 15/08/11

@acrotel and Tchong,  I used to wear a uniform that looked like a police man’s uniform.  It was a simple button up light blue shirt with dark blue trousers.  I was a service technician with a big company.  It doesn’t take a lot to look similar to “the boys in blue”.

It seems all you are doing is arguing over petty points.

Damocles says:

05:14pm | 15/08/11

Hey Acotrelalala, you need help mate! Do you understand the difference between these 2 words? Let me make nice and clear for you…....SMACK and…....wait for it…..BELT!!!!  A SMACK is a sharp slap given with the open hand! A BELT is a beating! Notice the difference? A sharp slap and a beating! We are talking about A SMACK…....A SHARP SLAP! You keep talking about A BELT….A BEATING! I’m sorry for your past beatings and the effect they have had on you, but smacking is the issue here, not belting or beating…..........GET IT!?

Fiona says:

08:12am | 15/08/11

Ooh, I love that one, and also agree with your last line, otherwise known as hindsight/experience.
I do think that no matter how you discipline (within acceptable limits) consistency is key, along with remembering that you are not their friend, at least not until they are also grown and independent.

Bev says:

09:46am | 15/08/11

Full text:
Tired of being harassed by your stupid parents?  Leave home while you still know everything, get a job and support your self.

Love it!  Actually had it up in the kitchen when mine were teenagers.  They saw the funny side too.

fairsfair says:

10:15am | 15/08/11

LOL, I love this comment.

“Until you have kids…” being the lead in to every conversation is one of my favourites, but now I see even those who have kids (who are voicing an opinion) are now receiving the “While your child is three…”

Laughable!

You can’t communicate with/control/guide your child when they are a teen/young adult - you don’t think that has anything to do with the way that you parented them when they were three?

acotrel says:

08:42am | 15/08/11

@ Paul C
We blaming the riots in the UK on bad parenting?  So a stuffed social system has nothing to do with it?  Let’s bash the kids, or some coloured people, or commies, or SOMEONE ? It’s easy to get into denial, but have a look at the disparity in wealth, and opprtunity in the UK.

Bev says:

09:38am | 15/08/11

acotrel says:08:42am | 15/08/11

@ Paul C
We blaming the riots in the UK on bad parenting?  So a stuffed social system has nothing to do with it?
Social engineering and an out of control leads to?  Chicken and egg.

GOLD says:

10:36am | 15/08/11

@ Acotrel - cry me a river babe. are you serious? There has always been and will always be the haves and the have nots. Jesus himself said “the poor will always be with us” and that was 2000 years ago.

Disparate wealth isnt the problem. the problem is idiots like you giving people ideas above their station.
if your born poor, poor is all you know. thats life. until someone comes along and starts telling you how hard done by you are and how you should have expensive jewellery and led tvs to. then you start thinking, “yeah, why dont i have all those things?” and riots begin.

Kika says:

09:18am | 15/08/11

Comparing those kids with the riots is nonsensical. Releasing the whereabouts and names for these people make it impossible for the cops to ever prosecute these people properly because our court system demands all people receive a fair trial. If they are tried by the public before being convicted by a judge and jury they will get away with an acquittal. Look at Denis Ferguson. You would expect the same treatment if you were on trial - it’s just a catch 22 with these a&*&holes; who can use the system to their advantage.

Michael says:

09:55am | 15/08/11

Kika it’s the lack of responsibility and consequence that i am comparing, these rioters will soon face the first and only consequences and responsibilities of their susidised existances. The two who murdered the little boy still don’t have to accept personal responsibility for their actions.

What is the lesson their society was hoping to impart?

acotrel says:

09:00am | 15/08/11

@gwp Don’t cop shit from anyone.  Kids can detect weakness in a flash.  I never have a problem with any of them, but their parents can sometines get a bit thing at the way I speak to their little darlings.  I was a kid once myself, and the oldest of 5 kids.  You have to learn something from that - like how to think like them? You have to realise that they are usually totally opportunistic.  From their first moments of life they begin to quickly learn how to take advantage.  They are what we make them, and I believe I’m smarter than they are, so I call the shots.

cynic says:

08:59am | 15/08/11

agreed there are many idiots who want to be their childs best friend.  I used to have a friend who wanted to be her childs best friend, she stupidly gave in to blackmail from her 14yr old daughter to leave school and have her boyfriend move in.  It was let her do that or the child was going to move out thanks to stupid governments who support rebellious children with yout Allowance.  fast forward a year or so and the daughter has had a few boyfriends and ends up being a single mum at 16 and her Mother is happy to be a nanna pfft!

TomZ says:

09:10am | 15/08/11

If you disagree, say why otherwise take your moralising crap and bugger off.

Huey says:

09:31am | 15/08/11

@ Tom Z, spot on.

Luce says:

10:38am | 15/08/11

Smacked Rioteer, are you the nasty little brat or the nastier little brat?

Bev says:

11:02am | 15/08/11

You and your kind are the problem not the solution.  Time for a reboot and a disk defrag and cleanup.  Time to consign the social engineering of the last 40 years and it’s adherents to the trash can.
On second thoughts a disk format and a new operating system would be better.

Freeman says:

09:11am | 15/08/11

That is not an argument against the effectiveness of smacking, Iansand, it’s just lefty guilt tripping in the face of reason. generally, Smacking is not violent and kids don’t live in fear of being smacked. You anti-authoritarian types love to compare or even confuse smacking with child abuse. Child abuse will result in violent children but the vast amount of children who get a smack when they need it turn out fine.

Michael says:

09:11am | 15/08/11

Only if a parent smacks as a last resort Ian aka failure to keep ones composure when trying to reason with a child, an unreasonable expectation to begin with.

A small, light smack with a firm NO, is appropriate for correcting a behaviour that may be dangerous to the child ie touching the oven door, or unclipping the seatbelt on a safety seat.

If you wait thirty minutes the kid wont have any clue what you are smacking it for…even a puppy trainer could have told you that.

Ever see a child puch the envelope of allowed behaviour and then look at the parent to see the reaction? this is your cue to respond and offer the child what the child instinctively knew was coming ...a consequence.

If a child grows up and doesn’t receive this feedback from it’s parents or society, how exactly do you expect the child to learn about appropriate behaviours and responses to situations?

Kika says:

09:20am | 15/08/11

How do you teach a 2 year old with no rationalisation skills not to touch a hot stove. Let them do it and lecture them afterwards?

iansand says:

09:29am | 15/08/11

So far, the answer is “I would not smack after 30 minutes”. 

I wonder at “Smacking is not violent ” and why “A small, light smack ” adds anything to the “firm NO”.

Children who are smacked can grow up to be fine citizens.  Children who are not smacked can grow up to be fine citizens.  One conclusion is that there is something, apart from smacking, going on.  So why smack?

iansand says:

09:59am | 15/08/11

Kika - You watch them, or make sure that there is no way that they can get to the hot stove.  Isn’t that basic parenting? 

Personally, I think that any parent who lets a child get near a hot stove is derelict in their duty as a parent.

Michael says:

10:02am | 15/08/11

Kika, if the child can’t rationalise at two how will the child understand the lecture? and connect the lecture with the undesired behaviour?

How’s your rationale going?

Ben C says:

10:06am | 15/08/11

@ iansand

I wouldn’t wait 30 minutes, because waiting the 30 minutes could be the difference between life and death. I’d rather my child be hurting from me disciplining them than dead because I didn’t.

Ben C says:

10:23am | 15/08/11

@ Michael

I think Kika’s point was the same point that you were making…

Freeman says:

10:26am | 15/08/11

because it is human nature to push the boundaries, to assert yourself in any situation and to manipulate it to suit yourself which is what a 3 year old is doing when they throw a tantrum. Smacking is an effective way to teach kids about respect and consequences at an age when they can’t yet be reasoned with.

Michael says:

11:04am | 15/08/11

Thanks BenC, sorry Kika i misunderstood you

TomZ says:

12:53pm | 15/08/11

“if I had to wait 30 minutes would I still smack?” A dishonest test, iansand. After 30 minutes, any message would be lost on the child. The child would not be able to link what is happening now with what he / she did 30 minutes ago.

Freeman, kika, Michael, BenC, cannot argue with what you are saying.

iansand says:

01:21pm | 15/08/11

Why is it a dishonest test?  If it was genuinely about disciplining the child you would have no remorse after 30 minutes, or 30 days.  If you have remorse after 30 minutes you are deluding yourself if you are telling yourself it is for the good of the child.  The heat of the moment opposed to a rational decision.

It is interesting that a simple observation generates these responses.  What was that line about protesting too much?

martinX says:

02:01pm | 15/08/11

@iansand: “Smacking is usually about relieving the parents’ frustration. “

Stop projecting your frustrations onto everyone else. For me, smacking was the last in an escalation of punishments/tactics. Rarely used, but when it was it snapped him/her out of the hysterical behaviour he/she was in. This was followed by sniffles, tears, a calming down period and a discussion on what went wrong and why, and how to avoid it in the future.

At the ages of 7 and 6, smacks are not needed at all, but the threat is there. It rarely even comes to a threat. The more serious “no Super Mario this weekend” or the more ominous “do you want trouble?” does it.

The biggest problem with saying “those kids just need a good smack” is that the dickheads to whom this is directed have no idea of what’s appropriate and when, so the EDs will end up full of bruised kids with broken bones.

Noely says:

02:37pm | 15/08/11

Not always!  My daughter is now 17 and probably has not been smacked since she was around 4 years old.  There is a big difference between a tap on the bottom to beating up a child?  When she was very little it was the offending digit that got the tape, ie fingers whilst trying to push toast into the video recorder.  As she got older with better language skills it was always a choice, for her…  As in, she would always get 3 warnings, she knew that, so she had the choice to stop and not get the smack.  My husband and I never used force and NEVER in anger.  My 17 year old is now a polite, caring member of society.  So please stop confusing the odd smack with violence.  If used correctly at a very young age (as the author is doing), you don’t need major discipline later.

AJ says:

02:52pm | 15/08/11

iansand, yes, I would. Because before I smack, I give 3 chances to correct behaviour prior and then it is used as the last resort. The last resort is also not always smacking, depending on the situation, it could be either pleasure or pain. When it is pain, it is not relieving my frustation, it is teaching my child about decisions and consequences. And do you know what, sometimes consequences are painful. Like life, you know. So it is not a bad lesson, tt is a valuable lesson, the sooner learned, the better.

Also, when I smack my child, I don’t put them in hospital or cover them with bruises. That is violence, and in my opinion, child abuse. So please don’t put smacking in the same basket as violent behaviour, it is not the same thing.

TomZ says:

03:04pm | 15/08/11

iansand, I explained why your test was dishonest. Why are you pretending otherwise?

“After 30 minutes, any message would be lost on the child. The child would not be able to link what is happening now with what he / she did 30 minutes ago.” ....... Is there any part of that you cannot understand?

If you reviewed your actions 30 minutes after the smacking and you asked yourself “was I in control of myself” and “did it hurt me more than it hurt the child”, you are probably a good parent who does not use spineless trendiness to gut out on your responsibilities as a parent.

iansand says:

03:47pm | 15/08/11

I am puzzled at the vehemence with which inflicting painon on children is justified.  You do realise that many, many parents bring up respectful, polite children without inflicting pain?  I wonder how they do it?  Quite frankly, between inflicting pain and not inflicting pain, I choose the latter.

Chris_D says:

05:06pm | 15/08/11

@iansand.  Ask yourself, if you had the choice of smacking your child and that child learning it’s lesson then and there and changing it’s behaviour, or waiting 30 minutes and something happening to your child as a result of you not smacking it and it continuing on it’s dangerous path, which is a better outcome?

iansand says:

06:09pm | 15/08/11

Chris_D - Call me a weirdo, but I would remove my child from harm. 

Don’t you people look after your children, and have you put no thought into child proofing your houses?  When mine was young we had stairs and a slow combustion stove and an open fire and a swimming pool and a small cliff in the backyard and god knows how many other booby traps, all of which we dealt with before the offspring was crawling. let alone walking.  With a bit of thought and supervision she got through early childhood unharmed and without a spanking.

Chris_D says:

07:28pm | 15/08/11

@iansand, ok, you are a weirdo.  And you didn’t answer the question.

Chris_D says:

07:31pm | 15/08/11

@iansand, I should also make a note that I am talking about using discipline to change bad behaviour, not as a replacement for effective parenting.  Some appear to like to blur the two.

iansand says:

08:45am | 16/08/11

Chris_D - Are you seriously saying that approaching a stove is bad behaviour that deserves a smack?

Chris_D says:

01:37pm | 16/08/11

@iansand,  no, I never said anything like that.  You are the one who made that analogy.  I merely asked a simple question which you won’t/can’t answer.  Instead, you are twisting it around to suit your flawed argument.  Read my post above.

If you can find any of my posts, anywhere, that mentions anything about a child approaching a stove deserving a smack, I stand corrected and offer my sincere apologies for being a moron,  but since I know you won’t, then maybe you can admit you are the one changing things around/putting words into my mouth, to avoid answering my question.

Older parent says:

10:49am | 19/08/11

My child was smackde. _yeah I kow, shockm horror etc. It worked like this. If you do x, I’m sorry bit I will have to smack you. It is important that you do NOT do it. If child then proceeds to do x, a smack ensues. The accompanying actions display no emtion, just calm behaviour , clear directions and no smiles, little attention.Reiteration of the mantra ‘when you feels like behaving, I’ll talk to you again’. It worked, where for that child, time out was cruelty.
You don’t wait 30 minutes to contol behaviour, you do it immediately.In the above scenario I’d still be reacting the same way in 30 minutes because it is clearly thought out behaviour.And so what if once in a while you loose your cool with the kid? That’s real life and they need to learn to deal with it. They will learn that if you keep pushing buttones, things will happen and you may not enjoy them. A good lesson for life.

Jolanda says:

09:12am | 15/08/11

When we recognise that laws are made by those in power to protect those in and with power then you understand why criminals are no longer made responsible for their crimes.  It is all about protection for our Government and those in power – at any cost.  Our Government justifies it by presenting it as in the best interest of the people if the reputation of the Government is protected from negativity.

Education – Keeping them Honest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/

the apologist says:

10:10am | 15/08/11

@Jolanda:
Personal responsibility and justice is a mockery if laws are merely creations of those who are in power. Personal responsibility requires an obligation outside of the individual to which they are responsible. If that obligation is merely to other people who create laws, that is tyranny and oppression based on the perspective of one person over another – not responsibility. Justice similarly requires a standard outside of the individual whereby their actions can be measured, and wrong doing can be determined. Again, if laws are the creation of other people, then it is mere tyranny of one person/people dictating their moral whims over another person/people.
If law is the invention of those in power, your criticism of them is merely your ‘law-system’ verses theirs. Why should yours triumph? What’s the difference between yours and theirs? It’s basically your word against theirs if laws are what you’re claiming. Why is your opinion intrinsically worth more than theirs?

fairsfair says:

09:55am | 15/08/11

Your attempt to explain the riots absolutely blows my mind.

I watched an interview on ABC24 yesterday. It was a British reporter with four rioters. One 16 year old admitted that they joined in on the riots initially stealing “nappies and the full johnson kit” for his 18 month old son. However, when one of his mates advised that he had access to a “van”, they returned several times to load the van with electronics. The reporter asked him if he was losing sleep at night due to his actions and his response was “no, the only reason I am losing sleep is because I am watching my new 40” Plasma”. Another admitted that the goods would be sold netting him approximately two grand. He asked him what he would do with that money - would he undertake a course or training or use it to better his life. No, he was just going to buy clothes, mobiles and other council flat “status symbols”.

It was opportunistic crime and people trying to justify these pathetic acts as a social issue are really frustrating. Yes the issues may be there, but the way in which this drama unfolded is so far from that. The constant excuse making for people who do things wrong perfectly highlights Julia’s point. Sometimes behaviour is just unacceptable and it needs to be stopped without explanation, brainstorming and a psychologist endorsed pep talk - these kids need a boot in the arse but I have little hope they will get it.

Luce says:

11:18am | 15/08/11

Cynical but realistic, if you want a slightly clearer understanding of the cause of these riots, I implore you to read this article:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/british-rioters-the-spawn-of-a-bankrupt-ruling-elite/story-e6frg6zo-1226112640970

Claiming that their actions were driven by a deeper political motive in response to some injustice done to them takes away the dire need for personal responsibility that is so lacking in today’s society.

If politics come into it at all, it’s the failed policies of a welfare state which has created a bunch of ingrates who have no respect for the community in which they live, and who will callously take what they want when they want with complete disregard for the consequences to anyone around them. How does that sort of selfish, destructive behaviour sit OK with you?

Cynical but realistic says:

12:28pm | 15/08/11

fairsfair and luce you have read too much into my comment, I did say the riots had a number of causes and I still say there were a number of causes, that doesn’t mean that I agree or sympathise with the rioters.

Cuppa says:

05:13pm | 15/08/11

Very well said Retired soldier.Agree 100%.People like Acotrel & their PC limp wristed attitudes are the reason there is so much disrespect & lack of boundaries in society now.They are the problem, its just a shame they cant see it.

Skinny latte says:

09:29am | 15/08/11

But would you scream it if you saw an obese child being taken to McDonald’s for lunch?

LC says:

10:09am | 15/08/11

No not even then. At worst I’d scream “STUPID PARENTS!”, but that’s it.

Much thanks for muddying the waters with that though.

redvixen says:

10:26am | 15/08/11

Well, I’m Gen X and everything most certainly was *not* too easy, and there was tough love aplenty.  We knew what the word No meanth and we knew if we did something wrong that there was the possibility of a smack.

Alex says:

10:25am | 15/08/11

Who is ‘they’?
Who are these do-gooders?

How does Nature intend anything? Last I checked nature wasn’t a single conscious entity capable of running anything in any way. Since when is rioting a new thing? Riots have been occurring for thousands of years, I don’t think any have been caused by political correctness or do-gooders. (I understand wikipedia isn’t taken too seriously, but this list will give you a general idea).

Why are dumping psychology? Don’t you think it’s important to try and understand the human mind. Capital punishment has existed for thousands of years, yet crime still persists. What harm is done by trying to determine the motivation for crime?

Why tell us to dump the “we should or shouldn’t” mindset, but then go on to tell us what “we should"be doing?

The only part of your post that makes sense is the last line. Oh well, 1/4 points aint bad.

Rob says:

10:41am | 15/08/11

We should all learn history’s lessons on this. Giving a child a smack when they’ve been naughty has been going on since the dawn of time. Why do we think that we any different to our previous generations? Sure some children who are abused (which is diffent to smacking) grow up with social problems, but why does the mean the vast majority of the population who were smacked and survived have to change their parenting methods. One’s which have worked for generations.

Chris_D says:

05:29pm | 15/08/11

@Rob, simply because too many people spent far too long at Universities being “educated”, and never got around to actually having any life experience, then when they actually walked out into the real world at the age of 30 they started telling the rest of us we were doing it all wrong.

Luce says:

11:54am | 15/08/11

Julia is referring to discipline as a whole, of which smacking is a just one part.

The violence resorted to by some lower class parents, I would estimate, is rarely in the form of discipline, but rather the parents releasing their own anger and frustration in an arbitrary and inconsistent manner. Treatment like this is bound to be confusing and only engender similar behaviour in the children as they grow up thinking it is the norm.

Smacking incorporated into a more structured and consistent system of discipline, however, is much more likely to produce a child who understands that bad actions have negative consequences, and hence will endeavour to be better behaved as they go through life.

AdamC says:

01:44pm | 15/08/11

Luce is right. Physical punishment and compliance tools, in the types of homes James1 is talking about, are likely to be used abusively, rather than promoting discipline. Abuse and neglect would have to be just about the most damaging combination.

Rick says:

03:41pm | 15/08/11

Thank you James1. In most of these smacking articles and in most of the comments supporting smacking they for some reason always assume that out of control and criminal kids have not been smacked. I would agree with you that it is quite the opposite. To take it further if looked at those who are in jail for violence I would expect a greater proportion on the inside than on the outside were smacked or worse by their parents.

Luce says:

04:51pm | 15/08/11

Rick, to save repeating myself, please read my comment above.

James1 says:

10:55am | 15/08/11

Most children start out quite sensitive.  Those who are yelled at constantly over every little thing are quickly desensitised, leading their parents to look to more robust methods.  Thus every parent needs to work out what works best for them, and their temper and associated patience.  Personally, I am very, very patient (my wife often says I could wait out the devil) and softly spoken.  Thus, the slightest sharp tone makes my daughter realise she is in trouble.  My sister in law, who yells constantly and sees a need to smack her son, is constantly surprised that the slightest changed tone from me gets a bigger response from her son than does her own smacking.

Not only must you find what works best for the child, you also need to be acutely aware of your own limits and strengths as a parent, and work with those limits and strengths.  Forget the experts.

Alex says:

10:58am | 15/08/11

“Sigh. So many experts. Now let me tell you what’s what.”

marley says:

11:09am | 15/08/11

I think the issue isn’t whether you smack or not, the issue is whether you give your child consistent discipline.  For some, that might be the odd smack in extreme situations, for others just a loud and furious telling-off or time spent in the naughty corner.  The method doesn’t matter so much as the consistency.  If your child respond wells to verbal discipline, great.  It’s the discipline that matters, not whether you use your hand or the hairbrush to apply it..

Matt F says:

11:33am | 15/08/11

agree with marley here. A smack should be the last resort i.e. if yelling or other methods (naughty corner etc) don’t work. If yelling or some other form of discipline works then that’s great. It isn’t a simple as “smack or your a soft, bad parent” debate. There are plenty of good parents, like it seems yourself Kate, who sit nicely in between the two sides of the debate.

Kate says:

02:20pm | 15/08/11

Alex, I was simply reviewing the available literature - which is much more then most people have done, and then expressing what worked for me.  Do you just enjoy picking arguments??

Ben C says:

12:57pm | 15/08/11

@ Matt F

Love that story mate.

With the do-gooders in the world condemning the use of the smack to discipline children, and advocating a softly-softly approach, the empty threat is even emptier these days, because parents are afraid to follow through on them in case they are deemed to be on the wrong side of the law.

kimberley says:

12:39pm | 15/08/11

While you’re at it don’t forget to thank little johnny and peter for making people welfare dependant, after all they are the ones who really got the middle and high income earners sucking harder at the welfare teat (baby bonus, child care subsidy, child care rebate, family tax benefits and now theres also paid maternity leave)and gave them that sense of entitlement, they also decided it was smart to pay teenagers an allowance which was more if they were living away from home. 
The government that pares back welfare to be for the needy rather than for the greedy will be one that I will applaud.

Matt F says:

12:56pm | 15/08/11

1. Not sure how this relates to smacking children…....
2. NZ seems to be introducing this to crack down on “welfare cheats” not as an ageing population alternative (whether you give a pensioner $600 a fortnight in cash or pay $600 worth of expenses for them it still costs the government $600.)
3. Our ageing population has been a looming issue for a while now (long before the Rudd/Gillard governments) and will be an issue long in to the future as the average age of the population continues to rise. Not sure how you’ve managed to blame it entirely on one party

Ian1 says:

08:28am | 16/08/11

@Kimberley - um, the paid maternity leave at the minimum wage was an ALP policy.  Don’t ask me why women thought they would be better off with 18 weeks minimum wage instead of the 6 months at full pay of the Coalition (which businesses were to pay an impost for).  Why people seem to think the ALP policy was more progressive is just one of those mistakes voters make.

@ Matt F - your second point doesn’t really reflect that the $600 in your example would then be back in the tax system - as the bills being paid keeps the money out of the black market.  The NZ policy is undoubtedly about preventing welfare being spent on illicit substances (which are black market and therefore outside of government revenue clawbacks).

i think the Aussie taxpayer could really benefit from welfare measures similar to the NZ example, considering the size of the black market in Australia and as evidenced the propensity of some welfare cheats to spend the funds on drugs.  Also, it would prevent welfare cheats from claiming multiple payments in multiple names, as the bills for a place would only be paid once - it would identify the cheats quick smart.

Giraffe says:

03:03pm | 15/08/11

Lisa, if you must talk rubbish, try and keep it somewhat believable.

You count at your 19 yo son, an adult, supposedly intelligent, and he behaves? hahaha.

Lisa says:

03:40pm | 15/08/11

Giraffe,  my method works for me and my son.  Admittedly, the counting these days is more of a joke, but I assure you it still works.  There was absolutely no need for you to be so rude in your response.  Were you ever disciplined?

Robert says:

02:12pm | 15/08/11

Our local theatre has allocated seating only and I just had to shake my head at this woman who came in with her kids. The poor kid was being very good and counting off the letter to get to their seats when the mother decides to take the best seats in the house and tells the kids “to just sit here and we’ll move if somebody asks us too”.

With parents like this what hope do children have of becoming decent adults?

RyaN says:

03:25pm | 15/08/11

@Mankind: Were you smacked?

I was, I know it taught me a hell of a lot and I think both my teachers and my parents for doing so.

marley says:

03:57pm | 15/08/11

@mankind - while I do think smacking is a last resort, I think sometimes it can be necessary, especially for very young children where reason simply doesn’t work.  And yes, a quick spanking will certainly teach them (a) not to do that particular thing again and (b) actions have consequences.  When they’re older, and can make the link between bad behaviour and verbal discipline or loss of privileges, fine.  Smacking at that stage should be a no-no.

Mankind says:

06:09pm | 15/08/11

@Marley - No it does not, it only teaches them to fear and distrust their parents. And it’s illogical too. Are you going to smack your children for every possible thing that they do wrong until you’ve convered everything? Or are you just going to teach them what they should be doing and therefore avoid the problem in the first place?

I regularly get compliments on my young children’s behaviour all acheived through consistent discipline and patience.

@RyaN - Given the craziness nastiness of your rants I can only persume you were hit in the head. Often.

Chris_D says:

07:46pm | 15/08/11

@Mankind, i think at the very least it teaches them that if they do that again they will get a smack. The idea obviously is that they don’t want to get another smack, so they don’t do it again.  That is only the most basic premise.  Please don’t think it is the only one.

I agree you “don’t need to smack kids to discipline them”, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be used effectively too on some children in certain circumstances.  And in some cases it can be the quickest and most effective form of discipline.

marley says:

09:18pm | 15/08/11

@mankind - read my comment.  Last resort only.  For kids that don’t respond to lesser measures. Not for every kid and certainly not every thing they do wrong - of course not.  Heck, I wouldn’t try to correct a kid for everything he does wrong even verbally.

Why does everything in this discussion have to be placed at extremes?  A slap on the bottom two or three times in a kid’s life is not going to instill fear and distrust of the parents.  And disciplining without spanking, providing it’s real discipline, is not going to turn kids into vandals.  There are ranges of effective measures for parenting.

Mankind says:

12:06pm | 16/08/11

An as I said it doesn’t teach them anything so why do it?

Even dog trainers don’t use negative reinforcement anymore why should we do it to our kids.

Chris_D says:

01:43pm | 16/08/11

@Mankind.  OK, you have stated a few times that it doesn’t teach them anything.  Can you back this up with a single piece of reference?  I doubt it.

RyaN says:

01:49pm | 16/08/11

@Mankind: what craziness nastiness, oh you mean where you throw completely baseless accusations at me in the hope that some of your left wing mud sticks!

Mankind says:

02:52pm | 16/08/11

@Chris - it’s common sense. How is smacking a child teaching them what they should be doing?

A couple of quick references:
http://www.louiseporter.com.au/pdfs/smacking_web.pdf

http://childpsych.com.au/site/index.cfm?article_text=0&id=12&keywords;=&opt=53&pageMode;=&pageName=articles

“Smacking is ineffective as research shows us that children cannot remember what they were smacked for. They find it harder to develop remorse, empathy and compassion for others because they are overwhelmed by pain and anger and are not able to focus on the effects of their misbehaviour. “

Discipline yes, Smacking no.

@Ryan - I can only take it you don’t read your insane rants after you post them.

Chris_D says:

06:27pm | 16/08/11

@Mankind, smacking is meant to teach children what they shouldn’t be doing.  Do the wrong thing, get a smack.  Again, not every time they do the wrong thing, but when they won’t listen to reason or continue with bad behaviour. That’s my opinion anyway.  Thanks for providing that 2nd link.  Cheers.

marley says:

02:59pm | 15/08/11

Well, they didn’t raid the Houses of Parliament or the Bank of England or the police stations.  They raided local electronics and clothing shops owned by middle-class Joes.  They didn’t shout political manifestos, they shouted - I want those shoes, or that plasma.  Essentially it was one big temper tantrum by people who should have learned by the age of four that screaming “I want” doesn’t mean you will or should get.

fairsfair says:

03:48pm | 15/08/11

Your upbringing sounds identical to mine. In fact, I probably couldn’t tell you how many times I was smacked and as stupid as it sounds, all of us kids look back at the times we were smacked and laugh. Like the shower curtain incident of 89, it was a cracker.

My parents had authority over us too, to a point where if we wanted to do something as teens my mother would simply say “I won’t be angry, I’ll just be disappointed”. It stopped me from doing something/going somewhere nine out of ten times.

Smacking only works if it is a learning tool though I think. Thats why I agree with the author - it is one the discipline plan to raise a responsible citizen. Like my niece’s biggest issue at the moment is that her other grandma allows her to jump on the bed for fun - but that is not allowed in my mother’s house. The other day my mum had to smack her after telling her no and removing her from the bed upwards of six times. “Hop off that bed” now works without any testing or tantrums.

I would never smack my ten year old as they should be old enough to communicate with, however that might be different for other people.. But when you have unruly three year old (thanks to her parents) who will not stop jumping on the bed - the (light) horsebite on the thigh seems to have taught her that grandma is serious when she says no. She will soon learn that she cannot behave the way she does around her parents when she is in the care of her Grandma or Aunt fairsfair.

I can’t see why anyone would take issue with that. Children need to learn boundaries and learning that different people who love you have very different boundaries is just part of becoming an accommodating member of society.

marley says:

04:05pm | 15/08/11

@BB - I think the point of the article isn’t smacking, BB - it’s the need to give kids consistent discipline.  That might or might not involve smacking as one of the tools used, but kids have to be taught right from wrong, they have to learn that actions have consequences, and they also have to learn that their wanting something doesn’t mean they’re going to get it. 

Ideally, you will get these points across to your kids by means other than spanking, but it’s better to give the odd spanking than to fail to instill these basics in your kids.

bananabender says:

04:50pm | 15/08/11

Marley:
the point is that the Japanese don’t discipline children. Children are basically allowed to do whatever they want. Adults are expected to be subservient to young children.

In Japan teachers are expected to earn the love and respect of the students. Disruptive students are considered to be due to poor teaching not bad behaviour.

marley says:

06:42pm | 15/08/11

@BB - look, I don’t know anything about Japanese culture, so I cannot comment.  I have a feeling though, that such a regimented culture as Japan has did not develop by letting the kids rule. 

But it’s irrelevant.  The issue is this culture, not Japanese culture.  Whether we need to smack/spank kids is questionable, but we do discipline our kids and that’s not, in my view, wrong.

iansand says:

07:23pm | 15/08/11

The Japanese may adopt the white tuft theory of chimpanzee society.

bananabender says:

08:00pm | 15/08/11

Marley:
How many times to I need to repeat myself?

The Japanese spoil their kids rotten and don’t discipline them.

Japanese Toddlers can have tantrums and throw their food on the walls without so much a a rebuke from their mothers.

Adults are expected to give up their seats on public transport to young children.

In fact the Japanese believe children under seven should never be chastised under any circumstances. To do so may encourage children to decide life on Earth is no fun and return to nature (die).

Yet despite this apparent lack of discipline they have an orderly society.

It simply proves that western preconceptions about discipline are wrong

marley says:

09:23am | 16/08/11

@bananabender - no, it doesn’t prove that western preconceptions are wrong, it just proves they’re different.  Japan has low crime rates, yes, but there are other countries which have low crime rates, and some of them are western.

And Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the world.  So their “orderly” society and the theories of social responsibility which underlie it may have a massive downside.

james hunter says:

04:02pm | 15/08/11

Absolutely spot on.
Smacking has worked for millions of years and certainly did not turn all of us into psychiopaths.
Like the cane at school there were clearly defined limits and consequences.
All the do gooders have ruined our kids and bad kids turn into bad adults.
Too simple for an academic to understand.

bananabender says:

04:17pm | 15/08/11

So you take the word of a total nobody who taught at a third rate provincial university four decades ago as gospel truth?

In 1974 teachers at my Christian Brothers school were still belting kids across the head. Today they would be charged with assault and battery.

bananabender says:

05:50pm | 15/08/11

@ james hunter says:

It just shows how incredibly ignorant you are. The Western habit of smacking children is a very rare exception to how most societies operate.

The Japanese are probably the best behaved people in the world. However Japanese children are totally spoiled by adults, allowed to misbehave and are never smacked.

M61A1 says:

01:35pm | 17/08/11

A very good point.

Rick says:

05:57pm | 15/08/11

Of course that is opposed to those commenters who make an extreme assumption that somehow hordes of brick throwing, looting hoons are a congregation of children of parents who don’t smack. There are also those with “Stockholm Syndrome” who are never ending in repeating their standard line “It never did me any harm” after making a possibly horribly misguided self-assessment.

Chris_D says:

07:19pm | 15/08/11

@Rick, as far as your first sentence goes, I’d wouldn’t say it’s an “extreme” assumption, and it goes more to the point of discipline in general.

Rick says:

08:19pm | 15/08/11

Chris_D.  Discipline and good parenting do not require smacking so if the article and comments were of the opinion that these kids weren’t disciplined by their parents I would support that notion. The assumption that they haven’t been smacked and that has caused their behaviour has little or no merit and deserves derision and scorn.

Chris_D says:

07:55pm | 15/08/11

@brick, no you are just a complete wanker coming up with such drivel.

marley says:

08:44am | 16/08/11

There’s a difference between corporal punishment and discipline.  If the odd smack is part of a proper disciplinary regime, fine;  if its a substitute for one, as I suspect is often the case, then obviously, it’s not fine, it’s abuse.

marley says:

04:15pm | 16/08/11

Oh I totally agree with this - I got spanked a few times as a very small child, but once I reached an age where I could connect the privileges withdrawn with the crime committed, the spanking ceased and discussion, reason and reprimand prevailed.  I think I was about 3.