Should hitting children be a crime?

Chris_D says:

06:50am | 05/10/11

Fiddler, I take your point, but i think the answer to the question, “Should hitting children be a crime?”, the answer is yes, but if asked, “Should smacking a child as an effective form of discipline be a crime?”, my answer would be no.

I maintain that a controlled, measured, reasonable smack, delivered with an appropriate amount of force is an effective and immediate way to show an unruly/unreasonable child that an unacceptable act or behaviour will not be tolerated.

Kipling says:

07:02am | 05/10/11

Yep there is a difference between discipline and abuse.
Of course I think you (like most of society) misunderstand terms like neglect and abuse. These two things happen in even the most loving families, it just happens. Take for instance children getting sunburnt. Now that is a fairly normal thing to happen in a sunny country like Australia, however, a child being sunburnt in terms of the definition of neglect still neglect. Is it demonic though? Hardly, unless of course it is chronic and not addressed. My parents were driven to distraction trying to protect my (and my siblings) fair skin from excessive sunburn, often to no effect because we were active outdoor kids. My parents were not demons.
Same can be said of abuse, inflicting violence is still abuse, however, we need to be realistic and also understand that at times other factors come into play.
The key word is chronic not abuse or neglect.
If hitting your kid is your ONLY form of reprimand then that may well be moving towards chronic.
By the way, the term discipline refers to teaching, that is also often overlooked in these discussions.
It is also a strawman argument for example to suggest that punishment is discipline. Punishment is restrictive whereas discipline is expansive as it expands on the recipients knowledge and understanding.

acotrel says:

08:04am | 05/10/11

Fathers that hit their daughter should get jail terms !  They can make real problems when the kid marries some poor guy and ge ts into the poisonous passive resistance crap ! We all wonder why the divorce rate is so high ?  This is one of the causes !

RyaN says:

09:07am | 05/10/11

@acotrel: Evidence for your unsubstantiated claims please!

subotic says:

09:07am | 05/10/11

@acotrel, I have 2 daughters under 10 and although a stern word or look usually works 9/10 times, a tap on the backside hasn’t killed them yet. It is always tempered with words of explanation and encouragement, but it’s not withheld when called for. My children, my right. The government and my neighbours can bring up their kids their way, I’ll bring mine up my way, thanks very much. Jailing me for loving them and disciplining them puts them in much more danger and teaches them nothing but intolerance and fear.

neo says:

09:57am | 05/10/11

The issue is pretty open and close isn’t it?

If the child is under systematic abuse at home, then yes, put the parents in jail and throw away the key.

If the kid gets a bit of a smack every now and then when he misbehaves, then forget about it, each parent has the right to discipline their child whichever way they see fit. As long as they know their limits, let them do it.

Myself, I would advise against hitting a child in any circumstance, I think hitting is a sign of impatience and laziness, or perhaps low intellectual development. My parents took the time to talk it out with me and explain how my actions affect others, and I have grown up without any insecurities, mental issues, and I have a strong sense of empathy. Yes, I was punished plenty and deservedly, I had to miss out on my favourite TV programs, I had to stand in the corner and I was refused treats. That game me the time to think about my actions, instead of thinking about how much I hate my parents, as I undoubtedly would if I was being hit.

ByStealth says:

10:17am | 05/10/11

Chris_D has it right. I hate this straw man weasel worded sneakiness. “Should hitting children be a crime?.. well yes.” Suddenly a new age psychologist jumps out of the shadows shouting “AHA Well you’ve been smacking your child, so you’re a child abuser by your own admittance!”

Seriously, I’m going to do what I want when raising my children in what I consider their best interest. The government can really go jump. What’s next? Licensing for parents?

Why not go a step further and go down the eugenics road? Screen prospective parents’ DNA to make sure any progeny won’t have low impulse control or any other nasties that would stop them from being a productive member of society.

jade (the other one) says:

11:30am | 05/10/11

I love how open-minded people are about removing government interference in people’s lives.

Obviously, the Muslim men who insist that their daughters wear burqas should no longer be decried in these forums. They are simply raising their children as they see fit, and people should butt out.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses who would dearly like to deny their children blood transfusions due to their belief that this will condemn them to hell will of course, naturally be supported. They are, after all, simply looking out for their child’s best interest.

African parents who seek to circumcise their daughters will of course, be absolutely supported by everyone here. It is after all, their belief that this is the absolute best thing for their children, and we cannot interfere in their right to raise their children as they see fit.

The government has every right to protect children from parents who act in inappropriate ways based on misguided or antiquated beliefs about what is best for their children. Unfortunately, parents don’t often know what is best, and damage their children through a mistaken belief that they are right in raising their children this way. The government has a duty to question these practices and demand that parents desist from practices that evidence shows is harmful, regardless of the parents’ cultural, social, or religious beliefs.

Andy D says:

12:10pm | 05/10/11

Jade, you do a wonderful job of clearly demonstrating the idiotic straw man arguments alluded to by others, good work.

marley says:

12:42pm | 05/10/11

@Jade - please provide hard evidence that the occasional smack on the bottom for a misbehaving child has any social or mental health impact on that child’s development.  I’m not talking abuse here, I’m talking the occasional smack.  Because unless you can provide hard evidence, you’re views are worth not an iota more than the antiquated views you so disdain.

iansand says:

12:59pm | 05/10/11

marley - I have a better idea.  Provide evidence that it is necessary, or even beneficial.

jade (the other one) says:

01:08pm | 05/10/11

@marley, I have no true opinion on whether the occasional smack does harm or good to a child. I think the jury is still very much out on this one.

What I DO take issue with is the argument that the government has no right to interfere in the way children are raised, so long as the parents believe they are acting in the best interests of the child. All the practices I mentioned do serious harm to children, by parents who love them dearly and believe (mistakenly in my opinion) that exposing their children to these horrible things is in their best interests.

I think it obvious that the government has a responsibility to step in and protect children from their parents’ mistaken beliefs. Nowhere did I suggest that smacking was on a par with any or all of these practices. I just despise the line of reasoning that people have used. There are far more substantive and reasonable arguments in favour of smacking your children, which do not necessitate a line of logic which inevitably results in abuse.

Quotes which show the kind of argument I am talking about are as follows:
Subotic:

My children, my right. The government and my neighbours can bring up their kids their way, I’ll bring mine up my way, thanks very much.

neo:

each parent has the right to discipline their child whichever way they see fit. As long as they know their limits, let them do it.

ByStealth:

Seriously, I’m going to do what I want when raising my children in what I consider their best interest. The government can really go jump.

Parents who circumsize their daughters, refuse medical treatment for their children, or force their daughters to wear burqas also believe that they are acting in their children’s best interests. Should they be allowed to persist in those beliefs, though they are demonstrably harmful, out of a notion that the government has no right to interfere in the way one chooses to raise their children? I think not.

Ben C says:

01:21pm | 05/10/11

@ iansand

How much time have you got? I can tell you many stories of how my mum smacked me and the benefits I got out of it.

marley says:

01:51pm | 05/10/11

@Jade - the role of the government is not to parent our children but to provide a framework to protect them from abuse.

Being ordered to wear a burka is not abuse, and governments (other than the French one) will not intervene.  Being denied a blood transfusion might or might constitute abuse, but even then,  governments are reluctant to intervene unless it truly becomes a matter of life and death.  I do know of Jehovah’s witness kids who have undergone surgery without it.  On the other hand, female circumcision is clearly abuse, and governments will intervene.  Interestingly, though, they will not intervene in male circumcision.  Why not?  Because there’s no consensus that that constitutes abuse. 

Spanking/smacking your child?  There is no public consensus that this constitutes abuse either, and no evidence that the occasional smack is harmful to child development.  So why should the government attempt to substitute its judgment for that of the parent, when there’s no evidence that it’s judgment is better?  There are protections in place should actual physical abuse occur, and that is when, rightly, the government should step in. 

But unless you can establish that the occasional smack is in fact abusive, the government should have no role in the parent-child relationship.

Ben C says:

01:54pm | 05/10/11

@ jade

Re burqas - Roman Catholic nuns wear habits as a sign of their dedication to God, as a symbol of resisting temptation. Why can’t the burqa be seen in the same way? Why do you think it’s a parent’s “mistaken belief” that it would be in the best interests of their daughters?

TomZ says:

02:02pm | 05/10/11

Jade are you seriously asking us to accept that genital mutilation is the equivalent of smacking a child?

neo says:

02:10pm | 05/10/11

It’s not necessary, nor it is beneficial. I can appreciate the utter desperation of some parents, but I am of the firm belief that that there is an alternative in every situation.

iansand says:

02:12pm | 05/10/11

But Ben C - was it necessary or beneficial?  How would you have turned out without being hit?

I have a respectful, reasonably obedient 16 year old who has never been hit.  It is possible.  So, is it better to hit or not to hit?  Personally I prefer to live my life with a minimum of violence.

Matthew says:

02:49pm | 05/10/11

@subotic “My children, my right.”  It was Joseph Fritzl’s child, so he had the right, right?  The only right is that of the child.

@Chris_D, and how do you propose to determine the difference between hitting a child as abuse or an effective form of discipline?  It’s all fine and dandy to say it, but who decides?  I don’t have kids and don’t see myself having any for the forseeable future and don’t have an opinion on smacking for or against but how do you decide something like that?

Evidence in Studies says:

02:55pm | 05/10/11

@Jade - First up Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe in hell.

Secondly, Look up Baumrind for evidence on the benfits of smacking. Coupled with a journal review done by Larzelere, you will find that smacking was found to be beneficial for children under 6 in almost all cases, 50/50 in kids 6-12 and only ever negative for kids 13 and over. I had to do this in uni, and the evidence is clear.

Plus banning smacking does not lower the child abuse rates, that is already illegal. A 30 year longitudinal study done in Sweden where smacking is banned, found the child abuse rates remained precisely the same and never changed.

Ben C says:

03:06pm | 05/10/11

@ iansand

I’m 26 and an accountant, so I’ve turned out bloody well. I would argue that it was necessary - God knows how many times I would’ve scalded myself with hot water, or how many household items would’ve needed replacing because I’ve broken them, or how my grades would’ve suffered because I didn’t do my homework. And therein lies the benefits - I know what is right and what is wrong, and where there is grey, I use my judgement.

Would I have turned out better without the smacks? Impossible question to answer. I could say that I could’ve been so much better, but an outsider looking in could say that I’m a much better person because I was smacked. It’s too objective to make such a call.

I commend your attitude in raising your child without violence. As the parent, you’ve developed your own way of raising your child that is effective. And you should be lucky that your child is able to be disciplined that way. Or there may be some other intimidating factor about you…

Surely says:

03:38pm | 05/10/11

Ben C,
I say you would have burnt yourself once unless your a slow learner.

jade (the other one) says:

03:41pm | 05/10/11

Can everyone get off their defensive high horse for one moment? I categorically stated that I have no opinion whatsoever, and firmly believe that the jury is out on the benefits of occasional smacking as a form of discipline.

My problem here is with the argument that some people have made that they have a right to discipline their child as they see fit, and that the government has no role in preventing them from doing so. There are much better arguments to be made in favour of smacking, and some have been raised by other commenters. I don’t believe that a child is any more a possession to be treated as a parent sees fit than a wife, a husband, or a pet dog.

Quite clearly, it would be extremely wrong of us to suggest that the Muslim who forces his unwilling 15 year old to don the burqa, or the African who subjects his daughter to genital mutilation, or the Jehovah’s Witness who denies their child a life-saving blood transfusion loves their child any less than those of us who do not believe in these practices. However, each of these practices is perceived by the majority to be detrimental to the child’s health. Regardless of the fact that the parents of these children believe it to be integral to the health and well-being of their children.

The government, and experts and people in the street have every right to question the benefits, dangers, and necessity of any practice which involves committing violence on our most vulnerable. To admit that smacking is a violent act is not to suggest that it is necessarily wrong, however, merely to admit the nature of the action.

jade (the other one) says:

03:49pm | 05/10/11

@Ben C, if their daughter does not hold to their beliefs, and does not wish to wear the burqa, then it does become an abusive act to force them to do so. If she chooses freely as an adult woman to do so, that is a different issue. There is no safety, or other requirement besides a parent’s religious belief that the burqa is a necessary form of attire.

Ben C says:

05:02pm | 05/10/11

@ Surely

Of course I’ve burnt myself, especially with splashes from the espresso machine at my parents’ shop, but not by pouring hot water all over my hand like I probably would’ve done if my mother didn’t get to me in time. Trying to imitate her cleaning feathers off chickens despite the fact I had no chicken in hand… Getting smacked the first time stopped me from ever doing it.

bananabender says:

06:59pm | 05/10/11

@Ben C

actually Catholic nuns, priests, bishops, cardinals and popes wear typical Medieval clothing. Their fashions simply failed to keep up with the times.

Chris_D says:

07:25pm | 05/10/11

@Mathew, “and how do you propose to determine the difference between hitting a child as abuse or an effective form of discipline?”

For me it is common sense, but I can’t speak for others.

gravy says:

08:28pm | 05/10/11

IMO there is a world of difference between a smack and beating your child. A smack as a punishment for doing something wrong is ok, but beating your child heavily with or without implements is plain child abuse and never acceptable.

Smacking shouldn’t be done anger and fustration, it should be done calmly and the child always needs to know exactly why they are getting the maximum punishment.

ByStealth says:

09:35am | 06/10/11

Well I guess we should go down the other road then. Lets assume we’re all unfit parents and only raise our children according to government issued literature on child raising. Because that would 100% be in the child’s best interest. Just like in pre-WW2 Germany with the Hitler Youth.

No thanks, I think I’ll use my own judgment. The proof will be in how my children speak about my actions once they reach their majority. I’m well rounded and I resent the concept of raising my child by committee, especially when I see the standard of judgment used by experts and their ‘policies of the week’.

I resent the tone of your comments Jade, implying my disdain for government meddling means I’m pro-child abuse. Nothing could be further from the truth. Still, you assume that the government knows better than anyone how to raise a child.

jade (the other one) says:

10:33am | 06/10/11

ByStealth. Nice Godwin there. I never stated that I believe the government should be the sole arbiter of appropriate child-raising, nor suggested that they meddle except where there is demonstrable harm.

I happen to acknowledge that corporal punishment, of any kind, regardless of how mild it is, is a violent action. I believe that it is the responsibility of governments to question the validity of any violent action perpetrated on those most vulnerable to harm. I don’t believe that this necessitates investigating singular instances of violent acts, whether they be smacking, belting, washing one’s mouth out with soap, grabbing a child, or any other myriad actions that most parents carry out.

I do believe that government does have a role in investigating whether practices in general, create more harm or more good when implemented as a cultural norm, regardless of the beliefs of the parents. No parent has a right to inflict harm on their child, unless the overall health benefits outweigh the harm (such as in the case of medical treatment).

As I have stated before, my only issue is with the ridiculous line of argument that government should never interfere with the way parents choose to raise their children. If that were true, there would be no need for the foster system, social workers, or family counselors.

diana says:

10:56am | 06/10/11

Well, if it’s ok to hit/smack your child, who else is it ok to hit/smack?  Your wife,  sister, mother, friend?  Or is it just ok to hit someone who is younger and dependent on you?

Kipling says:

11:12am | 06/10/11

People will do what they want with regard to raising their children?

Curiously enough, I will do what they hell I want with regard to managing how my community is formed, responds and interacts. You can tell me all you want it is none of my business what you do with your kids and I will tell you the minute it impacts on me in the broader community your over inflated opinion of “your own business’ isn’t worth a pinch of piss.
Given the abhorent behaviour demonstrated by humanity towards its own species and far more helpless other species I have no doubt that wacking defensless children is par for the course. Oh but apparently that is a strawman argument. Damningly though, power imbalance is a very real concept and an alarmingly unadressed social problem.
Perhaps it starts in the privacy of homes with poor parenting practices justified by the ignorant who want everyone else to but out, right up until things go appalingly wrong and then the same cloth eared dingbats wish to blame the broader community…
Strawman arguments indeed. they cut both ways.

Anne71 says:

12:59pm | 06/10/11

My parents operated under “two warnings then smack” rule. Basically my siblings and I were told not to do something. If we did it again,the warning would be repeated. And if we kept doing it - then we got the smack. Naturally, it didn’t take long for us to figure out that when Mum or Dad said no, they meant it. And none of us needed to be smacked once we were past toddlerhood. The “strap” was unheard of in our family.  Once we were older, grounding, witholding of pocket money and/ or loss of TV privileges were the standard punishments - and quite effective, too!

acotrel says:

08:02am | 08/10/11

@Jade TO One
‘each parent has the right to discipline their child whichever way they see fit. As long as they know their limits, let them do it’

What about when a father takes out his war-causated psychosis on his oldest kid, who happens to be a girl, and regularly belts the tripe out of her ?  Does he ‘know his limits’ ??

Chris_D says:

06:44am | 05/10/11

I’m not sure if your comment about the current generation is said in jest or not.  Please clarify.

gobsmack says:

07:21am | 05/10/11

Compared to the teenagers of the 1960s, they are well behaved and respectful.

Mouse says:

08:36am | 05/10/11

Tim, get that tongue out of your cheek!  :op

subotic says:

08:59am | 05/10/11

I fully agree Tim, and up you one by stating that parents should not only be jailed but we should have the parents publicly flogged in front of their children to teach kids that discipline and punishment in any form in our modern society is just plain wrong.

Helen says:

12:14pm | 05/10/11

Massive generalization. I’m a mum of three awesome early 20-year-olds they all got a smack at one time, or another (one of them a few more times than the other two) everyone comments how these kids look you in the eye, sunny outgoing, happy natures. Here’s the reason why smacking works in a controlled situation, without anger. Cooking biling hot soup on the stove, 15 month old son repeated attempts to put a chair up and look at it. No amount of explaining could make him comprehend the danger. After repeated warnings, he got a smack, and left it alone. Lesson: ‘when mum says no sometimes my life could depend on obeying’. Likewise around horses, or walking behind a running car: - no amount of explaining to a 2 year-old can get them to comprehend “you might die if you disobey the rules.”, so if they disobeyed they’d get a smack. In your words Tim; the results speak for themselves, 3 healthy young aussies a teacher, a scientist and a rock star in the making. Lots of love,  clear boundaries and a safe environment. Child abuse?...what tosh.

JC says:

01:13pm | 05/10/11

Helen did you teach your kids what sarcasm is?

Ando says:

03:36pm | 05/10/11

Tim
Are you stupid enough to believe that all the bad kids weren’t smacked and all the good kids were?Might be a few more potential variables to consider.
Are all the prisons full of adults who weren’t smacked as kids? I dont think smacking is abuse but kids can behave without being smacked and smacked kids can still be bad.

LJ Dots says:

05:44pm | 05/10/11

@Tim, I’m not using my </sarc> at the moment, care to borrow it?

No, no imposition at all, take it ... please.

acotrel says:

08:46am | 05/10/11

@SuperD
You mean to tell us that you cannot control your kids unless you resort to corporal punishment ?  You must be intellectually lacking ! You’ve obviously passed the point of ever having a rational conversation with them , long ago ? The little darlings will probably grow up bashing other people to get their own way !

Mouse says:

08:59am | 05/10/11

Super D, this is what children have to be taught, that for every action there is a consequence. If you do a wrong thing there is a punishment. It has to be done with love and consistancy and it has to start early. I did the same with both of my children and when they know that this is what will happen, every time, I rarely got to phase 3. They were polite, respectful and a pleasure to take out.  Please believe me, they were not angels all the time at home, there were many, many times I could have quite happily strangled them! All that means is that they were growing up and finding their own ways, learning their own limits and how to socialise and compromise with others.  The old adage “You catch more flies with honey than vinegar” is as true today as it was then and will be next year. BTW, I never did strangle them and they have grown up to be lovely responsible adults, so I am a proud Mum! Keep doing what you are doing and reap the rewards as your child grows.  :o)

Sarah says:

09:15am | 05/10/11

Acotrel is right. You must be able to reason with the 2 year old, and have them discuss the consequences of their actions. You must never smack - there is no reason why a 2 yr old can’t engage in a rationalisation of cause and effect of actions in the same was that a 22 yr old can.

Sigh.

iMitchy says:

11:43am | 05/10/11

I’m with you Sarah,
acotrel, once a child is old enough, yes - you can talk it through with them.
But a 1 or 2 year old does not have a favourite TV show to take away, does not understand how to stay in the naughty corner and must start to learn that there is a consequence after the warnings.

A little while ago our daughter was overtired and restless on a flight to Fiji. Mummy was preggers and trying to get some sleep and as it was a midnight flight so there was no entertainment - lights out.
After 2 hours of her being dissatisfied with whatever position she was in, toy she had parent she was sitting on, food she was given etc. - she got a light tap on the hand. A quick cry and a cuddle later, she was so exhausted she fell asleep in my arms and stayed that way the rest of the flight.
Kids have to learn that warnings are not hollow - warning after warning after warning teaches them that they can get away with anything. At a young age kids can tell by the tone of your voice that they are doing something wrong and to stop before they get a smack - this is learnt far before they can engage in rational (or for that matter, any) conversation.

Steph says:

03:42pm | 05/10/11

@Sarah: The reason a 2 yr old cannot reason the same as a 22 yr old is that the part of the brain that is in charge of reasoning and critical thinking does not develop until a bit into a person’s teenage years (some, it would seem a bit later even). So, no, a two year old cannot comprehend situations like an adult or even a 7 yr old can, nor should we expect them to. That’s why we are parents, we’re there to do their critical thinking for them and teach them the best we can until they are capable of doing their own

iMitchy says:

04:25pm | 05/10/11

@Steph,

It seems that sarcasm is not your forte…

The little “Sigh.” at the end of Sarah’s comment was the giveaway there… She was taking the piss out of acotrel’s holier-than-thou attitude on this topic.

Chris_D says:

06:55am | 05/10/11

There seems to be this idea from the academics and other “experts” who haven’t actually got past their thesis and careers to start a family, yet seem to be able to find a “one size fits all” approach to how to raise children.

acotrel says:

09:24am | 05/10/11

It’s been said that ‘all management is common sense’, unfortunately many of us are lacking in that department !  Bringing up kids is no different to any other management science, it can be taught and learned.

Dr. Dep says:

09:29am | 05/10/11

Agreed Chris_D. I actually am a Molecular Microbiologist and I definitely feel that academics in general are sometimes a little out of touch with their subject area. This probably from looking at things at an arms length all the time and not being immersed in it themselves.

I have a friend with a child and they have brought their child up in a smack free environment under the instruction of a child psychologist. This child lacks any comprehension of authority and is disobedient at every turn. Conversely, I have another friend who took the same approach with their two kids and they are absolute angels.

The cookie-cutter method just simply does not work. Some kids need a good belting, others need deprivation of privileges and some need to be humiliated. I’m not saying these methods are right I just feel you need to assess your child and see what works best.

Kelly says:

12:57pm | 05/10/11

So what, Chris_D, if they don’t have kids? I’ve seen stacks of parents who obviously no idea how to raise kids. Just because you have one doesn’t mean you know what you’re doing.

Any advice is just that, advice. If you don’t like it, ignore it. Pretty simple. Too many people appear to be in some sort of race to the panic button the moment someone else’s opinion hits their ears.

Chris_D says:

07:33pm | 05/10/11

@Kelly, “Just because you have one doesn’t mean you know what you’re doing.”

I agree, 100%.  100%!  Absolutely.

But my point was if someone hasn’t got/had kids, they can’t possibly understand what it’s actually like to have them, raise them and discipline them. That doesn’t mean they can’t have an opinion, it just means it’s only an opinion.

Mayday says:

07:33am | 05/10/11

As with the effect of slapping a child…...it doesn’t work and its basically lazy and reactionary parenting.

LJ Dots says:

07:59am | 05/10/11

@AFR - agreed, I read it on a friend’s recommendation. We are no longer on speaking terms.

Still, I will watch the mini series, if only for the debate it is likely generate.

MadKat of Melbourne says:

08:02am | 05/10/11

I agree MayDay -

iansand says:

08:42am | 05/10/11

LJ Dots - That makes it a pretty powerful piece of writing.

iansand says:

08:45am | 05/10/11

By the way - I have read it.  I didn’t always enjoy it, but it made me have strong reactions to the characters and the issues they raised.  To my mind that makes it a damn fine bit of writing.  I am looking forward to the TV series.

Mahhrat says:

08:46am | 05/10/11

@Mayday, smacks do work, but you’re right, it’s not ideal.  Dammit, those parents just won’t be perfect, will they?

jf says:

09:17am | 05/10/11

I thought it was trite and pretentious.

I saw a play called ‘The God of Carnage” a couple of years ago. It was about the two families meeting to sort out the issue of one of their kids having hit the other.

There was alcohol abuse, passive-aggressiveness, relationship disfunction, predjudice and more.

‘The Slap’ made me think of this play. It made me think that the interesting topic raised in ‘The Slap’ could have made for an excellent book.

MadKat of Melbourne says:

09:38am | 05/10/11

Mahhrat - smacks work if you want to rule your child through fear of physical pain -

VVS says:

09:56am | 05/10/11

I like ruling by fear… it works around the office…

“I have a hankerin’ for some spankerin’”... if you don’t spank you’ll never be able to genuinely say that classic quote from Mr Homer J Simpson (aka Homer J Fong).

There’s the #1 reason to smack right there.

Van says:

12:52pm | 05/10/11

@MadKat - I got smacked a fair bit as a kid growing up, and even a couple times as a teenager. I never once feared may parents, they never once hit me because they were angry, they explained every time why I was getting a smack. You may think a child will live in fear if they get a smack, but I have always ever since I can remember had an amazing relationship with my parents, full of love and respect, I am glad my parents chose to smack me as a form of discipline!

MadKat of Melbourne says:

03:09pm | 05/10/11

Yes Van - but I was never hit as a child and I’ve turned out just fine - good job, university educated, never been on drugs, never been in trouble with the law - why smack children when there are others ways of disciplining them - and my parents had four children to contend with -

My brother has three and the same is happening without smacking them - they are darlings to take out and you can even sit in a restaurant with them and don’t have to worry about them misbehaving -

So why smack if its not needed - I still think its lazy parenting -

LJ Dots says:

05:15pm | 05/10/11

@iansand, I must disagree. A controversial topic presented in any medium does not make it ‘powerful’ or well produced. Neighbours could have used the same topic in one of their plots and achieved the same results.

I might suggest your ‘strong reactions’ are due to the topic itself, rather than the skill of the writer slapping a collage of workshopped characters around a central topic.

Nevertheless, enjoy watching the series, despite my criticism of the book, I will still be tuning in for the first cut, even though I know how it ends.

Mary says:

11:13am | 16/10/11

Agree with Mayday. “slapping” children is lazy parenting. Have I done it…absolutely. If I’ve spent the last 3 days trying to talk to them and using all forms of other discipline and yet they still continue whatever it is they know not to do, then out comes a nice open palmed slap. I have noticed it’s usually when I’ve run out of steam and it’s usually late at night. It works better than any form of discipline but that’s probably because I rarely use it.

I get so frustrated with friends with horrible children - I’m talking about the kid who harms other children, pets, is rude to adults, vandalises other people’s homes, harm other young children because the parents wont pull otu the big guns when they have to. Smack the kid damn it - some kids just need it.

marley says:

08:14am | 05/10/11

I don’t think it’s the lack of slapping that’s caused some of the societal issues we’re seeing - I think it’s the lack of discipline.  And the two are not necessarily the same thing.  I know some kids who’ve been slapped around who are as feral as they come because their famiies had no consistent rules;  I know others who’ve never been slapped but who are well behaved kids because the families had a disciplinary regime even though they didn’t smack.  And of course I’ve known plenty of kids whose parents did use the odd slap as part of their disciplinary regime. 

The point is for parents to have rules and stick to them:  whether it involves the odd smack or not is, too me, irrelevant.  Kids respond well to consistency.

Arthur says:

09:18am | 05/10/11

All true marley.

What I wrote was partially tongue in cheek. I think kids need love. They also need discipline. Too many kids are getting neither.

acotrel says:

09:37am | 05/10/11

@marley
Negative reinforcement can exacerbate bad behaviour !  All that happens is a monster is created, and sometimes ends up dead - killed by the peer group ! This hapened to a kid at my sons’ school.  He used to bash all and sundry.  When he was in his early twenties, he bashed someone, and got shot for his trouble.  When his father was told, he had a heart attack and died instantly - poetic justice ! He was well known for beating his kid, who then took it out on everyone else !  If you need his kid’s name, I can supply it so you can check the police records!  There is someone doing time for his murder right now !

MadKat of Melbourne says:

09:43am | 05/10/11

Oh please Arthur - you cannot hardly funnel the state of the youth of today down to the fact that they weren’t smacked as children. The issues are alot more complicated than that. It’s got to do with a lack of overall discipline at home. You talk like smacking is the only disciplining tool a parent can use on a child. Smacking is lazy and doesn’t take alot of time and skill to implement.

marley says:

10:23am | 05/10/11

@acotrel - I can tell your background is in physical sciences because all your comments are so absolute.  You see no room for individual variation from your very rigid concepts. 

Well, newsflash, humans aren’t governed by the laws of physics but by the vagaries of biology.  That’s why some people react badly to antibiotics, and some don’t;  that’s why two kids from underprivileged backgrounds can have very different futures;  that’s why some kids react to verbal discipline and others need the odd bit of physical discipline. 

Anyway, there is a world of difference between beating your kid and giving him or her the odd spank on the bottom for serious misbehaviour.  Getting spanked twice in your lifetime is not going to turn you into an axe murderer.

And by the way, I once had the misfortune to sit in a fast food joint beside a mother and her two young kids.  The whole lunchtime was incredibly abusive - she never touched the kids once, but for half an hour simply harangued them about every move they made, and made them feel about two inches high.  I know, if I’d been them, I’d rather have had a quick smack and had it over with, than half an hour of being demeaned and criticized.  If you think the only negative reinforcement is corporal punishment, frankly, you know next to nothing about people.

Arthur says:

10:42am | 05/10/11

@MadKat of Melbourne

I can tell you from first hand conversations with old school teachers. The day they were no longer allowed to use the cane was the day teachers lost control. The police, courts and society then subsequently lost control.

“Smacking is lazy and doesn’t take alot of time and skill to implement.”..................True. Exactly what teachers trying to control overly crowded class’s need.

Smacking/cane had it’s place and without it the world is a far worse off.

MadKat of Melbourne says:

11:53am | 05/10/11

Yes Arthur and I’ve heard about stories from my parents in their 70s that got caned at school. They say alot of the teachers were sadistic and got their jolly’s from caning until the skin came off. They didn’t want it for their kids. My 70 year old mother who got caned at school and smacked at home did alot more behind her father’s back then I ever did and I wasn’t smacked.

Smacking and caning doesn’t produce well-behaved children. If it did then as a rule all well-behaved youth would have been smacked and all misbehaved youth would not have been smacked. This is not the reality. To think that caning will stop the youth of today behaving as they do is too simplistic -

And anyway parents shouldn’t be passing the responsibilities of disciplining their kids onto teachers.

MadKat of Melbourne says:

11:59am | 05/10/11

And anyway Arthur taking a stick to a child and caning them is child abuse - this forum is talking about smacking (not slapping or hitting) as a form of discipline -

Arthur says:

06:53pm | 05/10/11

@MadKat

The heading reads…....“Should hitting children be a crime?”...The cane would fall under that heading??????

You’re right. I was caned at school by some sadistic teachers….BUT….It was definitely something to be afraid of and kept most in line….With modern controls…say two teachers present.

As for it not being the responsibility of teachers to punish…Perhaps a slap of reality is needed….It’s a fricken jungle in the class room. To think otherwise is extremely naive, ignorant or both….If we want a softly softly leftie socialist society there are consequences.

MadKat of Melbourne says:

11:58am | 07/10/11

No Arthur you’re wrong - I’m not a leftie so I don’t believe in leftie lifestyles or politics - everyone that knows me on this blog knows just how right-wing I am - so EPIC, EPIC FAIL Arthur.

The heading reads…....“Should hitting children be a crime?”...The cane would fall under that heading??????” - you’re the only poster that is banging on about caning Arthur so no - most have interpreted the heading as hitting with the hand -

The only extremely naive and ignorant thought here (apart from believing I’m left-wing which is an absolute joke) is to believe that bringing caning back into schools will solve the societal problems that abound because of unruly youth. Caning in schools will do nothing if there are no parental controls at home.

And as for what is going on in classrooms - do you really think you’re the only one who knows school age children or the teachers who teach them. My teacher friends constantly complain about the bad state of working conditions of schools because of lack of funds and not the behaviour of the kids.

You got a lot wrong with your last post so give it up. You’re out of touch Arthur.

Nathan says:

07:15am | 05/10/11

you see kids getting smacked when they are out and about and keep going…..i very much doubt that this is the first time they have been smacked, and also if you see a well behaved kid you don’t know if they never got smacked or if they did

M is for Moderation says:

08:16pm | 05/10/11

Agreed, but for one part.
A lot of the ‘new age mothers’ you think you see around are actually regular mums who would love to give little Timmy a whack to stop the tantrum over lollies in the middle of the shopping center, but unfortunately find themselves being stared at and judged by several dozen people, any one of whom may themselves be ‘new age’ good samaritans happy to report her to the police for ‘assaulting’ her child… (speaking from experience)

Kipling says:

07:51am | 05/10/11

So in short, you just redefined the terminology…

GT says:

08:20am | 05/10/11

I agree, too many people use terms like abuse and bashing kids when that is not what it’s about, one smack on a nappy covered bottom does no harm but it’s a wake up call that they have done something, you can’t reason with 3 year olds, when they get to the age when they can understand you and reason then the smack should not be used. back of the hand, the leg no harm done. anything around the head is bad and it’s should not leave bruises or welts, other than that let us teach our kids boundaries somehow when the ‘naughty corner’ or ‘time out’ don’t work with them.

marley says:

08:24am | 05/10/11

Interesting.  Different heritage, I guess, but I find the word “smack” quite confronting - because to me it implies being hit pretty hard.  I realize it doesn’t carry the same meaning here, but I still cringe a bit when I hear it.  So I don’t see much of a difference between slap and smack.  But then, I don’t think anyone here uses the work “spank” do they?

Mahhrat says:

08:43am | 05/10/11

No, Kipling, I’ve stated what I believe to be the accepted use of those words in the lexicon.

I’ve never heard a person say, “I only hit my child when I need to”. 

I’ve heard many people (like today here) say, “I smack my child when I have to”.

One of the dishonest things the lobbyists for outlawing the “smack” want to do is to redefine the term to “hitting” as it’s understood by the common person, because most people would agree with the term, “It’s okay to smack your child” but would disagree with, “It’s okay to hit your child”.

The argument is worth debating, but the use of dishonest tactical bullshit like this is just really poor form and IMHO demonstrates that they KNOW they’re wrong, because they need to use such tactics, but they want the power trip and the money that comes from being the moral overseers of the nation.

Chris_D says:

09:27am | 05/10/11

@marley; “But then, I don’t think anyone here uses the work “spank” do they? “

Different forum marley. 

jade (the other one) says:

11:38am | 05/10/11

If I “smacked” a grown adult without their permission because I didn’t like their behaviour, I could quite rightly be charged with assault. I also very much doubt that they would agree that I had “smacked” them, rather than “hit” them.

Smacking, or spanking are terms that parents have devised to make themselves feel better about hitting their child. There is no appreciable difference in the action of hitting or smacking.

How many of you, seeking to justify this difference, would call another person, say myself, grabbing your child and administering an open-handed slap to your child because they swore, or threw something, or did something that you would “smack them for” anything other than hitting your child?

iMitchy says:

12:59pm | 05/10/11

@jade,
It is not your place to smack my child, or drive my car, or be in my house… I could go on.

I think the point is that if a child understands that a parent can, and is willing to, take further action to control a childs behaviour, then the child is more likely to respond to the initial instructions / warnings in the first place.
For a child to have the understanding that “don’t do that” is the be all and end all of discipline from their parents then where is the disincentive to engage in bad behaviour?

Gomez12 says:

03:45pm | 05/10/11

I have to laugh when people conflate hitting with smacking. If you don’t know the difference, come see me, I will smack you as I would my child, lightly, more to shock than hurt, and never to injure. Then I will hit you, flat chat with a fist in the mouth. If you still can’t tell the difference when you awaken, hand your kids away to someone else, your’e clearly too stupid to have children.

I personally always saw “The Slap” as more of a discussion about the limits and obligations imposed on groups in our current society. The main premise is that somebody “slaps” another parents child, not their own. It’s hardly new, my own parents would give me a smack when I crossed the (clearly defined) lines, and would have gone completely berserk if someone else had taken the liberty of doing the same.

And for the record, I support the right of parents to resort to physical disipline where necessary - as many have already pointed out - “Sweety, the amperage of that wall-socket exceeds the safe limit for humans and may stop your heart instantly if you are improperly grounded and it crosses your chest” isn’t nearly as effective with a 2 year old as “Don’t stick anything in the socket or daddy will have to smack you”. Sure, it’s not the preferered option, but they’ll still be alive in later years to complain to me about it.

Cynicised says:

04:17pm | 05/10/11

Hitting the “like” button, Gomez12. Well said.

Chris_D says:

07:37pm | 05/10/11

@Gomez12, good post.

Paul says:

08:08am | 05/10/11

I heartily endorse your rant and add for good measure my own observation that The Slap is basically everything that’s wrong with the ABC (and AusLit): self-righteous, faux-profound, morally indignant bourgeois fantasies of reality viewed through a prism of entitlement and snobbery masquerading as clear-sightedness.  When that book was reviewed on First Tuesday Book Club the subject matter and the forum combined to tear a hole in the fabric of the universe which spewed out a torrent of Fitzroy-Paddington faux-boho self-superior litcritshit that dissolved whole galaxies and their civilizations in a cataclysmic hail of non-insights into un-writing that, as of this Thursday, will consume our world too.  As for smacking your child: if they won’t respond to anything else, yeah, give them a whack and explain where it came from and why.  It’s easier than reading a Tsiolkas book.

TomZ says:

02:15pm | 05/10/11

Paul, have you being swallowing Zeta’s pills? Great read. Ticks all the boxes on ABC types.

LJ Dots says:

04:49pm | 05/10/11

@Paul - ‘As for smacking your child: if they won’t respond to anything else, yeah, give them a whack and explain where it came from and why.  It’s easier than reading a Tsiolkas book.’

Thanks for the inspiration, if my kids misbehave I’ll make them read a chapter of “The Slap”. They’ll not make that mistake twice.

Nathan says:

07:30am | 05/10/11

im sure that you can go into Gaols and find plenty of people there who where slapped as a kid as well. Not saying it is the wrong way but why ridicule alternative methods like the naughty corner, i know parents to swear by it. Just cause you don’t like does not mean that it is the wrong way

What possible way do you have of knowing or not knowing if smacking children or the lack there off is causing “seeds of the destruction of civilistaion at work”......there is no way that you can know this. If you can prove that current generations are worse behaved then others go for it but something other than perception would be nice

Mahhrat says:

07:46am | 05/10/11

@Thatmosis, I love the “naughty corner” idea.  How do you propose, oh Super Nanny, to keep an unruly child in the naughty corner?

Oh, right, by picking them up and putting them there?  Well, honey, that’s use of overwhelming force.

You wouldn’t be able to do it to an adult any more than you could smack one.

Silly, me, one’s violence and the other isn’t.  Sorry to disappoint, but force is force - you’re using the fact that you’re bigger and stronger to get your point across, just as a quick tap to the bum does.

Mahhrat says:

08:45am | 05/10/11

What, and miss out on all the millions in self-help books available to parents if you can undermine their self confidence?

(I agree 100% with what you say, btw)

lisa says:

04:52am | 06/10/11

well put Adam, couldn’t agree with you more…..

Tina says:

08:33am | 05/10/11

Whereas I agree as I wouldnt want anyone else smacking my child either, I wonder though how we got into this “dont even think about critising MY child” mentality. Are parents now treating their babies as holy grails that are not to be approached by others? Why are we so freaked out about anyone else maybe asking OUR child to stop something naughty? Does it reflect our insecurity about how we educate our children? Some parents treat their trophy babies like a polished Ferrari and personal property.

Warwick says:

10:10am | 05/10/11

No-one has the right to hit (slap) someone else’s child? What if you are handling some dangerous machinery, or equipment, and the child keeps interfering with it, even though you’ve told him repeatedly to go away and leave it alone?

I think you are wrong about “never,” and anyway, this is a side-issue. Most slaps and hits and other forms of pain-causing treatment of kids are delivered by parents because they are unable or unwilling to deeply involve themselves with their kids, mentally and emotionally. The greater part of slapping and hitting is simply parents releasing their frustrations by belting someone, in this case their kids.

If parents, or other custodians, make the attempt to become deeply and actively involved in the behaviour education of kids then a huge amount can be achieved. In most cases, people who proclaim the virtues of slapping, spanking, hitting, strapping and caning are justifying their emotional and mental non-involvement and laziness. And maybe they enjoy inflicting pain on others.

Kebabpete says:

10:48am | 05/10/11

@Warwick - Why is it that when the subject of slapping a child comes up there is always some extremest do-gooder like you that goes on about “spanking, hitting, strapping and caning”?

No one even mentioned that because it is child abuse. The issue here is spanking for the sake of discipline as a last resort, not abusing child unnecessarily.

natweeza says:

01:15pm | 05/10/11

It’s not that black and white Kebabpete. What if the grandparents are looking after the child 8 hours a day while mum’s at work. Would it be a crime for them to smack the child in order to discipline them? If you are caring for the child at the time, you should be able to smack them if the situation calls for it. It is up to the parents to determine if someone is competent enough to look after their child. If they don’t want them smacked, then a conversation should be held before any caring takes place. I doubt many people even discuss this issue before leaving their kids alone with a babysitter or relative for hours on end. Smacking a child you do not know, in a situation where you have no authority over them is a no-no, but if it to stop them from endangering themselves as Warwick said, then it might be acceptable.

Ben C says:

01:18pm | 05/10/11

@ Warwick

I’d like you to become emotionally and mentally involved with someone who is yet to learn how to string a sentence together.

How do you expect parents to reason with children who possess a minimal grasp of vocabulary in any language?

jay-ded says:

01:41pm | 05/10/11

My nephew was nearly 3 and we were mucking around on the lounge at about 6:30am (that’s the time that my darling niece and nephew woke me…)  when he spat on me!  I couldn’t believe it.  He knew what he had done was wrong, and I smacked him on the hand (not hard mind you).  He then threw an utter fit that woke his Mum and Dad (my brother).  Never heard the end of it from my sister-in-law.  He’s not your child blah blah blah.  What was I to do?  Wait for her to get out of bed around 10am and then have her punish the child?  If a child does something wrong, they should be reprimanded straight away otherwise they’ll have no idea what they’re being punished for.  Was what I did so wrong?  I mean, really?  After that episode I never saw my brothers kids again until they were teenagers, and the young boy who had spat on me had no inkling of why I was not allowed to visit.  Talk about over the top.

iansand says:

02:04pm | 05/10/11

jay-ded - I think you will understand The Slap.

Big AL says:

03:06pm | 05/10/11

jay-ded if I had been in your place I would of said that’s enough! Get out I am no longer playing with you, spitting is not acceptable, don’t talk to me… Simple… Smacking/slapping someone else’s kid is a big no no. If my brother and sister were to do this to my children he/she would cop a burning from me just like you did from your sister in law. By hitting him you are saying that it is acceptable to cop it from anyone. My daughter gets the odd smack but I have made sure she understands that no one else is allowed to smack her and to tell me if it does happen. Mind you when I leave her in the company of others I also warn her that if she doesn’t behave (and I EXPLAIN to her what I mean by the word BEHAVE) she will be in big trouble when she gets home. I also make sure I say this in front of her to the person looking after her so she is aware that all it takes is one word from that person and she will be punished. I tell you everyone loves having her over because she is so well behaved and so easy to get along with….I have no problems with others reprimanding my child verbally but physically that is the parents’ domain and the parent must be notified at all times of bad behaviour…

GT says:

03:20pm | 05/10/11

I used to live with my sister and her kids, I used to smack them when they got out of line, my parents smack them when they are watching them if they need one

Chris_D says:

07:45pm | 05/10/11

@jay-ded, sounds like your brother and sister-in-law could have done with a bit of a slap too.

I can’t say I would have smacked my sisters child, and I’m not condoning it, but it sounds like their reaction was a bit OTT.  I tell my parents that if my kids deserve a smack, give them one, and I tell my kids when they are visitng their Grandparents that if they misbehave they will get a smack.  At this stage (9 and 8), they haven’t had to be smacked.  Seems like a good deterrent, hey!

GT says:

08:26am | 05/10/11

oh I agree, the number of little ferals I see at the shopping centres, running around knocking into people, including old people, and their parents just watch and do nothing.

I was pushing a trolley on the weekend and this little ‘darling’ ran into the side of it and started crying and the ‘parents’ started in on me, I just replied calmly that their brat ran into the trolley, I did not hit them and if they want to avoid this in future learn to either control your child or get them on a leash

Zaf says:

08:59am | 05/10/11

Bogan Pride and Fat Pizza were also good, but.

subotic says:

09:12am | 05/10/11

Zeta, marry me!

Shama says:

09:30am | 05/10/11

Mad Max, Bad Boy Bubby. Australia as a trope. A weird, dystopian place, industrial aesthetic chic etc.  The perfect response to a bland, suburban society. Blah blah blah. 

Thank God for Cloudstreet.  And perhaps even The Slap.

MikeS says:

10:51am | 05/10/11

I quite liked Idiot Box.

Ya are an idiot,
Ya are a bitch,
Ya shit me to tears,
I’m going down the pub.

Now that is a poem.

Kate says:

08:07pm | 05/10/11

Spot on Zeta. I can’t believe I made it through the entire book. The author’s smug sense of self-awareness was overpowering.

sceptic says:

12:16pm | 09/10/11

Zeta, while I probably share your assertions with regard to Cloudstreet, I think you have a very limited field of view when I comes to Australian cinema. While I love genre cinema, it seems such an indulgent retro 90’s position to take in limiting your likes to Bad Boy Bubby, Mad Max and Razorback. Sequels are for schmucks.

TTFN says:

10:11am | 05/10/11

Like adults, children respect a show of force… whether it be smacking or otherwise.

If the child does not respect their parents’ authority (and a lot don’t) then nothing is going to work until that respect is there.

“Time outs” or other such discipline may work for some kids, but not all of them.

Just like there are adults who will walk all over other adults until the police arrive, some children are like that too. The parents have to be the police in that situation.

Chris_D says:

11:10am | 05/10/11

I find it amusing that people will say a smack is bad (or that the parent has run out of ideas), but putting a child into a “time-out/naughty corner”, and effectively ignoring them for a designated amount of time is a much better option.  I would suggest (with absolutely no formal training whatsoever, apart from having 3 children), that a quick smack, over and done with, result achieved, is a far better psychological outcome than teaching your child you would rather have nothing to do with them when they do something wrong.  Same goes for any other form of humiliation as “discipline”. 

I’d rate an effective, measured smack over either of these options any day.

Average Joe says:

11:23am | 05/10/11

Spot on TTFN.

Average Joe says:

11:32am | 05/10/11

“Smacking a child shows that the parent has run out of ideas.”
Yes, scheming to devise ever more inventive and sinister phychological torments as punishment for your child is far more constructive than an open handed smack on the bum, I suppose…

GT says:

11:33am | 05/10/11

yes because 2 year olds can reason and understand everything you say to them and can converse with you about the possible consequences of their actions, it’s not a lack of ideas, it’s for immediate effect. they are reaching for the stove which is turned on, quick smack on the hand and the word NO and they pull the hand away

iansand says:

11:47am | 05/10/11

GT - But, of course, they draw an immediate connection between a smack and the rather esoteric concept of heat and danger. 

Do you know, I have a better plan.  Keep kids out of danger until they are old enough to reason with.  That is one of your jobs as a parent.

TTFN - If your authority is gained by inflicting pain it is no real authority.  It is fear.  Lazy parenting.

Cynicised says:

02:34pm | 05/10/11

iansand, I usually enjoy your comments, but this is utter bullshit. Parents, especially busy ones with more than one child, don’t have eyes in the back of their heads. Mistakes happen, even in the most vigilant of households. And please explain how “heat and danger” is a “rather esoteric concept?”  I"d have thought that was the most obvious example of when a short, sharp smack is the perfect deterrent. Surely the quick and minor hurt of a smack is a better idea than a nasty burn?

I agree wholeheartredly with the idea that there is a huge diffeence between effective, timely discipline and abuse. Occasionally, a smack on the hand or bum gets the message across far more clearly than any other method, and no, it definitely should not be a crime. Chronic, forceful hitting which leaves marks on a child is abuse. There the line should be drawn.

iansand says:

02:59pm | 05/10/11

Cynicised - Child proof your house.  It takes a small amount of thought, but it can be done.

Are you seriously suggesting a 2 year old has the cognitive ability to connect the slap with danger?  My inner 2 year old suggests significant confusion when this heretofore loving and attentive parent inflicts pain for no apparent reason.

The Bry-man says:

03:18pm | 05/10/11

@ iansand

It sounds like you are someone without any authority out in the real world. Which is fine, not all of us can be leaders.

(You can coach from the sidelines if you want. No one will listen - but if it makes you feel good go right ahead.)

Cynicised says:

03:22pm | 05/10/11

Iansand, are you being deliberately obtuse? Does it not occur to you that the smack is used, in this instance, to prevent a far worse injury,(the child withdraws his hand) and it is then followed up with an explanation re your “rather esoteric concept?”

I’d also like to live in your perfect world, where infallible child- proofing exists in every household.  Things like older children opening stair- gates, doors, etc and younger kids getting into the kitchen whilst Mum is busy actually happen in everyday life. Please be real here. Theory is fine, practice is another thing.

iansand says:

03:50pm | 05/10/11

It is possible to protect children without violence.  Millions of parents do it, including me.  What do we know that you don’t?  For starters, what is a child doing alone in the kitchen with access to whatever allows him or her to climb up onto a hot stove top?  Seriously.  If that is possible the parent has not thought anything through.

We had all the usual stuff in our house.  We also had a swimming pool, a 3 metre cliff at one end of the garden (which we had fenced before we settled), a small pond (when we moved in - that lasted one day), a staircase, a slow combustion heater (which we used), an open fire and god knows what else.  But my ex-wife and I had a good look at the place and made it safe.

GT says:

04:08pm | 05/10/11

I don’t know about your kids but mine are smart enough to figure out how to open the ‘child-proof’ stuff around the house (I can’t even open them without a lot of muttered swearing much to my partners amusement) you can’t follow your kids around 24/7 in your house, it’s impossible the little angel/demons are quick and quite naughty, so all that ‘child proofing’ does jack where they’re concerned, after 1 smack on the hand however they don’t go near the stove if they can help it

Cynicised says:

04:31pm | 05/10/11

Seriously, iansand, goodonya, how brilliant you are, but guess what, not every parent in the world is able to cover all the bases all the time.

Do you not realise that perfection in child-rearing is not the norm? And how many children do you have? Do you not understand why acccidents (which are often preventable, true) occur? People get busy, things get neglected. Maybe I can’t afford that stair -gate this week. Maybe I’ve told my older child not to open the stair-gate if I have to leave the kitchen to go the toilet, but he doesn’t listen. Honestly, are you really that unaware of how most of the world works?

And please, calling a short sharp smack “violence” is total exaggeration. Read Gomez12’s post above for the difference.
Once again, congratulations on your perfect parenthood.

iansand says:

05:10pm | 05/10/11

Cynicised - How do you explain how children are brought up safely without violence?  And if a smack is not violence what is it?

Chris_D says:

06:45pm | 05/10/11

@iansand, oh, the irony! I’d say having to spend so much time, effort and money suggests you have run out of ideas on how to train your child effectively. You sound like alcotrel, both wanting live in your imaginery ideal Worlds.

Thanks for the laugh.

Cynicised says:

12:28am | 06/10/11

Iansand, you need to climb down from that ivory tower of yours and look around occasionally. Whilst you’re at it, you might want to free your kids from their protective bubble- wrap at the same time. You all might learn something about the real world, the ordinary, fallible, scary, hazard-laden world that most people inhabit. Btw, the odd scraped knee or bumped head is not going to permanently scar your child. Neither is the odd smack going to permanently scar mine.

It is just a smack, given for immediate correction of inappropriate behavior. Nothing more sinister, which you and your ilk would like to make it. Parents have enough worries about their child-rearing, they don’t need to be pilloried for it by self- styled experts.

Average Joe says:

11:34am | 06/10/11

@ iansand - you are being extremely disingenous regarding a child finding themselves confronted with danger. Even in the most child-proofed of homes, the unexpected can happen.
Furthermore, if a puppy can connect unwanted behavious with a disciplining smack, I’d like to hope the average 2 year old human can, wouldn’t you?

Bill says:

01:31pm | 06/10/11

No. Smacking a misbehaving child shows that the parents CARE enough to show the child that there are boundaries and consequences. Instead, we have a society of little darlings that no-one can criticise, or discipline, or say “NO” to.

I agree fully with Average Joe. Well said, mate.

GT says:

11:43am | 05/10/11

it’s hardly abuse giving them a smack on the bum.

i smack my friends all the time, backhand light whack on shoulder or leg if i want their attention, smack on the arse if i am feeling playful, they don’t call the cops on me.

with everything there are degrees, one tiny slap on the nappy covered bum or back of the hand is hardly going to scar or bruise them.

Warwick says:

10:22am | 05/10/11

“I have tried reasoning with a 3 year old it like reasoning with a clinical psychologists.”

If you are either unable or unwilling to construct a grammatically coherent sentence then the chances are that you are also incoherent in your communications with your three your old. I pity the three year old.

GT says:

11:46am | 05/10/11

@Warwick - are you a parent? have you actually tried to have a conversation with a 3 year old? they have the attention span’s of a goldfish and only hear about 1/3 of what you actually say, the rest all they hear is blah, blah, blah.

you can reason with older kids that have a firm grasp and comprehension of words and meaning but really under 4 you’re struggling to be understood

Ben C says:

03:16pm | 05/10/11

@ Warwick

A 3-year-old’s grammar and vocabulary is two-fifths of @#$% all. How the bloody hell would a grammatically coherent sentence get through to their brain? Think about it - you were 3 years old once. How much of the English (or any other) language did you understand at that age? Unless you were some child prodigy, I would hazard a guess at not very much.

Tina says:

10:39am | 05/10/11

Since when is smacking your partner a crime? If my man is trying to reach out for the nibblies before the guests are there he gets a smack on his hands too. And dont ask me how many smacks I get on my backside!

GT says:

03:18pm | 05/10/11

and lets not forget the endless hours on road trips playing ‘punch-buggy’ I usually have a dead arm by the end of the journey

Ben C says:

03:24pm | 05/10/11

Damn it Tina, you have one very lucky man there

Slick says:

03:01pm | 05/10/11

Hey GA,

In the NT it is still legal for teachers to smack children unless the parents write to express they do not wish it.
Not that any of them do, but I sure went to school with some who could have used it!
I remember telling my legal studies teacher once “Your and awesome person, your smart, and I could learn a lot from you, but you have No control in this class.”
I still got an A

Dragon says:

12:24pm | 06/10/11

Respecting your right to an opinion of your own and the background from which it comes, please be respectful of the many people in society who don’t have children however have to live with the burden of other peoples ill raised and un disciplined children in the society. Try catching a train during the after school period and see for yourself. Hitting somebody elses child is indefensible in most cases but please don’t deny other people the right to contribute to a debate when the over riding issue is something that effects us all. I do have children, more of them than most respondents here today I can safely assume but still feel that people without children have every right to an opinion here.

Brian Fantana says:

10:14am | 05/10/11

I have a hankering for some spankering!

subotic says:

11:32am | 05/10/11

@fml… WINNING!!!

Ben C says:

02:09pm | 05/10/11

@ fml

Haha, top stuff!

Ed says:

03:19pm | 05/10/11

I would… and have.

Markus says:

10:41am | 05/10/11

It is not so much learning the difference between right and wrong - despite their cries of ignorance, kids learn the difference between the two very early on in life.

The hard part is teaching that there are repercussions to them knowingly doing the wrong thing. For a lot of children, confiscating of toys or another boring lecture about the difference between right and wrong just isn’t enough of a disincentive to not go with the option that gets them what they want.

Markus says:

10:45am | 05/10/11

“Kid’s who aren’t smacked are more confident and do better than those that are”
Of course they are more confident, they know they can get whatever they want whenever they want it, without any ramifications.

Do better at what, exactly?

Shane From Melbourne says:

10:48am | 05/10/11

But I advocate flogging for tax evaders. Cheap and effective. In fact upon reflection I advocate corporal punishment for just about every summary (non indictable) offence

RobJ says:

12:10pm | 05/10/11

“Of course they are more confident, they know they can get whatever they want whenever they want it, without any ramifications”

What? Where did I say children should never be punished? Of course there should be consequences for bad behavior, I contend that violence is not the solution.

RobJ says:

12:15pm | 05/10/11

“Do better at what, exactly?”

Everything that requires a higher IQ:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/experts-give-smacking-the-wooden-spoon/story-e6frg6zo-1225790591971

“Using tracking data from 800 children aged between two and four, and 700 children aged five to nine, including their cognitive ability and the number of times they were hit, and then testing them fouryears later, it finds IQs were significantly lower for those who experienced corporal punishment.

Children in the younger group who were subjected to corporal punishment averaged five points lower on an IQ test than others the same age. With the five to nine-year-old group, it was 2.8 points lower, even taking account of parental education, income and other socioeconomic factors.

Straus finds the more frequent the spanking, the bigger the IQ gap, though even small amounts of smacking made a difference. He says children are stressed and frightened by hitting, which may make it harder for them to focus and learn.”

MikeS says:

12:52pm | 05/10/11

RobJ, can you please provide a link to the actual study so we can see the details of all that was involved. There seems to be some rather large holes in the research from what I read in that article.

Thanks in advance

RobJ says:

02:22pm | 05/10/11

I’d like to but it appears that I’d have to pay $2.50, though if you were genuinely interested (which I doubt)  I’ll give you a headstart:

http://www.unh.edu/frl/cbb.htm#D

What are your specific concerns? I realise it was the Australian that published the story but I can’t see any reason they’d misrepresent the research (they might??)

marley says:

02:36pm | 05/10/11

@MikeS - if you go to Murray Straus’ home page, and hit “Corporal Punishment by Mothers” you will get the PDF article free. 

His argument basically is that he followed to cohorts of kids and found that those who were spanked regularly showed slower cognitive development than those who weren’t.  He does not, however, differentiate between kids who were never spanked and kids who were spanked occasionally - they’re treated the same in his study - instead, he focusses on kids who were punished more frequently.  So, I don’t think it tells us much about the impact of the occasional spanking, even if you assume his methodology is adequate.

Another study was done a few years later, which concluded that corporal punishment (short of abuse, of course) had no impact on cognitive development.  Here’s the abstract of that:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3200/JRLP.138.3.197-22

MadKat of Melbourne says:

03:14pm | 05/10/11

Markus - “Of course they are more confident, they know they can get whatever they want whenever they want it, without any ramifications” - what a comment - smacking is not the only why to punish a child so they can have ramifications without physical punishment. The easy and lazy road in disciplining a child is smacking.

Steven says:

03:47pm | 05/10/11

Why is violence not ok in specific circumstances? If someone breaks into your house, would you ask them to stop while they are flogging you, your wife and your kids? Isn’t contact sport a form of violence? Should we ban anything that involves touching another person?

The idea that smacking a child will lower their intelligence in later life is laughable. IQ is not a reliable measurement for intelligence. Intelligence is varied and comes in different types that cannot be determined by a standardized test. IQ testing is very good for testing problem solving abilities and that is all. A persons intelligence is more than problem solving combined with a small amount of memory retention.

All these people that say “I have never smacked my kids and they are great”..... I have never met one, ever. I honestly believe that in over 90% of the cases of people saying they don’t smack their kids, they have done so in the past (especially when they children are very young) and either refuse to acknowledge what they have done or have just forgotten as it was a long time ago.

Also, before the trolls come out saying things like “You obviously don’t associate with very good people (with a good amount of PC whinging in there as well)”, You can believe that i would rather a dole bludging hippy who is honest about themselves and their practices, than a doctor or business owner who is so full of crap they cant even be honest about the discipline of a child.

MikeS says:

04:04pm | 05/10/11

Thanks for the links.

My concerns are twofold. First IQ testing on children under 11 is inaccurate and misleading as children do develop at extremely different rates, so the results could be a reflection of that. And there is no mention of testing at the start of the study, only at the end. If there were no IQ tests at the beginning, then all data garnered in this regard is pointless.

Second, there is no mention of why and how the punishment was dished out. Was it for minor issues, major ones or for no reason at all? Were kids just given a whack for the sake of the study? Without knowing exact nature of the punishment and the reasons it was given, the research is misleading at best, downright untruthful at worst.

GT says:

03:29pm | 05/10/11

oh totally, my 5 year old neice goes to school and in her class there is this one kid that is an absolute bully, pushes the girls over, hits all the children and laughs about it, my neice gives him 3 warnings, when he pushes her over she tell him to stop that she doesn’t like it and if she has to tell him again she’s going to thump him, he does it again, another warning, 3rd time she belts him.

this kids mother doesn’t accept that her ‘darling little angel’ is a menace, she goes off at my sister for what my neice did and my sister shrugs and tells her her son started it and he was warned and really she does it everytime and he never learns

GT says:

04:18pm | 05/10/11

there is a difference between beating the living daylights out of a child and one smack on a nappy covered bottom

GT says:

04:21pm | 05/10/11

i get smacked on the ass all the time, i smack my friends if i want their attention, on the arm, the leg or yes even the bum. who doesn’t play ‘punch buggy’ on long journeys, we are not talking about face slaps, just gentle taps on the bum.
sport involves a lot of violence should we ban them as well?

fairsfair says:

10:57am | 05/10/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvzu3bKgt5Y

Right link would help….

In terms of the article though - I would be ok for my family to slap my children (discipline them in general). I feel that they are an extension of myself. I have never slapped my niece, but if she did something naughty that I had previously told her not to do and she was in my care, I would. Because, I know that that is how her parents (sometimes) and my mother (one of her primary carers) discipline her. This book is based on a face slap though - I think that is a whole world ahead of a bum slap. Face slaps seem so much more personal, as they are a tool of abuse between adults/kids and adults/adults.

Way to ruin a BBQ though.

Kipling says:

07:59am | 06/10/11

“way to ruin a barbecue”... I totally agree and this is why children are not allowed at my barbecues, unless of course the dogs have not eaten…

Tina says:

11:23am | 05/10/11

A smack on the fingers is physical force? And bodyweight and power is no issue. This is not cage fighting.

RyaN says:

12:30pm | 05/10/11

@Kate: As an alternative to the long lasting mental abuse endured by a child of a parent who doesn’t smack?

Kate says:

02:01pm | 05/10/11

Crap @RyaN Why do you suggest “long lasting mental abuse” as the alternative to physical punishment.
@Tina, Fingers ....mmm…body weight of no relevance? Parents don’t stick to hitting fingers, they hit legs, arms and the body using a swing leveraging body weight.

RyaN says:

04:26pm | 05/10/11

@Kate: fact is that the berration and mental torture that a child is subjected to as “discipline” has much longer lasting consequences than a smack.
I have heard how this anti-smacking brigade speak to their kids and its enough to make you want to vomit.

Kate says:

05:56pm | 05/10/11

@RyaN - I see but I was not suggesting any sort of abuse as an alternative to a smack. A professional nanny told me about the difference between calling kids names such as “stupid” and saying to a child that he/she did a stupid thing. It was 30 years ago but it always stayed with me and I’ve put the advice to good use.

RyaN says:

09:27am | 06/10/11

@Kate: Guilt and shame are some of the two worst mental abuse tactics used by the anti-smacking brigade in order to “discipline” their kids. The effects of this mental abuse are evident throughout their lives.
The riots in London are a prime example of the rebellious stage against this mental abuse, this will not free them from the mental anguish they will have to endure the rest of their lives due to this abuse.

James1 says:

01:19pm | 06/10/11

Whereas you tell your children to never call the police just in case the police shoot them for no reason, RyaN.  What should we call “filling your children with irrational terror of society and its authority figures”?  How does it stack up next to smacking?

Also, you set it up as a dichotomy.  You seem to think the option are a) use violence, however restrained or b) use mental abuse instead.  There are in fact a range of other options in between.  As such, I don’t smack my child, but neither do I use guilt or shame.  She is the smartest child in her class (according to NAPLAN), and very well adjusted (for an only child, at least) albeit highly precocious.

But then, I don’t agree with Kate that it is necessarily lazy parenting.  Sure, in many cases it is, because a smack is easier than coming up with other effective punishments (such as deprivation of internet or television) that may require follow up over a period of days, and because many parents share their children’s inability to reason.  But in some cases, I think it is even necessary.  Not all kids respond to reasoning, not all kids seek to do the right thing, and probably only understand the application of force.

RyaN says:

09:43am | 10/10/11

@James1: was a 19 year old boy not shot in the stomach recently by trigger happy cops when they were called to his house on a break and enter?
Irrational indeed!

RyaN says:

09:50am | 10/10/11

@James1: The set up is intentional, how dare some dropkick tell you how to raise your children. This is the entire premise of my argument, I am showing just how shallow and pathetic their argument actually is plus the fact that their alternative can be severely damaging to children.

Quite frankly, people should mind their own business when it comes to raising children. If parents are good parents who love their children and raise them well then their parenting methods are no ones business but their own.

RyaN says:

09:56am | 10/10/11

@James1:  Here you go, and here the police are talking to the teen probably without him having legal council or witnesses to whatever threats may or may not be made.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/teen-shot-in-stomach-talks-to-police/story-e6frf7jx-1226148068097
Furthermore, the trigger happy cops that shot him in his own home have not been stood down nor fired.

RobJ says:

12:05pm | 05/10/11

“That’s a simple fact.”

Evidently you don’t know what a ‘fact’ is, it isn’t something you make up to support your argument.

Average Joe says:

01:33pm | 05/10/11

@ RobJ - it’s a fact backed up by my own first-hand and second-hand experiences, and anecdotal evidence. I don’t need to see a fancy report from some dodgy researchers who need to churn out studies to justify their own existence to know something as true, mate.

RobJ says:

02:16pm | 05/10/11

LOL - the plural of anecdote is NOT data..

” I don’t need to see a fancy report from some dodgy researchers who need to churn out studies to justify their own existence to know something as true, mate.”

Sure Average Joe, you’re smarter than them, after all you don’t even know what a fact is!

Jeremy says:

12:40pm | 05/10/11

As a Gen Y’er, I can’t see how my generation is worse than the self-absorbed baby boomers that created the shitty society into which we were born.
Many of us are Y’er types are part of the most educated generation in history. We even gave you oldies Google, Facebook and Youtube. So get of our back with the whole generational thing.
Some of us suck, some of my parents generation do too, same with the grandparents.

MikeS says:

01:09pm | 05/10/11

A small point Jezza, both Google and Youtube were created/founded by Gen Xer’s. A tiny bit of research would have told you that.

Most educated indeed.

MikeS says:

12:42pm | 05/10/11

Stopping the Able was pretty bad too.

AFR says:

02:44pm | 05/10/11

Shouldn’t that be Abel?

MikeS says:

03:40pm | 05/10/11

It’s a spelling mistake Bonanza.

Everthing must go!!!

Ben C says:

03:28pm | 05/10/11

@ Ali

So has the rest of Asia

ByStealth says:

09:55am | 06/10/11

I think its only effective when they’re younger. After that you can reason with them and other forms of punishment like withdrawing privileges are more effective.

Smacking is definitely something that should be phased out as the child gets older. I think someone in one of the comments above wrote something about its effectiveness for different age groups.

Schartos says:

03:15pm | 05/10/11

I was born and raised in Australia and from a very early age my parents would use corporeal punishment. First it was smacking, then the wooden spoon, then the strap until finally the cane. I clearly recall after each incident when I would be left in my room staring into the mirror and feeling disgusted at my tears and anger towards my parents, usually followed by a vow of some sort to not let them do it to me again or to run away. When I went to boarding school the cane was used without impunity. Rarely was the crime discussed and even more rare was the right to a verbal defence. However by this time I was quite accustomed to the cane and would surprise my masters when, if given the choice between the cane or a detention, I would choose the cane. Clearly I placed more value in my time then a bit of pain. Eventually though I had had enough of being physically abused and the last time anyone tried it they were punched unconscious; that was my house master and I was expelled. To this day I don’t regret it though I still dislike violence.

I have a very healthy relationship with my parents, all these years later and occasionally we joke about corporeal punishment being totally useless against and me. It never taught me to fear them or anyone else. All it taught me was resentment. I instantly lost respect for anyone who would assault me as a child as I would today. As a child I gave respect to those who deserved it regardless of age and I continue to do so today. I learned very early that age does not equal wisdom.

I will not be using corporeal punishment against my children.

Kipling says:

07:50am | 06/10/11

Beat the respect into them? Are we after respect or fear here?

Steve says:

03:49pm | 05/10/11

really? your accessing the largest collection of information on earth, and you cant even find DOCS number by typing it into a search bar?

Yeah, the article is the problem….....

GT says:

04:28pm | 05/10/11

and this is probably why the more serious cases like Keisha and the girl on the Central Coast and many others slipped through the cracks, the ones who have been hospitalised and starved, locked in cupboards etc because their spending their time picking on smackers

Kipling says:

07:41am | 06/10/11

If you wanna be just another “DoCS” basher I suggest you go and spend a couple of decades either working for DoCS or, even better, one of the other agencies that have to deal with the children who are horribly damaged by their own families who have failed spectacularly to provide ANY of the basics of child care. See how that goes for you.
Even worse, then you can see first hand how our society (not just the neat little compartmentalised social target of DoCS) goes on to further punish (abuse and neglect) these kids systemically because they had the temerity to be born to parents who did not have all the tools necessary to give the impression (at least) of capable child raring and care.

“Watch out there are 22 yr old DOCS case workers hiding in every shopping center to watch who smacks their kid on the backside for chucking a hissy fit this person is a child raising expert and has more power than any court in the land they can remove your child say you are abusive and mentally ill” What an ignorant and imbecilic statment, which news outlet informs your thinking?

Carole Disseldorp says:

09:18am | 06/10/11

Great answer David.

Kipling says:

07:35am | 06/10/11

So, statistically speaking, by your example, one out of three kids smacks back…
And that is all somehow someone elses fault…

Ouch.

Kipling says:

10:39am | 06/10/11

discipline physically or through some other form of punishment….

So in your world view discipline equates to punishment?

To be clear, I am not suggesting that punitive actions don’t have a place, there are times when they may be the best resort to instill some self reflection on a young person, however, they are punitive and not actually discipline. Discipline is about teaching right from wrong.

If I use “physical methods or some other form of punishment” then I am not teaching right from wrong necessarily, I am coercing through force…

Still you are young so some naivety is to be expected. Like the naive “if they stuff up” comment about your as yet unborn children. Since, in reality mate, they will not be born all knowing (despite the possible genetic head start they have from their father) it is a given that they will stuff up so get that paddle stick ready mate.

What sort of stuff are you actually going to do to nurture them and teach them?

Warwick says:

11:29am | 06/10/11

From the tenor of your comment you are very emotionally damaged. Aggressive. “Grow up. Foul rats like this bastard.”

And you are savouring the prospect of inflicting pain on your yet to be born children.

I imagine the emotional atmosphere that might prevail in your house, with a glowering father waiting to inflict physical and emotional pain.

Poor kids. I hope they have a gentle mum who can give them shelter.

Aaron says:

01:47pm | 06/10/11

@ Kipling
“So in your world view discipline equates to punishment?”
- Imposed discipline (completley different to self discipline), yes, which in many cases is what is required.

You made the point about correcting through force
- if done properly and in the right situation, it works, I am not saying by any means that hitting a child is appropriate for every situation because it is not, but my point I am trying to make is the fact that it is not done enough these days simply because it is seen as abuse or damaging to the child.

I am not naive, I am simply fed up with the common view society holds that it is not alright to hit your kids when they deserve it and that a minor who commits a crime (such as the link I included in my previous post) is somehow the poor innocent victim, I guess to an extent that this is true though considering their no good “I dont give a sh*t” parents havn’t done thier job.

Now on to @Warwick…..
F*ck off idiot, you are the reason why todays youth have such little respect. I bet you would be one of those people who jump straight in to defend that 14 year old dirt bag, you make me sick.

I have a successful high paying job and a wife, no shrink issues in the past and unless I witness something horiffic I dont think I will need to, it certianly wasnt as a result of me being hit as a kid when I did something wrong, hardly think I am emotionally damaged.

Anyone who looks forward to inflicting pain on their child is a sadist, a child abuser and deserve to have the same pain inflicted on them by the nice husband they room with in the slammer.

Keep imagining a world with rainbows, everyone holding hands and pwetty wittle bunny rabits you dick head.

AJL says:

10:50am | 06/10/11

“Children that are hit regularly can learn that they must obey adults”

And that’s a BAD thing?  Seriously?

I have a 15 month old daughter (IMO smacking isn’t an option yet) and am prepared to smack her if needed.  Some kids respond well to time out, withdrawal of privileges etc., others don’t.

Carole Disseldorp says:

09:41am | 06/10/11

To raise children successfully, we need to learn to:
- set a healthy example of how to behave
- promote and practise positivity
- to communicate effectively
- to teach rules and endeavour to prevent problems from happening
- practise self-care (parents and children)
- nurture all family members
- discipline respectfully using reasonable and respectful consequences for unacceptable behaviour
- ensure responsibility for all
- provide stimulating activities for all
I say this a a Mum of 4 delightful grown children, a Parent Educator, a former Primary Teacher, Childcare Worker and Nanny.

palone says:

11:00am | 06/10/11

John in Alice, (is that Wonderland you live in?), how can you allow overall ‘rights’ to all parents to decide how they will discipline children. You know that there are bullies, (cowards), out there. And they are male and female.
“In the the manner they best see fit”? Does that include locking children in cupboards, tying them to beds, burning their hands on stoves? Do you think these things don’t happen, or would you just be happier to see the fact that they do happen go unnoticed? With children too terrified to report cruelty and witnesses “not wanting to get involved”?
I can’t believe that parents, (?), feel it is okay to smack a child for trying to tip a pot of boiling milk over, for running on the road, for chasing the car, for touching some dangerous appliance etc. Are you all mad? Is that the best you can do?
Why would a parent allow a child in the same room as a hot stove, a boiling pot, or allow them on the road, or allow them to be exposed to any perilous situation?        You, Mr and Mrs are at fault. Not the infant or child. You! How would you feel if I was to lay a few on you for your utterly dreadful behaviour.
And don’t tell me that you can’t watch them all of the time. Of course you can’t, but you can take care that while you can’t watch them that they don’t need watching.
Hundreds of comments and everyone blaming the child. To smack or not to smack. Is that really the best you can do?
Perhaps, like John in Alice, you figure you are the best person to make that decision, and perhaps again, like him, you demand to be “in charge”. The old, “How dare you defy me!”                                  John insists that “No-one!” usurps his authority. Lots of tyrants say that.

LC says:

02:02pm | 08/10/11

So many strawmen and ignorance in that argument I don’t know where to start, Palone.

Maybe with this: You’ll be laughing out the other side of your face if your 0-2 year old child is injured or maybe even killed because you won’t (or can’t) smack them. You can’t reason with a child that age. And it’s better that they are in the room with a parent at that age, or in a place nearby where a parent can keep an eye on them, rather than somewhere on their own. Age 8 and up, when you can reason with them, saying “don’t touch that pot of boiling water, you’ll get hurt” is quite obviously the better solution. But until then…

Aaron says:

02:37pm | 06/10/11

Completley agree Seth!