BS: Spank, or No-Spank?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 05:58 AM

Shifting responsibility is also a problem... Here's a little tale from a Pre-school Nursery teacher - she teaches children aged between 3 and 5 years old.

Little *Johnny* turned up on his first day of Nursery wearing a nappy (diaper). Naomi, the teacher, asked his mother why he was wearing it.

Mother: 'He's not potty trained yet'.
Naomi: 'But he's nearly 4 years old, is there some problem I should know about?'
Mother: 'No problem, he's just never been taught to use the toilet'.
Naomi: 'Why not?'
Mother: 'Well, you're the teacher, you're supposed to teach him these things, aren't you!'

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Mo the caller
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 05:40 AM

Our lecturer quoted "never strike a child except in anger......and then strike to kill"

An exageration obviously, and talking about school age children and teachers not parents. I think his point was that hurting children should be seen by both teacher and child should be seen as loss of control, not a cold blooded punishment. Or maybe just don't do it.

Watching wildlife films, you see animals cuffing their young. Preverbal children are could be seen as young animals, physical controls are needed - restraint where neccessary as well as lots of cuddles.

A study of child rearing in Sheffield found that parents who used smacking tended to need to escalate the punishment to get a result, and what some called a "tap" was quite severe.

So maybe a law stating that this is not acceptable is good, but it needs to be sensibly interpretted.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: GUEST,of 12.42 and 12.17
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 03:56 AM

It's probable that most of the smackers were smacked themselves, so misguidedly believe they are doing the right thing because that's the way they were brought up.

There needs to be an enlightened generation in every family line that breaks the mould, so that their children do not grow up believing that physical abuse is OK, hence don't pass it down to their children.

Apologists, and those in extreme denial, claim there is a difference between smacking and hitting. There may be, in the eyes of the smacker/hitter because of the intent, but there is no difference in the eyes of the smackee/hittee - and that's what they are not understanding.

The role of a parent is, inter alia, to protect their children from any aggressors. What do you think happens to children at the point where, in their eyes, their supposed protector turns aggressor?

There are more intelligent ways to bring up children.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: MBSLynne
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 03:00 AM

Thank you Liz, you've said exactly what I've thought for a long time! So -called Women's Lib, was a good idea, like so many ideas, in theory. Trouble is, so many women took "Equality" to mean "Sameness" and have spent their lives trying to be like men instead of just equal to them. In consequence, we are severely short of "Homemakers" and nobody is totally sure of their role or place in life. Obviously this doesn't help parenting, or help children, who need stability and security.

Love Lynne

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 06:02 PM

Education is definately the key and the lack of this is partly due (to my eternal shame as a woman and to the sound of Emmeline Pankhurst turning in her grave) to the sex discrimination act. Women are so eager to be treated as equal to men that schools no longer appear to teach home-maker skills to ANY sex. Not only do boys not get to play in the Wendy house with the dolls, but now girls don't have the chance to either.

I attended a grammar school where the onus was on getting qualifications for University (and thus into nursing or teaching) and for home making/parenthood. Whilst I was there, the Grammar/Secondary Modern schools were merged (thank you, Maggie Thatcher NOT!) and the Grammar School girls were given the opportunity to learn office skills. In order to make time in the curriculum for these lessons, the domestic sciences were drastically reduced or dropped. The boys, in moving from the mixed Secondary Modern to the single sex new boys Comprehensive also lost the opportunity to learn the domestic sciences - something that I consider has helped towards the decline in personal development and general 'taking care of oneself' ability in men of my age and younger.

When your only role model or teacher is your own parent, you end up repeating the same mistakes that they made.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Slag
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 04:35 PM

Shall we not flaunt degrees? Appeal to authority is also a fallacy.

I can imagine that some of the most backward and uneducated folks living in the tall piney woods may have whupped the daylights out of their kids (something we would all probably agree on as being child abuse) but if genuine love was in the motivation the majority of those children would see and understand it at some point in their lives, if not immediately.

The most techinically correct clinician of child psychology who followed the prescribed method(s) of child rearing without love is, in my opinion, going to have a messed up child, more than likely.

Communication, consistency, and love now abide, but love is the greatest of all. People of all sizes know when they are loved.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Cluin
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 04:23 PM

Can you send Bush for a time-out now?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 04:18 PM

One of my Mates on the Explorer, when he was a rookie used to say "Hit me, but don't give me hell."

The matter of leaving the child in the car for 10 minutes, I had a problem with that myself, but when I saw how effective it was I had to admit that the wife knew what she was doing. That child was never in any danger because we were watching the whole time.

Besides, the wife, with 20 years of experience in early childhood development was better qualified than the average cop on the beat. She has 5 degrees, one of them in early childhood development, is a PhD.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 03:13 PM

Would anyone here be surprised if George W never got a spanking?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Cluin
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 03:10 PM

"Never hit a child in anger."

Best thing said in this thread.

--from a guy who got his share of strappings, both at home and school, and the occasional boot in the ass, almost all of which I earned and none of them did me any harm.

I always knew when I was getting chastised and why. Give me the honest spanking when I step out of line rather than the two-bit confused psychology from people that don't know what they're doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Scoville
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 01:40 PM

So, do pro-smackers assume that it was the smack that did the trick and not any of 10,000 other positive things in their upbringing? Smacking had no positive outcome at all in our house. My brother and I literally beat each other black and blue, blaming the other for our "smacks" (these were "smacks" as defined here, not "beatings"--short but sound swats on the butt. Not even painful). I was four at the most and remember very clearly feeling humiliated and not at all sorry for whatever I had done to "earn" it. Didn't teach us a thing about respect and certainly not about boundaries, as we felt ours had just been violated.

And there is a huge difference between spanking and doing nothing. Making no effort at all at discipline is as big a disservice as slapping a kid around, but it is not at all the same thing as simply not spanking.

And I apologize for jumping to conclusions, Bernard.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 01:38 PM

So many good things have been said in this thread. I started out copying many of the posts- but there are so many of them I'm going to erase them and just make a few comments of my own.

Education is key. Child-rearing classes - and not just for the poor-will in time make all the difference. It has always astonished me that we human beings have all the equipment necessary to have offspring and that no one thinks it necessary to monitor what we do with it.


* As they say, an unenforceable law is a bad law. Unless we want Big Brother-type monitors in our homes- and in each room of our homes - there is no way that a law like that can be enforced.

* The point MUST be that a beating is different from a swat. Beatings should be against the law everywhere. And surely there is enough anecdotal evidence to show decisively that children react differently to a swat. In my (large) birth family the oldest daughter never got spanked- a severe look devastated her - and the third son was never spanked either, pretty much for the same reason. The rest of us did get spanked- and whipped. I think whipping is so over the top that I would NEVER defend it.

* My sister in law and I worked different shifts so we were able to babysit each other's daughters. She was a spanker, I was a talker. My daughter and her cousin to this day say that they much preferred a quick spanking to my reasoned dialogue. For one thing my method took longer- a quick spanking let them pay the punishment and the incident was over. Plus, as my daughter said, my method made them have to think. :)

"It's a scary thought to me that humans would need such a law in the first place." Peace

"Imagine the parent hysterical or just mean - mentally punishing a child - nothing physical, yet emotionally can do more harm to a child in the long term - how do they propose to check that ????"
Diesel

"Wife took her by the hand and said "Ok, you made your choice." and took her to the car and locked the doors." Kendall

* Kendall, I'm sure you realize that someone could have seen the child left alone in the car and reported it to police? A view from 'outside' looks very different from the inside one.

"I am uneasy about a law against spanking. Nobody should be hitting babies but a law like this could get messy. KB in Iowa

"What're you gonna do -- take a two-year-old away and put him in a "loving, caring foster home" because his mom or dad spanked him/her?   Yeah, that'll really help." Genie

"Rather than ban spanking, parents should be given compulsory lessons on parenthood - by experienced parents, not by do-gooders who haven't a clue!" Bernard

"What is not defined to my satisfaction is this: spanking." Peace

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 01:03 PM

Hitting implies violence and therefore abuse. Smacking as I view it is neither!

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 12:17 PM

"Smacking is not hitting" according to Mrs Duck

That's probably the most ridiculous denial of abuse I've ever heard. Effin' brilliant!

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Desdemona
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 08:38 AM

Genie--LOL in re: "outlaws", I just said the same thing in discussing this topic with a friend this morning!

Your point about consistency is an excellent one: no matter what form of "discipline" is preferred (and I use the quotes because there are always some people who consider yellingidle threats at their kids from the sofa in the next room or similar "discipline"), it's the parent's reponsibility to follow through with it each and every time. Children are smart, and will quickly suss out that the threat of punishment is nothing to worry about if it's never enforced. If it's enforced sometimes but not others ("yesterday no-one cared if I jumped on the bed; today I got smacked for it"), they just become confused and can't know what to expect, which has got to make a little person feel pretty insecure.

As stated in my earlier post, I don't personally believe in spanking, and feel that there has to be a better way; it seems to me that when you're reduced to hitting someone---anyone---it's a clear indication that you're too frustrated, angry, and potentially out of control to come up with any better ideas. This is probably the time to do what all that helpful literature suggests and step out on the porch, phone a friend, etc. rather than set an example for your child of which few people could honestly feel proud afterwards.

Just my opinion. People obviously have to make their own choices, but I agree with Kendall that it's a sad state of affairs when the government ostensibly "needs" to legislate this sort of thing.

~D

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 07:40 AM

If I grab a child by the arm and smack it on the bum in anger, I can guarantee that child is in danger of suffering a spine injury. Never hit a child in anger.

As far as laws go, it's too bad that we even NEED laws to keep us in line, but there are too many knuckle draggers who don't like limits.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 07:30 AM

I think they should go easy when using the birch and the barbed wire flail.
These measures are effective, but only when used with love.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: MBSLynne
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 03:02 AM

I do think you'd have to hit pretty hard to damage a kid's spine. The slaps I've administered didn't even move a small child physically at all.

Slag, I think that's a big part of it. On the few occasions that my parents smacked me, I was never in any doubt that they still loved me, and I'm sure my kids would say the same. I think maybe attitude has a lot to do with how the smack affects the child. I always hugged my kids after smacked them, which may sound contradictory, but I think they understood.

There is also the fact of the smack administered when absolutely at the end of one's tether. Not a good thing at all, but an awful lot of parents have done it and felt terrible immediately after.



Love Lynne

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Genie
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 11:05 PM

When spanking is outlawed, only outlaws will spank. ;-)

Desdemona, I've got to dispute your statement about research showing that spanking is never effective.   It's not so much the particular form of sanction (e.g., scolding, spanking, positive attention, etc,) that's been shown to be the key factor as the consistency (are there clear boundaries and rules?) and the social context (is the discipline done in the context of a close relationship or not).   (I'm not taking about beating or other injurious physical punishment, of course. But the threat of physical punishment can and sometimes does deter behavior if the 'laws' are clear; unfortunately, it may have unnecessary and unfortunate side effects if the punishment is severe.)

Kendall, I've gotta laugh at your "spine injury" post too, when I picture a 100-lb. mom giving her kid an open-handed swat on the bum and sending him to hospital.   If the kid's spine is that easily damaged, better not let him go skating, horseback riding, or play most any sport. ;-D

Hitting a kid just proves that big people get to hit little people? Yeah.    But big people are also the ones who protect little people.   And give them toys, take away toys, feed them, etc.   Parents get to, and are obliged to, do lots of things because they're "bigger."

Being slapped on the bum is not the most damaging kind of parental treatment that can happen to you. Especially not psychologically.   Abusive people can make "verbal instruction," "time out," or most any form of discipline abusive.

Slag, I couldn't agree more with this:
"Parental indifference, compensated by permissiveness and material possessions will turn out monsterous children as often or more so than those who are beat. It's just another form of abuse."
Some of the most "damaged" people got that way by never having any limits set whatsoever.

(Uh-oh! Here come the parenting cops to write you up for giving your kids too much candy and too many toys!)

Finally (since we're weighing in on all sorts of child-rearing tools), my 2 cents' worth on "harnesses."
This is just my (limited) experience with them.   When I was a kid I used to babysit a toddler (about 3 or 4 y o) whose mom would have me take him for walks using a harness. (On him, not me.) It was a regular chest harness with a "leash" that attached roughly between his shoulder blades. Now, I have absolutely no idea how this kid "turned out," but I can tell you that he seemed quite content with this set-up, as it allowed him to pretty much go wherever he wanted and at whatever pace, as long as he didn't go anywhere dangerous (like into the street).   He had a lot more freedom of movement and natural posture and movement than he would have if I'd had hold of one of his hands.
It did not seem odd or demeaning or abusive in the least.   

Obviously, it was such a practical, common sense technique that I'm sure the governmental agencies have banned it by now. *G*

Genie

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Desdemona
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 08:41 PM

I have 3 sons (now 20, 15 and 12) and have never been a spanker; my personal feeling has always been that hitting people is unacceptable, and that for a child to be hit by the very person whom they love and depend upon above everyone else in the world amounts to a betrayal of trust. It also sends the dangerous message that it's okay to use violence as a tool if you're bigger/stronger/more powerful, etc. than the other person; too many people make the mistake of confusing "respect" with "fear"...they are *not* the same thing, and what thinking parent would want their young child to be afraid of them? Finally, it's been shown time and time again in a number of studies that spanking does nothing to deter bad behaviour, but is actually more likely to promote aggression at worst, and have little if any effect at best.

NOW---having said all that, my gut feeling is that this proposed law sounds a bit weird: for starters, why the "under age 3" business? Are we to infer that it's okay to start beating on Little Johnny as soon as he turns 4? Additionally, making something illegal by no means guarantees its extinction...lots of things are illegal, and yet people still drive drunk, smoke pot, jaywalk, etc.; child abuse is already against the law, isn't it?

Introspective and sensitive parents know that they shouldn't be hitting their children and generally behave accordingly. Meanwhile, those who think it's okay to spank will continue to do so, just not in front of you in the supermarket checkout! Are all parents who use spanking as discipline abusers? Certainly not. But the danger inherent in this type of legislation is that the people who DO abuse their children are already in violation of the law; another statute on the books isn't going to make the difference. If the aim is to make people think twice before swatting their kids' behinds in the mall parking lot, then it may well have its desired effect; how much change will occur behind the closed doors of private homes is open to question.

~D

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 07:27 PM

It's too bad that good judgement can't be taught.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 05:57 PM

"I also wonder about the long term effects of a leash (some people still use them"

By leash, do you mean a chest harness and walking reins or one of those curly straps that go from the hand of the adult to the wrist of the child?

I used one of those extending dog leads on Limpit - not only did it not impair her motor skills, it saved my back as the reins alone were too short for her to toddle far enough away that I didn't tread on her. I refused to have one of those curly wrist straps because I felt they were too flimsy to be of any use or liable to dislocate a shoulder or wrist. If anything impairs motor skills it's keeping children in pushchairs and buggies far longer than necessary because it's easier to hang shopping on or quicker than going at the child's pace.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Slag
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 05:40 PM

I am LOL kendall. Now why did I think you'd disagree?? But with which part? Since you are being arbitrary, how many psi on the first smack? How many on the second? Time space between? Bare legs? Bare bottom? Any lecture to go with that? What if little Johnny turns around and kicks you in the leg after that second "smack"?

Again, parenting is more an art form than a science.

A loving parent who has her or his child's BEST interests at heart will do the right thing. Mistakes will always be made but the love will shine through it all. Parental indifference, compensated by permissiveness and material possessions will turn out monsterous children as often or more so than those who are beat. It's just another form of abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 04:15 PM

If you smack a standing child on the bum, you can easily damage their spine.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: MBSLynne
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 03:39 PM

I agree with your definitions Kendal. I've never smacked more than once though...two smacks is already getting beyond the limit.

I thought about this a bit more today and I agree with Mrs Duck. When a child is very small any punishment has to be immediate and short or they don't understand or remember what it was about. It's also quite difficult to find an appropriate punishment. Sending them to their room or taking away something they like is no good. Later, punishemnts do work, once they are old enough to be consequential. That's probably why I haven't smacked mine for years

Love Lynne

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 02:53 PM

100

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 02:50 PM

I would never claim that being smacked 'didn't do me any harm' I would state categorically that it did me good as it taught me to grow up to be a caring responsible adult who sees it as important that I bring my children up in the same loving way my parents brought me. Smacking is not hitting and in any civilised society parents should be responsible for educating their children responsibly.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 12:42 PM

In any civilized society,

Adults are not allowed to hit other adults

Children are not allowed to hit other children

Children are not allowed to hit adults

Need I go on to ask why children sometimes get confused?


I've heard some of the wierdest people claim that they were smacked "and it didn't do me any harm".

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 12:25 PM

I find it strange that people want to put an age limit on smacking. I have on various occasions smacked all my children but as they grew older and therefore more able to be reasoned with I never felt the need. Sending a two or three year old to their room would to me seem far more cruel than a smack on the bum. A smack is a short sharp shock and should not be confused with beating where the purpose is to hurt!

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Genie
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 12:08 PM

Liz said, "When she [Limpit] was 2, it [a slap] stopped her biting people and trying to get in the washing machine because she was too young to understand the consquences of those actions. Now she's nearly 11 (ye Gods!!) it is not an appropriate punishment because her communication skills mean we should be able to reason out the argument and make ourselves understood."

Excellent example. When a child is too young for verbal instruction to be effective, sometimes "aversion training" may be the only viable way of helping them learn to avoid dangerous situations (since you are unlikely to be able to physically guard them every second).   Sometimes this is done using "natural consequences," such as letting the kid pull the cat's tail and letting the cat deliver its own lesson.    But obviously letting a toddler learn everything that way can be perilous.   

This is why I find it odd that a law would prohibit spanking under the age of 3. Let me repeat that unnecessary and excessive force should not be sanctioned, nor beating permitted, regardless of age.   But if a slap on the wrist, or on the backside, is ever a very useful teaching technique, it's probably in the first 2 or 3 years.   After that, if you can't keep a kid's behavior within reasonable boundaries by reasoning, time outs, modelling, reinforcement of desired behavior, etc., you've got real childrearing problems and using physical punishment is not likely to make things better.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Bernard
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 12:08 PM

Yes, Kendall - one thing that has always irritated me is the way people shout rather than walking an extra couple of yards. Adults do it to other adults, too...

It seems so silly. Shouting from a small distance instead of walking over and taking charge... and then wondering why the child ignores you.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Bernard
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 11:40 AM

Jacqui, that's probably the most important point anyone has made so far.

My own daughter was insulted by my ex-wife a few years ago (in her early twenties) by a suggestion that she was 'a mistake'.

Whilst it's true her birth hadn't been planned, the suggestion seemed to be that she wasn't wanted, either. Fortunately I was luckier with my choice of words when she told me what her mother had said - I said 'The best things often happen by accident'... it raised a lovely big smile.

Yes, words can be as abusive as violence - often more so, as the effects are more far reaching.

The story goes that a man told lies about his neighbour. He quickly regretted what he had said, and went to the Wise Old Woman for advice on how to put things right.

She told him to fill a carrier bag with feathers and take it to her, which he did.

She then asked him to go to the top of a nearby hill, empty the bag into the wind, then return with the empty bag, which he did.

She then said 'Now go and bring back every one of those feathers..."

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 11:36 AM

Trying to raise children by yelling at them is like trying to drive a car by blowing the horn.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 10:58 AM

My parents never, in my memory laid a hand on me. However, both were verbally abusive and neglectful the vast majority of the time. On a couple of occasions, when I was about 10 or 11 my mother packed my baby brother into his pram and walked out on me and my other brother when we had done something to upset her, telling us that she was going back to her mother's and we could explain to my father why. She would stay out for an hour or two, leaving Mike and me in real fear of our father's reaction. I grew up feeling unloved and worthless, ended up pregnant at 17 because someone showed me some affection. I was estranged from my parents for a few years and, more recently, estranged from my mother for about 20 years because there was no love there and she still tended to be abusive, even when I was an adult.

With my own children I occasionally spanked them, particularly when I was the only parent after my divorce. My daughter, in particular, could be very defiant and needed definite boundaries set. I did realise that I was tending to scream at them, in the same way as my parents had screamed at me. I tried to tone that down once I became aware of the problem. The difference was, I always told my children how much I loved them, showed interest in what they were doing and tried to give them confidence in their own abilities. They have both grown up to be good people who have shown their love for me on many occasions. Both have a child and have used smacks occasionally. However, they both make sure that their child knows it is loved and work to build a good relationship while the child is small.

I think that, if you can avoid it, then don't spank. IMHO it is more important to inculcate a sense of worth into any child and to make them feel that someone really cares for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 10:15 AM

Spanking = no more than two smacks on the bum with an open palm.
Beating =   Using an implement of any kind, or smacking more than twice. That is, of course, my own definition.

Slag, I disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 10:05 AM

"You had better teach him not to kick people because when he comes home from school this fall with a black eye and a fat lip after kicking the wrong kid, it will be your fault." - a very good point.

Children need to learn that other people have boundaries.

I had a neighbor who never spanked. In fact she never held that kid accountable for anything. He would do things like hit another kid over the head with a Tonka truck and laugh. He grew into a self-centered adult with no empathy.

I also knew a parent who used a chair in the corner as punishment for his hyper son. The kid had to face the wall and not move. It looked like torture to me. I also wonder about the long term effects of a leash (some people still use them). Seems to me it might impede the development of motor skills.

In any event, its such a broad question that it is best left to the parent unless the spankings are severe and with such regularity that it constitutes abuse. I don't see how such a law could be enforced without neighbors turning on neighbors. Even then, if 'the authorities' can't find foster homes for the kids who have definitely been abused, what are they going to do with those who are spanked?

Education is the answer, not legislation.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: MBSLynne
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 09:52 AM

Guest, you are absolutely right. Also, it's a fairly unenforcable law and we are getting more and more of them. The more unenforceable laws the government passes the less people will respect the law.

Love Lynne

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: GUEST,redhorse at work
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 08:16 AM

The difference between spanking (UK "smacking") and beating couldn't be simpler.

When I do it it's spanking, when someone I disapprove of does it it's beating

nick

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 08:16 AM

I get very nervous every time a government tries to control people in the area of family. I do not believe in hitting children but outlawing it will not stop it. It will simply lead to hiding it away. Whenever are we going to learn that outlawing things simply makes them illegal, it does not stop them happening. We need to look at the issue of parenting skills, not the result of not having any skills.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: gnu
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 08:05 AM

After some reflection, I realize that my choice of words, "any child of any age", was, at best, a very poor choice. My apologies to Peace.

I guess I just figured that "child" means an individual that is mentally aware of what s/he is doing and continues poor behaviour, despite reasoning with s/he, and a warning of punishment, whatever that punishment might be, with physical punishment being a last resort.

As an example, my great nephew, at the age of five years old, at a family gathering, began kicking me in the shins because it was great fun. The first time, I told him not to it as it was impolite and it hurt. Ten minutes later, after another sneak attack, I told him not to do it again, and I warned him I would hit him back. Same thing a few minutes later, so, as he turned to flee, I flicked his ear lobe with my middle finger. No damage done, but it does smart.

His mother was rather upset. I said to her something like, "You had better teach him not to kick people because when he comes home from school this fall with a black eye and a fat lip after kicking the wrong kid, it will be your fault."

Anyway, sorry Peace.

I'll leave youse all to it... again.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Bernard
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 05:59 AM

Scoville - my comment above about 'do-gooders who haven't a clue' did not specifically refer to the anti-spanking lobby. You've read something into my words that I did not say.

Quite the contrary - my remarks are tempered by many years of primary school teaching. In the 1980s I had classes of over forty nine-year-old children, and such 'do-gooders who haven't a clue' were being paid by the local education authority as 'advisers'.

These people would go into a classroom and try to tell the teacher how to organise their classroom. Yet these people had no formal teacher-training, and had no first hand experience of teaching. They were a waste of space in many cases, and there for political reasons rather than educational.

That is the thinking behind my remark - parents are in a better position to advise other parents tempered with experience.

Rather than waste effort on banning smacking, I believe parent training would be more useful and effective.

I could plainly see the results of poor parenting when I was teaching. Some children were constantly talking, and it emerged their parents rarely chatted with them at home. Children who were aggressive often had aggressive parents...

My own daughter (29) has two children of her own now, aged 6 and 3. She is not a violent person, and was not brought up ruled by violence. She is a very caring Mum, and makes sure they know what constitutes acceptable behaviour, and what does not. Even so, they will push the boundaries, as they are intelligent, inquisitive children.

It is impossible for anyone to comment accurately about circumstances they neither know nor understand. That is why educating the parents is the correct answer, I believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 05:30 AM

You can shout, yell, scream, declare all you like that 'I will never do *such and such* to my child like my parents did to me'... but rest assured, one day you will do something to your child and find you HAVE turned into that parent.

If you can recognise this moment for what it is, stop your own behaviour and go get professional help, then you are a good parent. If you cannot recognise yourself in your child and remember how frustrating it was for YOU to be ignored, misunderstood or abused, then the pattern will continue down the generations until someone DOES decide not to accept it and says stop.

Remember how once upon a time everyone thought it was OK to own another human being and make them work for you for a pittance? How it used to be OK to beat your wife? How it was accepted behaviour to mistreat people because their skin was a different colour? How all this was justified because that's how your father and his father and his father's father had done it?? That behaviour had to stop somewhere. In this day and age, there is no excuse for excessive beating or abuse of any person, regardless of race, gender, sexual preference or age.

It is true that the burnt hand teaches best, we learn by experience. It's not true that a 'good slap now and then never hurt me as a kid'... I was slapped as a child, usually by my father, mother only threatened me with him. When his slaps started getting harder, more frequent and with a fist, I hit back and he never touched me again. I admit I have spanked Limpit, when she was younger and deserved it. When I found I was doing it more often for less reasons, I investigated my own behaviour first and found it was me that had the problem. From what I can see of her behaviour (pretty appalling at times...) spanking her hasn't made any difference, so we don't do it any more. When she was 2, it stopped her biting people and trying to get in the washing machine because she was too young to understand the consquences of those actions. Now she's nearly 11 (ye Gods!!) it is not an appropriate punishment because her communication skills mean we should be able to reason out the argument and make ourselves understood. It's US who have to learn to sit and listen and work out what the problem really is. I'd far rather reassure her with a cuddle and a conversation than slap her into silence.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Genie
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 09:34 PM

I'd like one too, Peace. Especially when the law gets involved.

That said, non-"physical" abuse can be as damaging to a child's psychological development (and maybe even physical health) as "beating" if it's extremely cruel.   So can extreme rejection that consists of just withholding attention or affection.

OK, I'm not going to draw a direct parallel between rodent and human behavior (even though some of us are rats), but some research on infant mice found that early stimulation had a positive effect on mental and physical development, whether the stimulation was from mild electric shock, sudden temperature change, or fondling the infant mice.   The lack of stimulation was the most negative condition.   

I don't think it's much of a stretch from common sense to think that a child who is provided a lot of stimulation and contact with caregivers, including an occasional mild spanking, may be better off than one who is deprived of close human contact and kept in a severely restrictive environment.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 08:58 PM

But the body of research does draw a line between spanking and beating. I'd like a clear definition of 'spanking'.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Genie
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 08:55 PM

Guest: "It would do more good if people actually looked at the research on the effects of different methods of child rearing. "

Guest, that's what my post was based on. (Plus some common sense -- which is often corroborated by childrearing research findings.)

The bulk of research on childrearing practices indicates that consistency of discipline is far more important than specific disciplinary techniques, both in terms of controlling behavior and in terms of producing non-neurotic kids and adults. Another key factor seems to be the parent-child affectional bond.   Which is why I made that sarcastic remark about taking a toddler away from a bad old parent who spanks and placing him/her in a foster home where such practices are not used.

But again, "spanking" is a term that covers an awfully broad territory.   (Especially if the "spankee" has a weight problem, but that's another topic.)
;-D
Banning "spanking" is as ridiculous as banning "negative verbal sanctions."   The term is way too imprecise.

Again, I am not endorsing any form of physical punishment. Just saying the body of research on childrearing does not support the idea that it cannot be used effectively as a disciplinary technique, regardless of when and how and by whom it is used.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Scoville
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 08:07 PM

Wait--so everyone who thinks kids shouldn't be spanked is a do-gooder without a clue?

Isn't it safe to assume that at least SOME of the lawmakers in question have raised productive, functional children without spanking, too?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Slag
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 07:45 PM

kendall, I was reacting to the illogicality of that initial post. You made a sweeping generalization "ALL" and then you cited anectodal evidence of some you had known and then turned around and stated that you would not accept anecdotal evidence. Further you stated that you had other evidence but cited none of it.

I got your general drift and by and large I agree with you but you certainly did NOT mount a logical argument!!

The things done to children usually sink into the deep subconscious and become part of the matrix of pesonality and it is amazing how learned behaviors such as beating or molestation comes out in a given situation. It takes a lot of personal insight, self awareness and work to not take the easy road and follow the paradigm laid down for you in infancy. Most never confront it and many who do need assistance from those in the mental health field.

The less some form of corporeal punishment is used, the more significant it becomes. It estabilishes an ultimate line. Unfortunately that is a two-edged sword (so to speak) in that some little ones like to keep butting up against that line to see if it really is there. And so, for consistency's sake, some may feel trapped into continually repeating the punishment. Not so! Get creative! At some point you may even try "reason" with the little tykes. In fact, you should never stop talking to them. Teach them communication. Tell them the truth. Explain things over and over again. A little more gets through each time and some day they WILL thank you for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Becca72
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 07:35 PM

First I will say that there is definitely a difference between "spanking" and "beating". Spanking may not necessarily be that bad...I don't think.

That said, I have one parent (Kendall) who in my almost 35 years on this planet has never laid a hand on me for any reason. I love and respect him with all my heart, and I have always been able to talk to him about any subject, knowing that I would get an honest answer, help, advice or whatever it was that I needed.

The other parent was (I say was because she suffers from severe dementia now) a bitter, mean-spirited, jealous awful person who would sooner hit us than tell us the time of day. When my sisters and I moved her into assisted living a few years back we found the old metal yard stick that she used to whack us with...you can tell because all the paint is worn off the end that connected with our butts. She is the reason I chose not to have children of my own. I watched my eldest sister turn into her and there is no way in hell I'm going to let that happen to me.

I haven't spoken to my mother in several years and even though she's very sick now I just can't feel sorry for her. Karma is a bitch. I have absolutely NO respect for the woman and never have because she didn't earn it.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 07:25 PM

Most pro-spanking literature (research) seems to come from 'religious proponents of one form or other'. Most other research indicates that spanking leads to many other disorders.

What is not defined to my satisfaction is this: spanking.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 07:16 PM

And what about experienced parents who believe in beatings?