BS: Spank, or No-Spank?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 07:12 PM

It's extraordinary how this debate goes. Because *every* time I've seen the debate, people make the same points, and rebut them the same way.

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

Saying what your own experience was and taking it as a universal rule is about like saying "I've walked across five-storey roofs hundreds of times and I've never fallen off, so it's perfectly safe"!

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Bernard
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 06:46 PM

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

Excuse me... must nip out and re-surface the runway. Some pigs are needing flying lessons...

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 06:11 PM

No Spank. Parents should consult with each other long and hard before deferring to me. Who needs monsters when there's plenty of parents to go around?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 05:52 PM

Being given a choice is a hell of a lot better than being screamed at and hit by a parent who can't control his or her own temper when not getting his or her own way. I say this as one who was not given a choice when he was a child, but who was hit, yelled at, humiliated, and verbally intimidated into doing whatever the hell the parent wanted and NOT given any choice about it, and I still bear the scars of it to this day.

I would have been delighted to have been given some coherent choices instead, believe me. Then I could have used my intelligence, which was considerable, and made some decisions of my own. That would have been nice.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Genie
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 05:34 PM

Spanking can be as mild and non-traumatic as a little swat on the clothed buttocks or as severe and traumatizing as a bloody beating. Verbal "chastising" can be as mild as a gently "That behavior is not acceptable" or as severe and damaging as "You worthless little piece of sh*t, I'm sorry you were ever born and you will never amount to anything! Now go outside and play in the traffic!"

Well, you get the point.   People can abuse a child with almost any form of "discipline," and many a child would probably prefer a slap on the butt to being deprived of affection and approval for an extended period or having horrible things said to him/her.   Moreover, any 'system' of discipline is ineffective if it's arbitrarily and inconsistently applied.

Ironically, I think if there's any age when spanking might be more useful than other forms of discipline, it's during the pre-verbal years.   No, I'm not recommending spanking babies.   It' generally "overkill,"   But in the first year or two of a kid's life, you can't ethically withhold food or use "time outs" without risking being MORE abusive than you'd be if you gave the kid a slap on the tush. "Reasoning" with a toddler isn't gonna work. And I think things like yelling "Bad boy!" may do more lasting harm than moderate spanking.

The most important point is that you're not going to turn bad parents into decent ones by legally specifying what form their (bad) parenting may take.   Yes, the law should step in when parents produce injuries or use "cruel or unusual" punishments, but a total ban on spanking before age 3 seems not only unnecessary but bound to penalize many a reasonably responsible parent.

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 05:23 PM

KB - my feelings exactly.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 03:25 PM

When we had children we discussed whether to spank or not. We chose not to. The deciding factor for me was when I thought about when I was most likely to spank. It seemed I would be most likely to spank when I was mad which is exactly the wrong time to be hitting a child, no matter how or how hard. I am not strictly anti-spanking, ours was a personal choice.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Scoville
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 03:09 PM

The choice thing is great. I do that all the time with my First Day School kids (many of whom are well-practiced at parent/child power struggles). They get A or B--I don't care which, they can choose. If they don't, they get handed back over to their parents, who will either make them sit quietly or take them home. They don't get to do whatever the rest of the kids are doing. They shape up very quickly when everyone else is doing something interesting and they can't because they hit somebody or threw a tantrum and locked horns with me.

Furthermore, none of these children are at all afraid of me. Even the most difficult ones rarely give me any trouble any more, and they look for me first thing when they get to meeting. One in particular is a very high-strung, temperamental, needy, little boy and is pretty much an attention sink, but it's paid off very well to go the extra mile with him and has ended a lot of the issues teachers were having with him.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 03:07 PM

The final answer is isolation. It is the ultimate punishment. Time out is a mild form of it, but if that doesn't work, lock them in their room.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Bernard
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 02:14 PM

Children need to be protected. The Government has the power to intervene where necessary. What we need to avoid is unnecessary intervention... and that's the problem!!

Teaching by example is the ideal, but there are rare occasions when it is neither practical nor desirable... "Don't touch that, you'll..."! Maybe a smack is justified?

The "choice" thing is very sound - it reinforces good behaviour and penalises bad behaviour. 'Behave, or lose your privileges'. But what happens when all the privileges are gone? There's nothing left to bargain with.

I don't have the answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 01:04 PM

Here is an example of my ex wife's expertise with unruly kids.

We took in a little girl who had been beaten and sexually abused by her relatives, mainly, her MOTHER!

We were having dinner in a nice restaurant, and the child, who was three at the time, went charging up and down the isle bothering people and generally making a nuisance of herself. No amount of talking did a bit of good, so my wife held her and looked directly into her eyes and said "You have a choice, either sit here with us, or, be put into the car and wait for us to finish. Which will it be"?

Of course, the child didn't like either option, so she continued to raise hell. Wife took her by the hand and said "Ok, you made your choice." and took her to the car and locked the doors.
Where we were sitting we could see the car, otherwise I would have had a real problem with leaving her alone there.
About ten minutes later, wife went out and brought the child in. She sat with us and acted like a civilized human from then on.
We continued this "choice" thing for the whole time we had her.

I was amazed to see just how easy it was for someone who knew what they were doing. Somehow, people get the idea that they automatically know how to raise kids, but that just isn't so. We have to learn.

One question to ask yourself is, what is most important here, to get the child to behave without a fuss, or to be in charge and break their spirit by bullying. If winning is more important than teaching by example, go back and read Guest 11:46.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 12:50 PM

What should be a private matter, beating children?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 12:20 PM

gOVERMENTS ARE REALLY GETTING FAR TO INTUSIVE. tHIS OUGHT TO BE A PRIVATE MATTER.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Bernard
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 12:12 PM

GUEST 11:46...

What you claim to have been subjected to is undoubtedly abuse. Sorry about the use of the word 'claim', but I hope you will understand - I'm not trying to trivialise your experiences, believe me.

I, too, was 'bullied' by adults. They including my father, who is still alive, and my primary school headmaster who died some years ago. The headmaster used to slap me to 'make me learn my arithmetic and I'd thank him for it one day', and the net result is I'm still hopeless at it - and no, I don't thank him at all.

I believe it has made me into a potential bully, but I am able to recognise it and avoid it. I accept that others may not.

The difficulty, as has already been said, is 'where do we draw the line?'

I don't think we're addressing the 'corporal punishment' issue here, but the parent's right to 'smack', which is a completely different thing.

It is very rare that a total ban (on anything) achieves its objective, possibly because it isn't fair to both camps.

The big problem is in catching and sorting out the bullies - whose activities will continue despite any legislation. Preventing parents from bringing up their children as they see fit sets a dangerous precedent.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 11:46 AM

I was beaten across the back and rear with belts, yard sticks and hands on minimum a dozen occasions before I fought back at the age of 12 and took a knife to my step-dad. (He ran out of the house and that was the last corporal punishment I ever got at home from either mom or him.) In school, I received the strap five or six times that I can recall. Truth is, it never taught me a damned thing except to 'get tough' and just not give a shit about the adult world. However, all it took to make me 'see the light' or 'error of my ways' was a word from my grandfather. He never once raised his hand to me. I thought the world of him, and just a look of disapproval would make me rethink whatever had brought on 'the look'.

I have never hit children. Not mine or those of others. Hitting kids is not right IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Wesley S
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 11:04 AM

I'm in the no spank camp.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:33 AM

Nice post Kendall. Cleared some points up (for me at least).
Cheers,
S:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Bernard
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 09:30 AM

Liz - what can I say...??

Benefit of the doubt...?!!

;o)

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 09:12 AM

Giok, don't missunderstand me. I said I have known kids who were beaten and abused..I that is. Personal experience. Thats not to say that ALL kids who were beaten will gtrow up to be beaters, but there is a damn good chance of it.
My father was a drunk. I have 4 brothers who have or have had a problem with booze. I am the one exception. So does that mean that one in 5 will grow up booze free?

Slag, I was married to a child psychologist. I've known her for 26 years and I have seen her work. She knows what she is talking about. There are always exceptions, but the general rule still is, beaten kids will grow up to be beaters, and sexually abused kids will abuse others. It's all they know.

Now, let's be clear here; There are cases where a stubborn child needs more than to be yelled at, and a smack on the bum gets their attention. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about BEATING children, and I find it hard to believe that any of the group that comes here is a beater.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 08:47 AM

I really, really hate the idea of hitting kids - or anyone, for that matter! But I have come to the sad conclusion that some people only understand the threat of force and it is the only way that their anti-social proclivities can be deterred. Also, especially in a school situation, it's only the threat of instant retribution that seems to work. I would hate to be a teacher in one of today's schools in which some kids seem to be completely out of control.

On the other hand I remember my own school days in which some teachers used their power to hit wisely, and were able to control their classes with the absolute minimum of force, whilst others were just sadistic bastards who seemed to really enjoy hitting kids. Sadly it would seem that if you give some people any power at all they will abuse it.

I think that this dilemma is a very profound one and our society has no idea how to cope with it. At the moment all we have, as with most ethical questions, is thousands of people jumping on the 'holier than thou bandwagon' and out-competing each other to scream, "hitting people is wrong!!". Of course it's wrong, in most cases, but is it wrong in all cases?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 08:15 AM

dianavan and Lynne - very well balanced opinions, I'm with you!

Kendall - your kid's right, you ARE a great guy, I have the good fortune to know you personally and you have my sincere respect. But I also think you have been very fortunate with your family, and that good fortune has served to reinforce your views (and of course I respect your right to have and express those views). If things had gone the other way with one or more of your kids, I'm certain you'd see it another way. Pax mate!
S:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 08:04 AM

Bernard - you've met me and yet you still call me 'responsible'?!!!

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Bernard
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 07:53 AM

Aah, Liz, exactly.

The responsible parent knows best.

;o)

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 07:33 AM

"The only time a child under three may need a spank is if he/she is repeatedly doing something unsafe like hitting their forehead against a window pane. I know that sounds strange but..."

Sometimes a spank isn't necessary then.

When she was 2, Limpit used to bang her head on the floor in a rage when she didn't get her own way. I let her do it, because the third or fourth time she did it, it was on a concrete floor and she learned the hard way that it wasn't as nice as carpet to bang her head on. She didn't hurt herself much (she wasn't THAT stupid) and she was halfway through her second bash when she paused.. You could see the little wheels go round in her head connecting her bad temper with the head banging and the pain and she stopped and was all smiles again.    Sometimes the burnt hand teaches best.

She was also a runner - would dash off at every opportunity. I had her on walking reins but they were too short. I bought one of those extending dog leads and clipped that onto the harness. It meant she
had about 10' to run before she was brought up short. Now I can barely get her out of my ruddy pockets!

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Bernard
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 07:19 AM

In answer to GUEST 06:44 PM who claims ANY smack is 'redefined abuse'.

I hope you've read subsequent posts which show how irresponsible you sound.

Allowing a child to play with fire or run into the street when a 'short sharp shock' will prevent it is also a form of abuse.

Which is preferable?

A good parent knows where to draw the line, and by the same token, their children know where that line is.

It's easy to be pompous and claim that a great big adult is abusing a tiny little child, but that is fatuous and being used for effect. Nobody seriously believes such wild accusations!!

A tiny child will accept a light tap on the hand as a symbolic of a real slap - the child isn't hurt or abused, but knows he/she has crossed a line.

In the ideal world this would not ever be necessary, but this is far from an ideal world.

The real problem is those who abuse for pleasure...

Let's not lump conscientious, caring parents in with such animals.

We all know where the line is!

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 07:00 AM

Well said Lynne, so many parents think that because they can put up with their ill behaved little monsters, we should also be expected to do so.

BTW Kendall, it's nice to know I'm not worth a damn!

Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: MBSLynne
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 06:45 AM

I didn't really intend to get into this debate but.....
My children are not my property, but it is my job, as a parent, to look after and protect them while they are too small to do it themselves, to make sure they are healthy, clean and loved; to make sure they know how to take their place in society and behave with kindness, courtesy and decency; to be able (and as soon as possible) to look after themselves. If I feel, along the way, that a smack is necessary for my job to be done right, then I WILL smack them and I do not believe it is anybody's right, nor anybody's business, to tell me how I should perform my job. The fact that part of the job is to keep them healthy and loved (and that means mentally healthy too) immediately precludes beatings, hitting with an object, or even smacking on a regular basis, since that would damage them, mentally, if not physically. An occasional smack will not harm them and may be necessary, but it's up to me to judge that

Love Lynne

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 01:28 AM

"Gnu, the law being discussed pertained to children three and under."

Thanks for the clarification, Peace.

The only time a child under three may need a spank is if he/she is repeatedly doing something unsafe like hitting their forehead against a window pane. I know that sounds strange but...

If all else fails...

I pretty much agree with what slag has said.

kendall I disagree with your statement, " Beaten children grow up to be beaters. Sexually abused kids grow up to be abusers. There is a mountain of evidence to prove it."

Most abusers and beaters have a history of abuse; but not all abusers and beaters continue the abuse. Some people do learn not to pass it on. I repeat, a swat or a spank is not abuse. Its just politics to make more laws on this issue while we sit back and turn a blind eye to real abuse, like sexual abuse and beatings.

Do something about that instead of focussing on parents who are doing their best to curb anti-social behaviour and behaviour that might endanger their lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Bert
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 01:26 AM

...A smack on the bum is better than watching a kid overturn a heater, or to run into the street while you yell at them to stop...

Well said kendall!

They will push the limit until they get that little pat on the butt, and it's a thousand times better than days of brainwashing for the smallest infraction, believe me.

I'm not surprised your kids turned out fine, bet they love you lots.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: GUEST,Diesel
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 12:04 AM

My Child is tough, I mean that, on both myself and my wife - he was tough bringing up. At 3+1/2 he ran ahead of me in a shopping aisle - straight out toward a main road where the buses drive. Calling and shouting for him to stop meant nothing - and I have a loud voice when I need, it was his 'fun' to ignore us.

I ran and caught him about a metre or two from the road edge - he may have been in the process of stopping - I wasn't ! My hand met his bum as I lifted him - and I apologise to no-one for this. Either instant punishment then and there for what he nearly done - the consequence of him under a bus is a much harder alternative.

He has gotten a few smaller slaps on the bum, or the hands over the years. And I do wish I never did that.Yet on reflection - I wouldn't consider it OTT, but still regret I ever felt I had to.

He's now 6, I love him to bits, he's still very very tough, but not half as bold. And no he doesn't need a slap anymore, now a stern 'Stop' or even a little 'cough-cough' is sufficient.

His sister is now nearly 3 - hasn't ever needed the same approach - pure different personality. And that is where it comes from - how far beyond the edge the child pushes balanced with how much the parent tries.

Good parents struggle to get it right, and every parent/child is different. No legislation will ever get it right - so with existing laws for obvious harm - leave it alone.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Slag
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 11:36 PM

Nothing like a hasty generalization to cap off all dialogue kendall! Cite your evidence and condemn all those who may have suffered to an abysmal Hell. If no anecdotal evidence will convince you why do you use anecdotal evidence to try to convince me?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 09:56 PM

Hitler was ,in fact, beaten by his father.
I've known plenty of adults my age who were beaten as kids, and none of them turned out worth a damn. No amount of anecdotal evidence will convince me otherwise. Beaten children grow up to be beaters. Sexually abused kids grow up to be abusers. There is a mountain of evidence to prove it.
Every child is born with a clean slate, and there are no "bad" kids; they are made that way by failed parenting.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 09:36 PM

"Peace... "...hitting an infant?"

??? Man, that is hitting below the belt! I am outta here."

Gnu, the law being discussed pertained to children three and under. It's a scary thought to me that humans would need such a law in the first place. However, I guess some folks in California figure a law of that nature is necessary.

I have no idea whether or not Clifford Olsen was spanked as a child or not. Or Hitler, or bin Laden. But one thing I do know is that YOU wouldn't hit a child fer krissake. If I have offended you or implied I thought that of you, please accept my sincere apology.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Slag
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 09:28 PM

We may not OWN our children but we come pretty close to it. You may believe that they are given from on High or that you made them yourself, regardless Nature has entrusted them to your being, initially. Initially being the key word here.

We already have laws aplenty to deal with child abuse when detected. We need courts that will uphold those laws ( are you listening Vermont, Massachusetts?). More legislation and grandstanding opprotunities for politicians is not what is needed.

Parenting, like life, is more art than science. The most basic foundation for the whole enterprise is LOVE. That's the magic that ultimately makes the whole thing work, if it's going to work at all. Again, if you are REACTING to your children out of frustration, anger, chemical dependence, mental illness, emotional illness, indifference, sexual perversion or any such like! that is WRONG!

Some folks don't need to be having children because of aforementioned problems which remain unresolved. I don't think this thread should expand beyond the question of the proposed legislation but these are all factors that enter into the question of discipline and what mode that discipline should take. We all play it by ear in family dynamics. We all have baggage. We all need to be aware of what is in our baggage and its potential to harm our children. If you have your head on straight and your emotional baggage squared away. Good. If your child needs a swat to get their attention do so but without physical injury to the child. Listen to your child. They will let you know what you need to do. Love them always. If you can't handle it admit it. No shame in that. Find help. Find what works right, in the best interest of the child.

And as a footnote. If a child's crying "bothers" you, know that crying is a natural and healthy exercise for a child. They NEED to do it to develope their lungs and tweak their hormone system. If the crying is unnatural or it makes you suspect that something else may be going on, go to a doctor or clinic. If you need a break (and we ALL need a break from time to time) by all means arrange some downtime for yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 07:12 PM

Hear, hear.

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Scoville
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 07:08 PM

I never, ever, hit my dogs, either, and every last one of them has turned out just fine, including several very fearful and very unruly adult rescues. Sorry, but I just don't believe it's necessary to smack a child (or an animal). The situation shouldn't be allowed to get to the point where an adult feels it's necessary to do that to get a kid's attention. Some kids are more difficult than others, but reacting in kind solves nothing long-term.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 06:44 PM

Spanking, when delivered by a judicious parent, is not a beating.

Spanking someone younger and smaller than you is abuse. You can be in favour of abuse but don't insult us by trying to re-define it. Plain and simple abuse. No matter how judicious the parent.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Bernard
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 05:58 PM

As Bill D already mentioned - legislation is often brought in to deal with the people who abuse their privileges.

How sad that the self-same legislation usually deprives responsible people of their freedom of choice...

Nobody said life was fair...

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 03:35 PM

Old school - The freedom to raise your children in your own way.

New school - Parents should not have the right to choose how to discipline their children.

Physical abuse of anyone is against the law. Spanking, when delivered by a judicious parent, is not a beating.

Its a fine line but the responsibility rests with the parents, not the government. If a parent goes too far, we already have laws to deal with it.

Its just a way to deprive citizens of one of the last freedoms they have left - the right to raise your child according to your own beliefs.

btw - My oldest (boy) was spanked (occasionally) but the law changed and the youngest (girl) was not spanked. He is a gentle, loving and generous young man. She is self-centered and competitive with little or no concern for others. Was it the spanking that made the difference? I only know that she was much more difficult to raise and highly demanding of my time and attention. She was an unhappy, brat. He, on the other hand, was a happy child that everyone loved. He always remembered his manners.

As adults, I'd definitely say that he is a happy person with many friends and excellent social skills. She is still struggling to understand other people's boundaries. If you, as parents, can't enforce the rules, who can?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: pdq
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 03:05 PM

This is a very nasty type of legislation. Typical of what we get when lawyers become politicians.

It prepares a trap for those who oppose the bill. They can be asked "Why are you opposed to stopping child abuse?" or "Why are you in favor of beating two-year-old children?".

Normal people will not beat children nor will they sexually abuse or starve them. Nor will they leave a two-year-old locked in a hot car in July while they go shopping. This type of behavior is tragic, but it happens, and no amount of Nanny State meddling will prevent it.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 12:28 PM

I raised three, and they all respect me. None fear me, and they all turned out just fine.
Two of them told me in their later years that the thing that kept them in line was not wanting to disappoint me. The third says I'm her hero.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 12:25 PM

There are so many sub-issues and side-issues in this that it is impossible to ever have agreement. The proposed Calif. law might be a good start, but obviously it will only be enforceable if someone is seen doing it in public and can be caught, or if they injure a child enough to be suspected....kids UNDER 3 sure aren't gonna know they can report it!
   Once the kids are OVER 3, all bets are off? That is silly.....
I don't think this law would solve much. Just like jaywalking laws, it would be only a way to prosecute and place blame if something bad happens....which is fine, but doesn't solve the problem.

   A careful, universal program of education, continuously repeated like drug awareness programs, might gradually get parents to change habits...but among certain....ummmmm.."demographic groups"....it will be VERY hard to explain why violence, which is all they know, never solves much.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 12:18 PM

I smacked both of my sons (smacked, not beat-up, and only when all else failed).
One studied hard at school, got good grades, loves and respects his mum and me, has a lovely partner, got a good well-paid job and is now the manager of a fairly large store in a very swish area in Yorks.
The other one pratted around at school, flunked his exams, is a heroin addict and doesn't seem to care much about his parents one way or the other.
Conclusion - being smacked either:-
1) Had opposite effects on the two of them, or
2) Makes no difference, either good or bad.
So which one is it? I find it strange that so many people are so absolute in their opinions - "Smacking's always wrong", or "There's nothing wrong with a good slap" - on a subject which has no absolutes, no 100% correct answers.
Like the "Which is the best guitar" question, it's up to the individual to decide, there's no such thing as absolutely right, or absolutely wrong. IMHO! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 12:18 PM

Now, if we could just make them stop feeding junk food at McDonald's...

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 12:17 PM

With children as with dogs, if caught in the act, a smack is appropriate. Always explain why, never smack for no reason, never do the 'You wait till your Father gets home' trick as that lends fear and apprehension to what should be instant retribution.
Smacking should never be too hard and it should never be done because you are in a bad mood, it's not the child's fault you can't keep your temper under control.
Most importantly, both parents in a 2 parent household should keep the same rules, and any request from a child should always be answered by the question, 'Have you asked your Mother/Father' It is no good one parent saying different to the other, letting a child play one parent off against the other is a recipe for a badly behaved child.
Consistency is good for kids!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Megan L
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 11:56 AM

Spare the rod and spoil the child.

PS anyone can take that any way they want :)

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Bernard
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 11:39 AM

The big problem, as I've seen it, is when an unruly child knows that spanking isn't permitted. They will push and push and push, knowing that the 'ultimate deterrent' isn't available...

I never needed to spank my children, though they were always led to believe that I might if pushed too hard...

Violence begets violence, and I'm not suggesting that all children respond or react in the same way. That just isn't so.

It's a difficult issue with no 'right answer'. Some parents are irresponsible, so for them having the spanking option is like giving a loaded gun to a five-year-old child. A responsible parent knows how far they need to go without having their bluff called.

It's called 'respect'... and it has to be earned, not demanded.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 08:54 AM

Lynn, those children are not your PROPERTY. Now, I didn't infer that you think you have the right to do whatever you wish to them, but too many parents think just that way. If a smack on the butt with an open hand that doesn't cause permanent damage will keep a kid from death or other real danger, ok. A smack on the bum is better than watching a kid overturn a heater, or to run into the street while you yell at them to stop.

Here in Maine, the city of Bangor just passed a law that forbids anyone to smoke in their own car if children under 18 are present. There is sure to be an outcry..."They are my kids, and I'll do as I please in MY car"!!
People who smoke in the same room with small children should be educated about the kid's rights as well as their own.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: MBSLynne
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 06:54 AM

My parents smacked (Not quite sure what is meant by 'spanking') me possibly four or five times in my whole childhood. Each incident stands out in my memory and were mostly a result of me pushing to the limit to see how far I could go. They finally smacked me as being the last resort, and then I knew what the limits were. I believe this is good for children. A smack constituted one open hand blow (really more of a tap) to either my hand ( as in the case of me ignoring what I'd been told and messing about with a little paraffin heater) the others to the fleshy part of my thigh or my bottom. I was aware at the time that my parents did this only because I had pushed too far. It didn't make me believe that hitting was ok generally, or make me hit anyone else.

I have smacked both my kids in the same sort of circumstances, though I can't remember the last time...must be years ago. I think my children are lovely, well-balanced and mainly well-behaved people. Neither of them has EVER been accused of bullying, getting into fights or gratuitously hitting anyone else.

I also find it deeply offensive that anyone should try to tell me whether or not I may smack my children. However, there is a world of difference between smacking and beating and between smacking once with an open hand and puching with a fist or hitting with any weapon. No-one should do those to anyone and particularly not to children.

Love Lynne

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: gnu
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 06:30 AM

Peace... "...hitting an infant?"

??? Man, that is hitting below the belt! I am outta here.