What do you think about parents slapping children as a means of punishment?

I don't think I'd do it myself, but I honestly don't have any problems with it being a small part of my own upbringing.

not seeing this ever again is reason enough to make this illegal.

The answer to all of the above is "no".

I don't blame my Mum at all - things were different then and people held different beliefs, but I don't think there's any excuse for hitting a child today. I believe in positive parenting and time outing and I'm glad Little Angels is public service broadcasting this method on the BBC.

I've not realised until now - it was always Mum who smacked us, never Dad.

If anything, I believe being hit by a family member does more damage than being hit by a random stranger, because it also hurts the bonds between you and the only people you should be able to completely trust and be loved by.

On one occasion I remember making my mother very angry indeed (no idea what I did) and then smugly retorting "anyway, you can't smack me, they're going to make it against the law and you'll be arrested". She didn't like that display of smart-arsery at all.

I agree with others when they say "I wouldn't do it to my kids", however I don't think anyone is going to say "Yes I fully intend to slap my kids, I think it's an essential part of their upbringing" either.

Had I ever been hit harder than that, or ever been hit because of anger alone, then I'm sure it would have had a different effect.

(having said that, I remember the fear, knowing it was about to happen, and the pulling/turning away - not a fun memory)

Matt DC>>> Well, I'm not sure you can draw a line. "It's ok to hit your kids but only so it doesn't show" is the law in England, no? That seems even more absurd to me. All violence against children should be illegal imo. I do understand that tired and desperate parents slap their kids' wrists, and I know that sometimes it does no harm at all and is promptly forgotten and that these homes can still be full of love and all that, but making even some violence legal = saying that domestic violence is ok = utterly and completely wrong.

Wait a minute, it's Thanksgiving and I'm 500 miles from my parents. Never mind.

I don't think my bond with my parents has suffered because of spankings I received as a child.

If a child is being completely uninhibited I'm not against physical punishment. I take issue with people who cannot tell the difference between fair physical discipline and outright cruelty.

Mum always used the time out on my sister, slapping and sending her to her room never worked (she just used to play with her toys) - she used to move one of the dining room chairs to the top of the stairs, and point to it, and my sister used to yell 'not the chair mummy, not the chair....'it definitely worked!

My dad used to threaten to 'give me something to cry for' if I was upset being told off, which of course made me even more upset, not very clever really. But having been at the receiving end of both types of 'punishment' I'm still not anti it.

I empathise a little with parents of little gets, mind you. But not greatly.

it's far more complex than telling kids violence is the solution to any problem, when I remember being slapped I remember my Dad or Mum being apologetic afterwards, I know for a fact there was always a mass apology session afterwards which was quite cathartic.

x-post with Lauren, I think with a tiny toddler is maybe different, I think, if I remember correctly, I was only slapped from the age of 4 or 5. Though who knows! I will ask my Mum later.

It's odd aswell, Madchen's post about trying to escape the slap being pure comedy resonates with me aswell, this sounds ridiculous but I am faintly amused when I think about some of the times running away from the wooden spoon or whatever.

Well, duh, yeah, the child is a CHILD and you are an ADULT. Who has the power there, you think? And who has to take the responsibility to be calm and reasonable?

x-post I think if I was slapped by my parents when calm that would be fucking sadistic.

^^^^ this is true. It's the age when a child is trying to gain more independence and thus is more likely to question authority/engage in smart-mouthery.

Another question, then: do people who haven't been spanked have a different attitude to discipline? One of the central tenets in my life is that having discipline is a central, admirable quality that is necessary in almost all walks of life; being undisciplined means not treating people right, not doing jobs properly, and basically wasting opportunities.

This could be an individual neurosis I guess.

"theoretical libertarians don't have children (they do! in idaho! with guns!)"
cheeky! by libertarian I mean the same as "libertine" or more clearly: "fan of freedom".

"or think that simone de beauvoir has anything at all to teach us about what should be done with children"
that sounds like an informed opinion but I'm not a beauvoirean. feel free to elaborate, or not: I know you don't like that idea and it's ok , maybe others would like to talk about it.

I'm not planning on having any kids for a long time, but I'm applying to be a teaching assistant next year, and so I'll need to learn how to keep kids under control without losing my temper and whacking one.

x-postssss

I've always felt that the first (really, the only) job of parenting is to train my child not to need me anymore.

as for mme. de beauvoir, her rhetoric just never matches what she was ever able or willing to do with her life; good for quotes, but her whole be-free! life was marked by being dominated by a certain hyper-intellectual (with whom I share a birthday!) and there's a reason they never had kids.

man i hope I'm correct about that. anyway, not trying to be a jerk but sounding like one, so I'll step back out. maybe coming back to ILE is not such a hot idea, except in haiku form.

As it is, I feel that a law which allows a parent to hit a 15 year old, but would find them guilty of a crime to hit a 16 year old is absurd. So I was wondering if 'pro-smackers' (sorry, it's a horrible term - I know almost no-one wants to smack their children, but I can't think of a better term) have an age at which they feel the law shoudl step in and remove the parents right to hit their child.

"as for mme. de beauvoir, her rhetoric just never matches what she was ever able or willing to do with her life"
I agree this is the opposite of what is called "living as a philosopher" but if I stay with the idea I reported, it can discredit that claim and arguments on the emotional level and the logic aspect can still hold some truths, for others, who would be free to "avenge" her by walking the walk, too?

I haven't read skinner's "walden II" but I don't think there is a need to make this book absolutely representative of socialization of child-rearing, especially if nonsensical ideas like forced breeding are in it. Maybe some of his ideas could be recuperated as a trend if improved : an alternative to the tried and true (statistically speaking) dominant model of the "family" : the dominant model is not perfect and that means lives get ruined, it's normal to look for solutions, like social workers are doing, but hey I know it's an idea that is way too progressive, especially since everyone in north america voted right-wing recently, there won't be interest in this any time soon (unless reality tv jumps onboard or something, who knows :-)

As for The State asserting its authority over parental rights at a certain age, I agree, legal at 15 and illegal at 16 makes little sense. On the other hand, if anyone is still spanking their child post-puberty, that is patently bad parenting that verges on child abuse. Still, I don't support the notion that The State should ever have authority over parenting style. I wish that state Child Welfare Departments were better funded and better staffed (and so able to respond more quickly to charges of abuse), and offered training and workshops for parents, but that's the extent of government involvement in child rearing that I can get behind.

This has an eerie parallel to the issue of abortion rights. I'm not necessarily pro-spanking, I think it's a last resort, it's definitely overused, but I don't want The State legislating its will on me.

only half of US
voted for the GOP
don't stereotype

similarly: I
agree that "nuclear" fams
are a weird concept

but I ask that you
talk to parents instead of
reading walden two

it's not natural
for folks to say "okay, state,
sure, raise MY children"

it will never work!
system = anathema to
freedom. q.e.d.

I was thinking it could be something more like anarchist communities that would rise children, than "state".

but hey I know it's an idea that is way too progressive, especially since everyone in north america voted right-wing recently, there won't be interest in this any time soon

Please feel free to con yourself all you want, but don't pass that shit on to the unsuspecting as "fact."

But as for the Scandinavian view, I’m not sure there’s anything extra-planetary about it. I mean, it seems to me that the important thing is that any given society has some sort of agreed-upon guideline for what kind of physical punishment is “normal”; this way, we can all of us more easily spot those situations where a parent is acting beyond the rational “normal” punishment routine, and losing control, or randomly inflicting actual-violence on a child. (The U.S. has a spread of “normal” that’s possibly a bit too large, and it’s unfortunately kind of class-based.)

I was the youngest of four. By the time I came around, my parents had been able to test out their parenting skills on my older siblings and shake out a few of the bugs. As I recall my childhood (and this is always highly suspect) my parents never, never came anywhere close to meting out physical punishment that inflicted injury on me. Never. I can't even imagine it.

They used spanking so rarely that it seems to me it was at most a once-a-year event that had completely petered out by the time I was six or seven. The spanking itself was intended to inflict a very minimal amount of pain. I would be "turned over their knee" and struck five or six times with an open hand - never on bare skin. It had an atmosphere of formality and was very quickly over with. My pride smarted far longer than my bottom did. Pain played an almost insignifigant role in the whole affair.

Usually, if it came to a formal 'spanking', I had been warned several times about non-compliance and the imminence of a spanking should compliance not be forthcoming. It was never a surpise. Never out of the blue.

Lastly, my parents did employ what they called a 'swat' from time to time. This, too, petered out when I was quite young. A 'swat' was a single, light blow to the seat of my pants. It would come (as far as I was concerned) out of the blue, but it was mainly employed when my parents were wholly unsuccessful at getting my attention by more conventional means and I was the one who was out in the wild blue yonder, utterly ignoring them. They might as well have been barking like dogs in the night for all I was paying attention. A 'swat' would instantly recall me to what I was supposed to be doing. It didn't hurt. It was always a bit of a shock, though.

As I recall, their use of physical blows was always sparing and remarkably restrained. Lucky me. I do believe that there are times when words fail to get the required response, simply because they are words. At such times a direct, unmistakably physical connection can cut through the noise and get your point across. The point of a spanking should never be: "I am bigger than you. I can hurt you. Be afraid." It is OK in my opinion to convey the point: "Pay attention to what I say next time. I'm serious about this."

If you have a temper that makes it possible you'll hurt your child, I'd be extremely reluctant to recommend spanking, lest you cross the line on a surge of anger. If you can control your anger then it can be just another tool in the toolkit - rarely used, but effective.

I Am Curious (George), when I wrote
but hey I know it's an idea that is way too progressive, especially since everyone in north america voted right-wing recently, there won't be interest in this any time soon

you said

Please feel free to con yourself all you want, but don't pass that shit on to the unsuspecting as "fact."

re-reading myself now, I shouldn't have wrote "everyone", sorry about that. You had quite a strong reaction there isn'it? and you didn't quote my smiley :-(
don't get me wrong it was an attempt at humor, yes? taking the piss pretending to be the bad kind of cynic, resenting the result of latest elections in Québec, Canada and the USA. I guess it's just a coincidence the right politically owns all that territory nowadays.

Just renting. Hopefully their lease will run out soon. As for having a strong reaction, those of us who voted against Bush hate being forgotten by the international left as much as the right here at home. At least I do.

Cultural disagreements are playing a large role here - I don't see why the idea of an anarchist community is absurd for instance. Nevertheless, it's a small matter.

I've enjoyed Nabisco's posts so far, but I really want to know one thing - is it acceptable for a father to spank his 15 year old daughter? If not, should the state intervene? No-one here has argued that smacking should continue into adolescence (for entirely obvious reasons - I don't think that people who smack their children are wicked or cruel, for what it's worth, I just think that the state should dicourage the practice while better equiping parents for the realities of discipline, including anger mangagement. In fact, I feel this would be beneficial to society as a whole), so do people think that adolescents should be afforded the same protection as adults against assault? At what age does that stop? I understand the desire for this to be a case by case matter, but that is impractical; also does anyone think there is a case in which a 15 year old should be spanked? I really think not, and repeating myself, they should be protected. Even if you feel that smacking is acceptable, you must surely think that the law fails in it's duty to protect teenagers from violence.

from a counselor
or teachers if they find out;
it's the law (most states)

As for how to discipline children--"problem" children don't even exist in nonviolent households.

Arizona: ARIZ. REV. STAT. Sec. 15-843

"If the governing board of a local school district authorizes the use of corporal punishment, the board shall prescribe rules setting forth means and procedures for the administration of corporal punishment consistent with the following: .... to be used when all other disciplinary measures have been exhausted ... will be administered by spanking the buttocks of the student to cause no more than temporary pain and not to inflict permanent damage ... only administered by educationally certified personnel ... witnessed by an adult employee.. parents to be notified promptly that corporal punishment has been administered".

Never happened to me but very few others escaped it; they would threaten and carry out it for the smallest thing...the closest I came was when I almost didn't turn in a permission slip for something, aged 11.

haha xpost I'll take YOU to goth school, mister!

wha?????????

Your characterization of society being unhealthy due to the presence of violence is dubious at best. First of all: does spanking a misbehaving child qualify as "violence?" Are we really so prude that a term hitherto reserved for murder, destruction, and assault can now include corporal punishment?

People spank each other for sexual pleasure; would you consider this to be violent? I will venture to guess that you wouldn't because the aim of this sort of spanking is not malicious, therefore it doesn't qualify as proper violence.

I put it to you, though, that the aim of spanking a child as punishment is not malicious either. The purpose is to reinforce correct behavior in a child who cannot understand the ramifications of his or her actions and it is done so that the child may turn into a young adult who acts correctly. Is this sort of education malicious?

If you accept that spanking for pleasure isn't violence because it has a non-malicious purpose, then you must also accept that spanking children for misbehavior isn't violence because the purpose is also non-malicious.