Okay so recently there was a big smacking debate - whether or not, smacking your children works or if it leads to more psychological torment, since there was a NZ law passed in 2007 banning parents from smacking their children, claiming that smacking is a form of child abuse and strips children of their rights. Also looks like NZ isn't the only country to see the argument against: Last September, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the British law on corporal punishment in the home failed to protect children's rights, after considering the case of a boy who had been beaten by his stepfather with a three-foot garden cane between the ages of five and eight. The stepfather was acquitted by a British court of causing actual bodily harm. He had argued that the beating was "reasonable chastisement". The 14-year-old boy was awarded £10,000 damages against the government and £20,000 legal costs. Source So here's both sides to the argument. For > Smacking children leads to worse violence against them. False. Following the same logic one would have to conclude that kissing a child would lead to sexual abuse. Indeed, if anything is likely to lead to violence against children, it is allowing them to behave in a manner that is too anti-social and too undisciplined for people, parents and other children to tolerate. > Children are the only members of society still not protected by the law when it comes to being smacked. False. If my wife was to smack me for some gross misdemeanour there is no policeman or court in the land that would do anything about it. Furthermore, people within families should not always be expected to behave in the same way toward each other as strangers passing each other in the street. > "Research has shown that children can never remember what they were smacked for." False. This politically-correct twaddle from the supposed 'child-expert' Dr Penelope Leach (Baby and Child, Penguin Books 1982) deserves no further comment since it is patently nonsense. The truth is that there are literally millions of research papers in the psychological literature attesting to the fact that even rats remember and learn not to do something if they are smacked. > Smacking is not effective. False. Smacking is extremely effective. There is no society on this planet that does not smack its children. (Even in countries where smacking is illegal, most parents will tell you, in confidence, that they have found it necessary to smack their children on occasion.) However, because research with delinquent children, for example, shows that many of them have been smacked, the foolish child-centred ‘experts’ conclude that smacking does not work for any child. Their simplistic analysis fails on numerous points. 1. If they bothered to research non-delinquent children, child-centred ‘experts’ would find that the occasional smack does indeed work; and it works for most children, for most parents, most of the time. Just because something does not work 100% of the time does not mean that it is of no value. It could be of tremendous value. For example, could one really conclude that there is no point in having speed limits on our roads because many thousands of us break the speed limits every day? Could one also perhaps conclude that there is no point in having law courts and prisons because crime still occurs? If one was to visit a garage would one conclude that there was no point in having car engines, because they clearly do not work all of the time? Perhaps if the child-centred ‘experts’ were to become undertakers they would conclude that there was no point in having hearts! The presence of speed limits, law courts and prisons does affect the behaviour of most of us, most of the time. These things are of great value to our society, as are engines and hearts. To conclude that they are not effective and should therefore be discarded on the basis of the fact that they do not work 100% of the time would be ridiculous; but this is precisely the type of simplistic thinking that characterises the child-centred ‘experts’ when they conclude from the ‘research’ on delinquent children that smacking does not work. It does work, for most children, for most parents, most of the time. 2. It is obvious that those children who have behavioural problems are the ones most likely to be smacked by their parents - because they are usually attempting to civilise them. Where the parents are successful, the children do not end up having ’therapy’ with the child-centred ‘experts’. It is only where the parents have failed that these children end up in therapy units. The child-centred experts therefore only deal with the ‘failures’. Doing the ‘research’ on such children alone is therefore equivalent, for example, to studying just those children who have failed an exam at school and concluding from their failure that there is no point in teaching any children. Further, the ‘statistical’ type of child-centred research almost always leads to correlational data, and this can be interpreted in many ways. For example, the finding that aggressive, poorly-behaved children are more likely to be smacked is not very surprising. But the child-centred ‘experts’ will tell you that it is the smacking that is causing the poor behaviour and the aggression. Similarly, the finding that parents who, as children, were themselves smacked, are more likely to smack their own children, does not imply that these parents are somehow now deranged and predisposed to do harm toward their children - which is what the child-centred ‘experts’ will tell you. The real reason that such parents smack is because they know, from their own experiences, that, not only is a smack harmless, it is actually beneficial on occasion; and it saves them from having to dish out those cold, nasty, drawn-out ‘psychological’ types of punishments that are so destructive to relationships. And, of course, there is likely to be a strong genetic component that causes the personalities of children to resemble somewhat those of their parents. 3. Child-centred ‘experts’ claim that explanations and verbal admonitions are sufficient for younger children to learn how to behave themselves and that a smack is always unnecessary. This is not true. Children often do not listen, though they might appear to be listening. They do not always understand the explanations given to them by adults and, even if they do, at a later date, they might well choose not to heed them. They sometimes react impulsively - caught up in the excitement of the moment or perhaps engulfed with rage and anger. They do not always think logically. They sometimes wish to be defiant, and so on and so on. Further, children are extremely forgetful. Explanations, on their own, therefore, do not always work. An accompanying smack can make the world of difference - quite simply, because it causes pain! And here, the medical evidence would appear to be conclusive with regard to the beneficial effects of a smack in the right circumstances. Without pain, humans, and other animals, get themselves into all kinds of trouble. There have been many instances where human beings have been born without the neurological processes required to experience pain - a condition know as ‘congenital analgesia’ - though their sense of touch is not impaired. They usually do not live very long. Despite normal or high intelligence, they happily put their limbs into fires and boiling water. They break bones, tear skin, walk into solid objects, crack open their skulls and, on the whole, lead a thoroughly harrowing existence. Explanations, constant general counselling and verbal admonitions and warnings do not succeed with them. These individuals end up damaged and dead. They do not usually live beyond the age of twenty. This damage they do to their physical bodies, despite the fact that they can feel it, and even though they can see it with their own eyes. Pain from a non-damaging event (e.g. a smack) is nature's answer to how to teach a child about the world. Believe it or not, it is one of nature's most precious gifts. It teaches us in areas where our 'intelligence' completely fails. 'Intelligence' and constant 'education' do not protect those with congenital analgesia from an early death. Pain is what is needed. And the same is true for humans without this condition in situations where 'intelligence' and constant 'education' keep failing. 4. Without pain, human beings simply do not learn sufficiently well about important boundaries that will protect them. Indeed, in terms of evolution, the very fact that pain can be caused by a non-damaging smack suggests very strongly that the smack itself might well be a fundamental social conditioning mechanism. For example, a smack on the legs when a young child dashes toward a road or sticks its finger into an electricity socket will result in a strong conditioning process automatically associating the pain of the smack with the behaviour. This will reduce the likelihood of the child repeating its dangerous exploits; and this conditioning will continue to reduce this likelihood, at a later date, whether or not the child consciously recalls the experience of the smack, or, indeed, recalls consciously any of the earlier incident at all. Any accompanying explanation at the time will, of course, add to the child's learning of the dangers involved, but it is the smack that produces the strong conditioning (which those with congenital analgesia unfortunately fail to develop). It is the pain of the smack that, in the future, might save the child from damage, not the explanations. The smack emphasises the importance of the situation. It helps define the boundaries in a way that an explanation cannot, and it strengthens the child's memory with regard to the boundaries that it must recognise. And it is the duty of parents to ensure that this happens. 5. A smack is also often nothing more than a succinct social message from the parent who gives it. IT IS THE RED LIGHT! It is a message that is easily understood and that says a great deal. It says that the parent will not permit some behaviour to occur (again). It says that the parent expects the child to remember this. It says that the parent considers this a very important matter indeed. It says that the parent can, in the final analysis, exercise power over the child. And it sometimes says that the parent is unable to cope any longer and might well be about to explode and do far more harm unless the child does what it is told. These are the kinds of message that parents convey when they smack; and they are all extremely important ones. If parents are prevented from disciplining their children properly and preparing them for the society in which they have to live, all of society will have to bear the consequences. Classrooms will be more disrupted, affecting the education of all the children in them; month after month, year after year. More children will end up unfit for work and without the skills (social and otherwise) that are necessary to get on in life, which will lead thousands to turn to crime or delinquent behaviour. This affects everybody, and more and more youngsters will be drawn into the same web. More will end up turning to drink and drugs. More will end up in prison. And they will also badly influence the younger ones who follow. 6. It is worth pondering the question of why it is that evolution has led to humans who experience pain when smacked, as opposed to humans who do not. And the answer would seem to be very straightforward. Where evolution gave rise to groups or individuals who did not experience pain when smacked, those groups and individuals failed. They have gone. They do not exist any more. Why? Why should humans have evolved to experience pain when smacked, even though a smack does not cause any bodily damage? And the answer to this is surely a social one. A smack is simply a way of sending very important social messages. And no group or individual is likely to survive for very long if important social messages are ineffective. What is a smack? Smacking is nothing more than the delivering of a strong important message. It is the same as putting up a red traffic light which must be obeyed. A few children will not stop when the traffic light is red, that's true. And many of these children will end up crashing their cars because they continually fail to stop. They fail to learn. They are always in accidents. But from those very few 'accidents' which end up in the hands of the 'child-experts' such as those at the NSPCC one cannot conclude that red lights are ineffective for those children who do obey them, and who do not end up in accidents or in the arms of the NSPCC. A smack may not work all the time, for all children, but, for most parents, for most of the time, it probably does a wonderful job. And this is almost certainly what it was designed for. Arguements Against: > Smacking your child signifies that you have lost control. > Our role as parents is to maintain order, a sense of calm, continuity and morality in our children's lives. In my opinion smacking children is the antithesis of all of the aforementioned principles. Besides teaching children that physical violence is acceptable, what does it say about you as a parent if the only way you can make your child behave is by hitting them? > You wouldn't hit an adult, so why hit a child that has the same rights as an adult? Opinions?
Hitting kids is just a way of conditioning them. There are other, less abusive ways to get your child to behave. I don't know if your post said that. I was too lazy to read lol.
Smack them on the ass or something, sure. If that's where you draw the line and it's done for the right reasons it isn't abuse.
Maybe it was somewhere in the original post (I admit I didn't read it all), but this would depend on where we are smacking the child I am hoping. If you smack a kids hand or spank them, I'm all for it. Smacking them on the head? That could be kind of dangerous. A parent may not know their own strength or something and end up really hurting the kid.
I'll be the first to admit I spank my daughter, but only if she really mis-behaves. It's only abuse if you leave bruises, scars, or bleeding. Making their little ass cheeks red every once in a while isn't a bad thing at all. This is what's wrong with parents these days. They don't give a shit and they're afraid. It's why you have kids 10-15 acting the way they do. Spank away! But don't abuse. There's definitely a fine line.
lol GODDAMN EM YOUNG KIDS T'DAY. Never going to read the original post, but (from a quick skim) it seems pretty ridiculous how bias (and dumb) it is. If you don't hit your friends, or your family, or random people pissing you off, then why would you ever hit a kid? Also love how they say "a kiss would then lead to sexual abuse", implying that kissing your kid is sexual abuse. The thought process "I'm not going to do this, because I will get hit" is massively depressing.
I agree with this. My mom spanked me a fair amount of times, and I'm not callin' it abuse. It's a good way to teach a child not to do something without really hurting them. A spank on the behind hurts for like, a few seconds.
Based from what I know.. One shouldn't smack too often. Likely, only for the things that are serious no-no (running across the street, breaking valuable items, etc..) Smacking only tends to work if it doesn't turn into abuse (heavy bruises, blisters, etc (in a bad way..) The child NEEDS to be able to comprehend WHY their being punished. IF you just yell and scream at them for doing something wrong, well frankly, they only understand only so little english. It also needs to be fairly immediate after they did whatever. Eg, If a child draws on a wall with a sharpy, and a parent needs that behavior to cease immediately, then take the sharpy while in the act, and point to the wall. A few smacks to the hand and point to the wall again, saying something like "no that, no this" whatever. Should be effective. As long as it doesn't get extreme (abusive), meaningless (smacking for the sake of doing so ), and not Too often. Imo, once their at an age where they understand rules, then you should switch to that. A child wants to be able to self-regulate their behavior, and if there are clear-cut rules and clear-cut consequences for breaking them, then they should eventually learn. Smacking on their hands as a consequence is viable, but again, would need to be either to end some behavior immediately while engaging it, or for serious no-no.
An adult hitting another adult because they pissed them isn't strictly the same as an adult hitting their child, not necessarily in the same way, as discipline. It doesn't imply that. It just says it's the same logic as saying that hitting a child will automatically lead to you doing worse. Which it more or less is. Maybe... but then so is "I can do what I want with no regard for consequences, because I'm a brat".
I remember Dr. Drew saying spanking should only be used when it's needed to stop a dangerous behavior of their child. Like running across the street, playing with knives, jumping out of trees, etc. Otherwise it just seems unnecessary to me.
I really have disagree there. Just because there aren't any visible scars or bruises doesn't mean it's not abuse. What if some bastard decides to "discipline" their child for ridiculous reason and then it becomes a habit for them? Smacking someone for getting a bad grade or even worse for being in disagreement with a persons views. (I am of the opinion if I don't want to go to Church then I shouldn't have to. Fuck parents pushing their religion on their children. That's Child abuse.) Personally, I was spanked for stupid reasons when I was young and no it never left scars but to say that it wasn't abuse is just dumb. Also there are always better ways to discipline than smacking. I'm not saying that it's not effective and I'm not saying that it's 100% wrong because I see it as many shades of Grey but I know from personal experience it just doesn't always work. I have 4 sisters and two bros so I've had a lot of time to examine it.
I was never spanked as a child and I turned out ok. So I'm not convinced its ever necessary or acceptable.
Hitting an adult as a way to stop them from pissing you off, isn't similar to disciplining them. If you hit an adult harder enough for doing something bad to you, it's unlikely they'll do the same thing again - works the same with kids. You hit your kid > they hit other kids harder You kiss your kid > they rape other kids Makes no sense, I imagine the kid would be more/even overly affectionate towards other kids, rather than raping them, by this logic. Possibly, but I imagine there are a lot better ways to discipline your kids, which I've really not thought about, seeing as it's unlikely I'm going to be a parent anytime soon.
I believe smacking is the most extreme form of intimidation. If you smack your kid on a regular basis, the kid's going to be so afraid of doing something wrong, that the kid would probably cry its head off and be so scared of your reaction if they did something as little as touch something on the shelf. Eventually, it'll be so scared to do something because they fear of your reaction. But again, if you don't put your child inline (I'm not saying smacking here) you're going to end up with one spoilt brat who will grow up thinking the world revolves them. Children learn on repetitiveness, they don't learn the first time around and need to be told "No don't go in the kitchen it's hot" etc consistently. Just because you lose your cool with your kid, does not give you the automatic right to take it out on your kid. If you're going to smack your kid, make it the very last resort.
Same here. My oldest sister was hit by my dad when she was small and I can say I am a better child than her, with less self-destructive habits also.