INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: McGiver on January 20, 2007, 12:22:10 PM
-
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/16484624.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted on Wed, Jan. 17, 2007
No-spanking law for kids under age 3 proposed for California
By Mike Zapler
MediaNews Sacramento Bureau
SACRAMENTO - The state Legislature is about to weigh in on a question that stirs impassioned debate among moms and dads: Should parents spank their children?
Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, wants to outlaw spanking children up to 3 years old. If she succeeds, California would become the first state in the nation to explicitly ban parents from smacking their kids.
Making a swat on the behind a misdemeanor might seem a bit much for some -- and the chances of the idea becoming law appear slim, at best -- but Lieber begs to differ.
``I think it's pretty hard to argue you need to beat a child 3 years old or younger,'' Lieber said. ``Is it OK to whip a 1-year-old or a six-month-old or a newborn?''
The bill, which is still being drafted, will be written broadly, she added, prohibiting ``any striking of a child, any corporal punishment, smacking, hitting, punching, any of that.'' Lieber said it would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail or a fine up to $1,000, although a legal expert advising her on the proposal said first-time offenders likely only would have to attend parenting classes.
The idea is encountering skepticism even before it's been formally introduced. Beyond the debate among child psychologists -- many of whom believe limited spanking can be effective -- the bill is sure to face questions over how practical it is to enforce and opposition from some legislators who generally oppose what they consider ``nanny government.''
``Where do you stop?'' asked Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, who said he personally agrees children under 3 shouldn't be spanked but has no desire to make it the law. ``At what point are we going to say we should pass a bill that every parent has to read a minimum of 30 minutes every night to their child? This is right along those same lines.''
One San Jose mother of three said she believes spanking is a poor way to discipline children, but she also wondered whether a legislative ban makes sense. Should a mom who slaps her misbehaving kid in the supermarket, she asked, be liable for a crime?
``If my 6-year-old doesn't put his clothes in the hamper, I'm not going to whack him, he just won't get his clothes washed,'' said Peggy Hertzberg, 38, who teaches parenting classes at the YWCA. ``I think instead of banning spanking, parents need to learn different ways of disciplining and redirecting their children.''
Lieber conceived the idea while chatting with a family friend and legal expert in children's issues worldwide. The friend, Thomas Nazario, said that while banning spanking might seem like a radical step for the United States, more than 10 European countries already do so. Sweden was the first, in 1979.
Nazario said there's no good rationale for hitting a child under 3, so the state should draw a ``bright line'' in the law making it clear.
``Why do we allow parents to hit a little child and not someone their own size?'' said Nazario, a professor at the University of San Francisco Law School. ``Everyone in the state is protected from physical violence, so where do you draw the line? To take a child and spank his little butt until he starts crying, some people would define that as physical violence.''
It's unclear how a spanking ban would be enforced. Most slapping, after all, happens in the confines of a home, and most children up to age 3 aren't capable of reporting it.
Doctors, social workers and others who believe a child has been abused are required by law to report it to authorities. Nazario said he and Lieber are still debating whether to treat slapping the same way, or simply to encourage those who witness it to report it. But in either case, said Lieber, the law ``would allow people who view a beating to say, `Excuse me, that's against the law.' ''
Experts in child psychology disagree whether spanking is a legitimate or effective way for parents to discipline their children. Professor Robert Larzelere, who has studied child discipline for 30 years, said his research shows spanking is fine, as long as it's used sparingly and doesn't escalate to abuse.
``If it's used in a limited way,'' the Oklahoma State University professor said, ``it can be more effective than almost any other type of punishment.'' He added that children 18 months old or younger shouldn't be spanked at all, because they can't understand why it's happening.
As for Lieber's proposal, the professor said: ``I think this proposal is not just a step too far, it's a leap too far. At least from a scientific perspective there really isn't any research to support the idea that this would make things better for children.''
But Lieber is optimistic that lawmakers will find her proposal hard to resist. For the record, she does not have children and says she was not slapped as a child. But she does have a cat named Snoop, which her veterinarian told her never to hit.
``And if you never hit a cat,'' Lieber said, ``you should never hit a kid.''
no fucking shit!
let's continue to legislate peoples common sense.
this, i think, is a slippery slope. what is next; you cannot spank a 5 year old, then a 7 year old and so on.
-
It became illegal for parents to spank their children already 1976 in Sweden. Nowadays parents can get jail for spanking their children.
-
i found this rich:
``And if you never hit a cat,'' Lieber said, ``you should never hit a kid.''
so should i write my legislator and tell him that i pee on cats, but i would never pee on my kid.
-
I agree, it's a slippery slope when a government starts putting parents in jail for a year for spanking their children. If parents are beating their children and putting bruises on them, then that is already a crime. Putting a parent in jail for swatting the bottom of a child who has just run out into traffic goes too far and it will harm the very children that they claim to be helping with this insane law. It would be better to offer more guidance to new parents and parenting classes with free babysitting to parents of toddlers and older children, to teach them alternatives to spanking.
-
i am wondering, now that i have a boy, how old does he need to be before we gewt into a fist fight to establish male dominance.
i mean i started asking this question of people merely as a joke, but you would be surprised that people always had an answer. 14-16 years of age.
human beings are violent. i just don't see where this is all heading. are we supposed to deny our primal instincts?
-
i am wondering, now that i have a boy, how old does he need to be before we gewt into a fist fight to establish male dominance.
i mean i started asking this question of people merely as a joke, but you would be surprised that people always had an answer. 14-16 years of age.
human beings are violent. i just don't see where this is all heading. are we supposed to deny our primal instincts?
According to the jerks in charge: yes. :grrr:
-
are we supposed to deny our primal instincts?
In a word? Yes.
-
are we supposed to deny our primal instincts?
In a word? Yes.
But for heaven's sake! No-one is talking about beating the shit out of anyone, just a slap or two over the butt of the child.
-
I take it you don't have kids?
-
I take it you don't have kids?
i take it you have a kid who reacts favorably to stimuli other than spankings.
my eldest laughs at spankings but abhores being put on restriction.
my youngest daugter is the polar opposite. she abhores spankings and the fact that they may or may not happen as a result of her behaviour is quite a motivating factor. put her on restriction and its like a vacation for her.
-
I take it you don't have kids?
You're right. But if I had I could spank them, but not beat them up.
-
How old would the child have to be before you spanked it? Why would you spank it?
-
How old would the child have to be before you spanked it? Why would you spank it?
I can't say for sure, but I could slap it on the butt if it were 3-4 years old and about to run out into the traffic or playing with matches or something. One or two spanks on the butt. Nothing more.
-
How old would the child have to be before you spanked it? Why would you spank it?
how can i speak for every parent. how can i make up an age?
its a common sense thing. and each parent knows their child better than the government.
-
How old would the child have to be before you spanked it? Why would you spank it?
how can i speak for every parent. how can i make up an age?
its a common sense thing. and each parent knows their child better than the government.
One would think that the parents would defend their kids, then, instead of having the government do it for them. For not so long time ago, an autistic kid who "didn't listen to his parents" because the instructions were overly verbal could count on being spanked regularly.
Does someone still think this is the right thing to do?
-
How old would the child have to be before you spanked it? Why would you spank it?
how can i speak for every parent. how can i make up an age?
its a common sense thing. and each parent knows their child better than the government.
One would think that the parents would defend their kids, then, instead of having the government do it for them. For not so long time ago, an autistic kid who "didn't listen to his parents" because the instructions were overly verbal could count on being spanked regularly.
Does someone still think this is the right thing to do?
i don't understand what you ae saying.
-
Perfectly simple: for some years ago, it was considered to be perfectly OK to spank a child that wouldn't listen to his parents. Many autistic kids have problems following overly verbal instructions so they won't do what they're told. Is it right to spank a kid that isn't able to follow your instructions?
Or consider an autie kid having a public meltdown. Would you spank that kid? Lots of parents would because they don't know better.
-
what about spanking your partners? :eyebrows:
-
Perfectly simple: for some years ago, it was considered to be perfectly OK to spank a child that wouldn't listen to his parents. Many autistic kids have problems following overly verbal instructions so they won't do what they're told. Is it right to spank a kid that isn't able to follow your instructions?
Or consider an autie kid having a public meltdown. Would you spank that kid? Lots of parents would because they don't know better.
autistic children, it is said, have a high pain threshhold.
what stupid parents to continue to spank a child, as punishment, when the child barely responds to that stimuli.
restrict them from their special interest.
see how common sense parenting works?
-
How old would the child have to be before you spanked it? Why would you spank it?
how can i speak for every parent. how can i make up an age?
its a common sense thing. and each parent knows their child better than the government.
One would think that the parents would defend their kids, then, instead of having the government do it for them. For not so long time ago, an autistic kid who "didn't listen to his parents" because the instructions were overly verbal could count on being spanked regularly.
Does someone still think this is the right thing to do?
I do. I have spanked my daughter before and I think it was the right thing to do under the circumstances.
She used to run out into traffic suddenly and unpredictably and my husband and I had to break that bad habit before she was hit by a car.
The other time I had spanked her was to enforce her going to time-out when she was sent there.
If she refused to go to time-out, I would ask her, "Do you want to go to time-out with a spanking or no spanking?"
-
I do. I have spanked my daughter before and I think it was the right thing to do under the circumstances.
She used to run out into traffic suddenly and unpredictably and my husband and I had to break that bad habit before she was hit by a car.
The other time I had spanked her was to enforce her going to time-out when she was sent there.
If she refused to go to time-out, I would ask her, "Do you want to go to time-out with a spanking or no spanking?"
You can't speak with most Swedes about this. I'm one of the few exceptions. Everything should be solved with no-violence according to the "Swedish model"--but experience has shown that everybody just can't be talked into sense about everything.
-
Perfectly simple: for some years ago, it was considered to be perfectly OK to spank a child that wouldn't listen to his parents. Many autistic kids have problems following overly verbal instructions so they won't do what they're told. Is it right to spank a kid that isn't able to follow your instructions?
Or consider an autie kid having a public meltdown. Would you spank that kid? Lots of parents would because they don't know better.
I have not spanked my daughter while she was having a meltdown, but I have physically restrained her to keep her from hurting anyone.
-
You can't speak with most Swedes about this. I'm one of the few exceptions. Everything should be solved with no-violence according to the "Swedish model"--but experience has shown that everybody just can't be talked into sense about everything.
I noticed, but God knows I've tried to, with you.
-
what about spanking your partners? :eyebrows:
How about spanking your parents?
-
what about spanking your partners? :eyebrows:
How about spanking your parents?
How about spanking your monkey?
-
:LMAO:
-
These is a age old question.
-
These is a age old question.
Spanking your monkey?
-
These is a age old question.
Spanking your monkey?
More than that.
-
These is a age old question.
Spanking your monkey?
More than that.
Your partner?
-
i admit this:
odeon is getting pwned over the spanking issue
McJagger is barely holding on in the knifing incident.
McJagger is getting pwned in the circumcission issue.
now, i have not conceded any argument yet. and tbh, i am actually looking for a lifeline in the circumcission thread.
-
These is a age old question.
Spanking your monkey?
More than that.
Your partner?
It is meant to be all the above in the thread.
-
i admit this:
odeon is getting pwned over the spanking issue
Really? In which thread?
-
i admit this:
odeon is getting pwned over the spanking issue
Really? In which thread?
this one.
-
i admit this:
odeon is getting pwned over the spanking issue
Really? In which thread?
this one.
Yeah this thread. ::)
-
I don't see it as Odeon getting pwned, I see it as friends agreeing to disagree about an issue.
-
i admit this:
odeon is getting pwned over the spanking issue
Really? In which thread?
this one.
I seriously doubt it. I don't spank my children and there's nothing you or anyone else can say or do to change my mind. Rather, I've refrained from replying to Callaway since while we disagree on this, I feel that I made my point and she made hers, and if I pursue the matter, nothing will be gained.
-
We all make decisions about Our children.
-
For that is how We affect them and mold them.
-
True, kevv.
-
I haven't even read this entire thread. I can't be arsed. :laugh:
-
I haven't even read this entire thread. I can't be arsed. :laugh:
Its the first saturday you can legally be pissed, why aren't you in chat drunkenly humping everyone in sight? ;)
-
i admit this:
odeon is getting pwned over the spanking issue
Really? In which thread?
this one.
I seriously doubt it. I don't spank my children and there's nothing you or anyone else can say or do to change my mind. Rather, I've refrained from replying to Callaway since while we disagree on this, I feel that I made my point and she made hers, and if I pursue the matter, nothing will be gained.
you should feel lucky that other forms of punishments work on your kids.
like my oldest daughter.
i feel real guilty about spankinhg.
or the line you always hear, "this is going to hurt me more than it's going to hurt you." is true.
-
If you feel so guilty about it, then don't do it.
Do you teach your kids that beating other kids is wrong? How do you explain the difference between spanking (which really isn't that different from a 4-yo beating another kid) and beating?
-
Do you seriously think that a slap on the butt is the same as someone punching and kicking someone all over the body as you would get in a beating??
-
No. But a kid might not see the difference.
-
OK, so I'm seeing a bell curve here. There's an age before which it's not OK to hit someone, but is instead a criminal offense. Then it's OK to hit them for awhile, and then at some point I believe it turns back into a crime. (Not that most brawls involve spanking, but I'm pretty sure if you grabbed a person on the street and spanked them, it would be considered assault.) So what's so magical about being a kid that makes it OK for you to be hit?
-
If you feel so guilty about it, then don't do it.
Do you teach your kids that beating other kids is wrong? How do you explain the difference between spanking (which really isn't that different from a 4-yo beating another kid) and beating?
it is definately something that i do not enjoy.
but i don't like doing some portions of my duties at work.
but i still do them because i have a job to do.
my job as a parent is to do my best to raise responsible social beings.
and there are certain portions of that that i really don't like to do, but i must. in order to do my job as a parent effectively.
really, it is much easier to be a lazy parent who lets their kids do anything. no muss no fuss that way. and no hard feelings. or is there?
Odeon, do you think that the rise in violence in public schools today is due to parents who spank. is that teaching them violence?
-
Odeon, do you think that the rise in violence in public schools today is due to parents who spank. is that teaching them violence?
God, I hope not. While I'm against spanking, I do believe that the vast majority of parents that disagree with me on this are convinced that they do the right thing. It would be horrible if spanking would result in more violence.
You'd have to ask a psychologist or some kind of professional.
-
Odeon, do you think that the rise in violence in public schools today is due to parents who spank. is that teaching them violence?
God, I hope not. While I'm against spanking, I do believe that the vast majority of parents that disagree with me on this are convinced that they do the right thing. It would be horrible if spanking would result in more violence.
You'd have to ask a psychologist or some kind of professional.
do you have an opinion?
-
My guess is that in most cases, no. In some, it could have an effect, though, if the parent is going overboard or if the child's behaviour is totally beyond its control.
-
My guess is that in most cases, no. In some, it could have an effect, though, if the parent is going overboard or if the child's behaviour is totally beyond its control.
i have a theory that parents who are lazy in their job (being a parent) is what attributes to the rise in violence in our schools.
also, when i was a kid, we were spanked by the principle. you knew that there would be consequences for your actions.
alot of people like to blame it on violence in videogames, and the media. i blame the parents for not doing their job.
-
Absolutely. I agree. The lazy parents have a big part in this. Still, I can't help suspecting that violence in media also plays a part. And let's not underestimate the news. They're full of violence, of people being robbed, yet another suicide bomb killing a dozen, conflicts, wars, and more violence, because that's what sells, and I think violence creates fear, and fear creates more violence.
-
Absolutely. I agree. The lazy parents have a big part in this. Still, I can't help suspecting that violence in media also plays a part. And let's not underestimate the news. They're full of violence, of people being robbed, yet another suicide bomb killing a dozen, conflicts, wars, and more violence, because that's what sells, and I think violence creates fear, and fear creates more violence.
i don't watch the news with my kids.
but i do let them watch the family guy.
-
I don't watch news with my kids either. But there are plenty of parents that do. The lazy ones, remember?
-
I don't watch news with my kids either. But there are plenty of parents that do. The lazy ones, remember?
oh yeah. the ones who won't do the right things to teach their kiddo's how to be responsible, social citizens, right?
-
Speaking of responsible, what happened to Boston? I want him back!
-
Speaking of responsible, what happened to Boston? I want him back!
ok
-
Speaking of responsible, what happened to Boston? I want him back!
ok
But he's all stretched up and weird now :-\
-
i did his feet
-
So where is it still legal to physically punish your kids? I need to start learning their language.
-
So where is it still legal to physically punish your kids? I need to start learning their language.
It is legal to physically punish your own child in all 50 states of the United States with the possible exception of California, although it is illegal to physically abuse them. For example, you are legally permitted to spank your own child on the bottom with your hand, but you are not permitted to leave marks or bruises while administering this spanking.
-
I see... so it pays to feed your kids right so they don't bruise easily....
j/k :laugh:
-
I bruise easily. What should I eat so I don't?
-
In my state Victoria it is illegal to physically punish kids nowadays :grrr:
-
So, were you ever spanked when you were a kid, Teejay?
-
Whatever vitamin is in seaweed. My mother bruised easily and her doctor always recommended seaweed, but she decided to hell with it if that is the only way.
-
nomaken, if you were my son i would have bent you over my knee several times.
-
:laugh:
-
I wish you would have. My father is a complete pussy. (His father was much MUCH more strict, and i am pretty sure he overreacted by using no discipline for his kid)
-
I wish you would have. My father is a complete pussy. (His father was much MUCH more strict, and i am pretty sure he overreacted by using no discipline for his kid)
ok then, i will. just don't tell mummy odeon.
-
I noticed this thread a couple of times when browsing thru during my PM pick ups and given i have alot of experience in this area and with the laws in question (and related proposals and laws currently in action) i felt i had to comment given how crap the thread was on such an important topic.
Odeon, do you think that the rise in violence in public schools today is due to parents who spank. is that teaching them violence?
God, I hope not. While I'm against spanking, I do believe that the vast majority of parents that disagree with me on this are convinced that they do the right thing. It would be horrible if spanking would result in more violence.
You'd have to ask a psychologist or some kind of professional.
Actually it is a proven fact that the use of physical or mental punishment (which is what the fear of a smacking or beating is) is ineffective and can indeed be extremely counter productive, children who have been physically punished no matter how minor the spanking is, are more prone and likely to engage in antisocial conduct and offending behaviour (infact that has been proven). Many psychologist and academics are in support of a ban on corporal punishment in the family, not just because of the benefits for the children but for society as a whole. Sweden thanks to its ban on the use of corporal punishment in 1979 has led to many positive outcomes. There were many objectives of the ban, and many reasons for integrating such a ban, however the ban itself in Sweden had actually helped in a large way when it came to earlier identification of children at risk of abuse and therefore a major reduction in child abuse rates also a reduction in youth crime and youth suicide which has been noted by forensic and criminal psychologists (which has been shown in Sweden since 1979). Sweden even though it has some flaws in some other areas, actually has provided one of the best models of child protection (especially when it comes to violence), and its understandable why other countries have tried to emulate that. Italy took the positive note of it and has emulated it and even Israel has recently gotten envolved in the realisation that corporal punishment is in breach of human rights, has flaws when it comes to child protection, not to mention development later on.
The proposal for anti smacking (corporal punishment in the family) laws not just in the US, but even here in the UK are there or being proposed for a reason, there are many loopholes in the legal systems, and easy defences for parents when it comes to using physical and mental abuse (even in transparent abuse of a child). Which if any of you took the time to take a close look at the Law and studies in their own country aswell as others, also child protection services, and investigated a bit further elsewhere you would soon realise why so many people in the child protection and humanitarian sectors want these types of sanctions and laws to go through to give children the same protection and freedom from violence and freedom from fear of violence or threats that adults are free from and gifted with. Smacking a child doesnt just prove problematic for their psychological and isocial development, or problematic for people who work in child protection or in the legal services, but physical punishment of a child is actually also a breach of laws already present, its just a case of it hasnt really been challenged till recently (besides Sweden who did it in 79).
I could sit here and go through case by case where parents have gotten away with abusing their child both physically AND even mentally where it has been deemed lawful or their right or theyve believed it was their right, but have gotten away with it due to available defences and loopholes (which are too hard to close up without the use of a ban on corporal punishment like in Sweden), and let me tell you, anyone who is aware of what i am going on about or with any genuine experience or understanding of the way things work when it comes to child abuse, violence to children, mental abuse to children, problems with psychological, emotional and social development due to corporal punishment and the way their parents interpret or dish it out, and not to mention the many problems when it comes to child protection and using the law in relation to it, would understand the need for such laws to go through and be in support of them. Things are hard enough trying to protect children.
The defence of reasonable chastisement has been to blame for many parents and guardians getting away with even what most human beings would call extreme physical and/or mental abuse, children have been left with their abusers and emotionally damaged thanks to the barbaric outdated moronic assumption that parents have the god given right to physically punish their child aslong as they claim reasonable chastisement, they believe that the force used was what was required to reach the disciplinary goal, or because they believe they act from a reasonable and proper belief that the method of punishment used was an appropriate disciplinary measure.
You would also think that people would have more common sense when it comes to hitting a baby, but thats not true, especially in the UK where more than three quarters of one year olds, and more than half of all babies have been smacked and punished.
Section 58 of the Children Act 2004 is quite good here in the sense of how its tried to close loopholes but even then its got its escape loops and the professionals know that even it isnt good enough to address some of the problems, its just the best of the bunch, and a starting point, which most in the child protection services etc, hope will be developed further. (me being one)
Odeon you get a plus 1 from me for your stance on this issue, and you and your children are very lucky being in Sweden when it comes to the views on corporal punishment in the family and it being a country which offers wider protection for children compared to most. The rates and studies show exactly how more evolved your country is when it comes to the protection of children in relation to chastisement, physical punishment etc and the benefits of the laws that were introduced in 1979, especially in relation to the fantastic low levels of child abuse, violence, youth crime and youth suicide since it was put into action and your country welcomed it.
Your kids will benefit immensely from your non smacking views, but im sure you already know that and i am one of many who is thankful that your country paved the way when it came to child protection in this area. +1
There HG has spoken and has now disappeared back to her abode.
-
How can it be a proven fact when there is at least some evidence that shows it is effective at least some of the time?
-
Well Nomaken take a look back over what i wrote.
In relation to your question even though it seems you have missed the point, i shall humour you and answer. It depends on what one means by effective (youve got to think not just in the short term but also long term and in relation to the way it actually affects the child in question etc, there are so many factors and what one may think was effective at the time, doesnt mean was or is effective in the long term or that it did their childs development any favours, in fact what a parent may think is effective at the time, quite often can turn out to be the opposite later on, (which is what has been proven time after time) there are also different interpretations of what a parent thinks is appropriate discipline and how often and when that should be administered and such, there is a very very thin line and then if you factor in the abusal of discipline givers, the loopholes in relation to child protection and so on its an even bigger can of worms and the problems get worse) Yes some parents may believe that it is effective in what they want to accomplish in the short term etc, however that doesnt mean it is harmless, doesnt have negative effects or consequences etc. Sure there will be instances where some kids are more resilient to physical (sometimes even mental) punishment (as some can be resilient to it, even in extreme cases where it is abuse), but the evidence and such, shows that the cons and negatives are larger, more frequent and more evident than the pros. Like i said, its a very thin line, and their has to be sanctions there to limit or control what even a parent does to their child, and protection available for ALL children so there are no loopholes especially for those who abuse their position. (Physical force doesnt need to be used)
As for the teaching right from wrong excuse, think that one through properly, should we also get rid of laws protecting adults and disabled people (even those who cant understand) from physical punishment, violence, fear of physical harm or impending physical punishment etc, and give them a good smack when they do something wrong (or when it is believed by someone else that theyve done wrong) and smack them into line or try mould them through physical discipline then justify it (bearing in mind we will all have different views on what appropriate discipline, physical punishment is etc). How many people with AS would be given a good kicking on a daily basis i wonder (given the apparent social problems, flaws in some areas etc) and would you really know or understand fully why people were smacking you? No doubt after a while youd get you were doing something wrong otherwise you wouldnt get smacked, and youd fear another smacking, but would you really understand fully why you were being hit? how do you think you would feel or how do you think it would affect you at the time and what about in the long term? How about the psychological repercussions etc, what would you really learn and take from it? How would you interpret it yourself?.
If you dont want a child to be free from physical punishment, fear of physical punishment, and to be free from the opportunity to be abused, then why should you be?
As human beings, we all deserve the right to live free from physical abuse, the fear of it and such, we all deserve our basic rights and to be protected from violence (including possible abuse of discipline and possible violence), our age is irrelevant, so why should we adults be gifted more protection than a child (who needs it more) or why should you look for the excuse to hit your child or is it because its simply easier than the alternative, if thats so, you should look more at improving your parenting skills or take some parenting classes, not all parents need to hit their child.
-
There hope that answered your question Nomaken.
I could get into longer more detailed posts, but i dont think there is any point doing that here. I think ive said enough and all that i really wanted or needed to say, (and tried to condense it as best as i could) so its basically just time for me to disappear again.
Enjoy.
-
I see what you are saying, Hypnotica Gaze, and I agree that child abuse is bad. I do not accept that a smack on the bottom of a child who has just run out into traffic is the same thing as child abuse, however. I think that the parent who lets the child suffer the natural consequences of this action and who does not make every effort to stop this behavior by every means necessary is actually the abusive parent. It makes more sense to let parents who practice nonabusive physical discipline as a part of disciplining their children do what they believe is best for their own children than to criminalize them. If parents who smack the bottom of a child who runs into traffic are sent to jail, then the child will suffer much worse things living in a juvenile hall or foster home with people who do not love and understand this child the way his or her parents do. Very bad things happen to children in the foster care system, at least in this state. There are already laws against child abuse in every state in the US and a law against spanking goes too far.
-
I have to agree with Callaway on this one.
-
Anyone who believes that "there is no reason to use physical force" has never tried to restrain an autistic child in total panic mode. :'(
"Sit" and "Stay" are not going to work, in those conditions, even when you offer a treat.
-
One problem is, Callaway, where do you draw the line? If physically punishing the child running into traffic is OK, what else is? Smacking it on the fingers for trying to steal a cookie? A tap on the head when it tries to peek where it's not supposed to? Smacking it because it just hit another child? How hard can you hit? Do you have to have the "right" clothing on so you won't inadvertently injure the child with a misplaced decorative button up your sleeve? Remove the watch or the bracelet?
A stressed, tired parent with three kids in tow, all under six, will have real problems controlling the hoard and could easily hit just a little too hard, without really meaning to. S/he might smack one instead of the other because s/he didn't see what took place while she was looking away. How will smacking one child teach the others that fighting among themselves is not OK but mummy or daddy hitting them is, for things they will quite often perceive as injustices anyway?
The laws in place in Sweden are there to protect the child. If you allow one little smack, then there's a huge gray area that is almost impossible to regulate before it transforms from that smack to child abuse, and it creates enough loopholes to protect the adult instead of the child.
-
Anyone who believes that "there is no reason to use physical force" has never tried to restrain an autistic child in total panic mode. :'(
"Sit" and "Stay" are not going to work, in those conditions, even when you offer a treat.
I have an autistic son, DD, and know the realities of a meltdown. I have had reason to hold him and stop him from hitting other children (or me) on more than one occasion. Physical force, in these cases, consisted of holding him, not hitting. I have never smacked or hit my children, however.
-
No, my point was that even if a study shows that in some instances, however many, that physical punishment is ineffective, it isn't a proven fact that it will never be effective.
-
(Physical force doesnt need to be used)
Odeon, I was responding to this, from HG and I should have quoted it properly, to begin with, since I misquoted the words, from memory. I'm not disagreeing with you. I don't spank my children, anymore. I have in the past, five times for my son and three times for my daughter. I honestly can't say it did anything good, except "change the subject" of what they had done, at the time.
I had to use a large part of my body weight to keep my son from destroying an area in a store, back in November. I'm certain that most people witnessing the event thought I was abusing my child, but he did not hurt himself the way I used to hurt myself and we got out of the store without breaking anything. I did not hit him, either.The only casualty was a towel display that was kicked as I carried him to the car.
When he turns seventeen, I'll be sixty and he will be much stronger than I will be, if he is anything like me (actually he is exactly like me!). I will no longer be able to pick his wiggly ass up and manhandle him out to the car. I will have to come up with some other way to restrain him, if this continues. Thank goodness it is a rare event. I can remember having some episodes as a young teen and I really can't remember how my mom dealt with it, but I do remember being hit a lot (and being told to "straighten up") and never understanding why. I was mostly passive as a child and did not become violent towards bulllies until I was a freshman in high school.
In my son I see, not really violence, but overly aggressive behavior starting already. He used to be more passive. When he heard something contrary to his will he used to cover his ears, but lately he has been attacking the offfending mouth, directly. As a kid, I had my ass spanked a lot and I was not violent until post puberty. He has had only a few spankings and he is becoming violent, already. Honestly, I'm not convinced there is a connection, in this case, but something is altering his MO, rapidly. It is becoming a little worrying, to me.
-
Spare the rod and spoil the child does that work no.
Discipline and child abuse are two different things.
Children are made to push themselves at a young age for it is ingrained in the DNA. That is how they learn.
Parents are there to protect them from harm. Parents are also there to encourage them too.
Nothing is every black or white odeon I believe.
I remember a divorced Father had to go to court and had to some court order classes because His youngest daughter had some black and blue mark(s) on Her and all He was doing was playing with Her not spanking or any abuseful things like that. He took the classes not because He wanted to but fighting it in court would had costed ($1600 in court if He would had fought it) more than what it was worth. Even the State Attorney in the end saw through the Mother She just hates Him even today.
-
/me spanks everyone in this thread
-
/me gets spank't.
-
i totally wish i had the necessary concentration to read HG's post.
maybe i will later, when i am bored.
-
Spare the rod and spoil the child does that work no.
Is not hitting your child spoiling it? I think not.
Discipline and child abuse are two different things.
When does discipline stop and abuse begin? Can you define the amount of force used or the places to hit?
Children are made to push themselves at a young age for it is ingrained in the DNA. That is how they learn.
So? Hitting them will not change this.
Parents are there to protect them from harm. Parents are also there to encourage them too.
The more reason not to hit them.
Nothing is every black or white odeon I believe.
Which is why it's not possible to draw a line between abuse and discipline.
-
parents should guilt their kids into do what is right?
-
Now reply to My little story odeon.
-
There's very little to say, Kevv. Your story really only shows that innocent people will sometimes be convicted of a crime they didn't commit, IMO. It doesn't say anything about the topic at hand, but maybe I just miss it? ???
-
Spare the rod and spoil the child does that work no.
Is not hitting your child spoiling it? I think not.
Discipline and child abuse are two different things.
When does discipline stop and abuse begin? Can you define the amount of force used or the places to hit?
Children are made to push themselves at a young age for it is ingrained in the DNA. That is how they learn.
So? Hitting them will not change this.
Parents are there to protect them from harm. Parents are also there to encourage them too.
The more reason not to hit them.
Nothing is every black or white odeon I believe.
Which is why it's not possible to draw a line between abuse and discipline.
As honest as I am I don't really know the answers to any of Your responses.
-
Let's leave it at that, Kevv. I know you're being honest, and I respect you for it. :)
-
So, were you ever spanked when you were a kid, Teejay?
Smacked rather than spanked.
-
So, were you ever spanked when you were a kid, Teejay?
Smacked rather than spanked.
are you a violent adult?
-
I don't have any especially warm feelings for my father, but that's not mainly because he spanked me, but becuase he was unfair and psychically dominant in general when I was a child. I can't blame him much, though, since he's an aspie himself, and at that time wasn't even aware of the existence of AS. Now when he knows that I'm an aspie and probably knows that he is one himself, though openly denying it, he seems to deeply regret his old behaviour. My NT mother spanked me and even slapped me on the face a couple of times when I was a kid, but I don't hate her for that. She's my favourite parent. And they always stood up for me against others when I was in trouble, which I often was.
-
I don't have any especially warm feelings for my father, but that's not mainly because he spanked me, but becuase he was unfair and psychically dominant in general when I was a child. I can't blame him much, though, since he's an aspie himself, and at that time wasn't even aware of the existence of AS. Now when he knows that I'm an aspie and probably knows that he is one himself, though openly denying it, he seems to deeply regret his old behaviour. My NT mother spanked me and even slapped me on the face a couple of times when I was a kid, but I don't hate her for that. She's my favourite parent. And they always stood up for me against others when I was in trouble, which I often was.
+
Agree, Tig. I loved both my parents dearly.
My parents were both a treasure. They did not let this kid spoil for want of the rod.
I grew up in an era when everyone slapped their kids for the least cross word and spanked them with belts and paddles across the lower butt and upper legs for not finishing a chore on time. I got lots of belt spankings that left welts on me, but so did most everyone, else. My mom's diamond ring has bloodied my lip many times from a careless or hurried backhanded slap across my smartass mouth. It was the way it was done with kids and I didn't need to understand it ... I needed to learn from it (???) ... there was a lesson there, each time, because my parents were not abusive with their discipline.
Teachers also paddled kids who got out of line or talked back. Our shop teacher used to make special paddles for each teacher, fancy ones, with engraved names or burned-in designs. Some of them had holes in them to make even more pain and welts where they hit. Some teachers even had little gunracks to hold their paddles in prominent display. One of the coaches used to give "licks" every day to a number of deserving trouble makers.
He would stand at the showers and whip your wet ass and then laugh at the severe, reddened welts he proudly left behind. He hit me many times for not keeping my shirt on. I hated clothes at times and a sweaty t shirt was awful on my back. That got me lots of licks, from his two handed, inch-thick, hardwood paddle, with holes drilled in it for aerodynamics. The holes also whistled, warningly as he swung it. It was his daily ritual, he enjoyed it, kept a little ceremony to put his best effort forward and he did it well. It wasn't everyone who got licks, though. Only about five or ten out of about sixty got licks, each day and not always the same ones. He was not considered abusive, even though he put so much sadism into his ritual. He had five Phys-Ed classes to maintain, so he got to do his wet ass-licking ritual every hour.
-
Maybe corporal punishment doesn't work, but guilting me into doing what my parents want DEFINITELY doesn't work. The only thing that provokes me to do things is to avoid listening to him whine.
-
I'm not convinced that there is any external force that will MAKE obstinate kids do what they are told. It must come from inside and if you want to get something specific done, like math homework, there must be a carrot introduced, of some sort, to influence the thought processes. Finding the magic carrot is the big problem.
-
Teachers also paddled kids who got out of line or talked back. Our shop teacher used to make special paddles for each teacher, fancy ones, with engraved names or burned-in designs. Some of them had holes in them to make even more pain and welts where they hit. Some teachers even had little gunracks to hold their paddles in prominent display. One of the coaches used to give "licks" every day to a number of deserving trouble makers.
He would stand at the showers and whip your wet ass and then laugh at the severe, reddened welts he proudly left behind. He hit me many times for not keeping my shirt on. I hated clothes at times and a sweaty t shirt was awful on my back. That got me lots of licks, from his two handed, inch-thick, hardwood paddle, with holes drilled in it for aerodynamics. The holes also whistled, warningly as he swung it. It was his daily ritual, he enjoyed it, kept a little ceremony to put his best effort forward and he did it well. It wasn't everyone who got licks, though. Only about five or ten out of about sixty got licks, each day and not always the same ones. He was not considered abusive, even though he put so much sadism into his ritual. He had five Phys-Ed classes to maintain, so he got to do his wet ass-licking ritual every hour.
My father is a few years older than you and when he went to school and someone was making trouble or not paying attention in class, the teachers used to put the pupils' hands on the teachers' desk and then hit the fingers either with the blackboard pointer or with a ruler. One sadistic teacher in me father's school used a ruler with an edge of steel, so it would hurt even more and leave deap lines across the fingers for several days or weeks.
-
I plan to manipulate the shit out of my kids(provided I have kids). Plan to train them to believe that they really want things I can give, and if they want to keep getting it, they better do what I say.
I know that sounds evil, but I don't plan to order my kids to do much. Just enough to build good habits. Study habits, working habits, eating habits, excersize habits, hygiene habits. Besides making sure they learn to internally want to do those things, I plan to give them more or less free reign.
You know, authoritative.
-
You're in for a shock, Nomaken. :laugh:
-
You're in for a shock, Nomaken. :laugh:
:agreed: :laugh:
-
Is it still a shock when you know it is coming?
-
Is it still a shock when you know it is coming?
It can be because I don't think you can ever be completely prepared for just how hard kids can be to understand.
-
I think kids are incredibly easy to understand. But I think that wont stop me from being frustrated in a time sensative situation when I want one thing to happen, and right then they just wont have it.
-
I plan to manipulate the shit out of my kids(provided I have kids). Plan to train them to believe that they really want things I can give, and if they want to keep getting it, they better do what I say.
I know that sounds evil, but I don't plan to order my kids to do much. Just enough to build good habits. Study habits, working habits, eating habits, excersize habits, hygiene habits. Besides making sure they learn to internally want to do those things, I plan to give them more or less free reign.
You know, authoritative.
You could get them hooked on nicotine gum, and then withhold it if they don't do what you want. :angel:
-
I plan to manipulate the shit out of my kids(provided I have kids). Plan to train them to believe that they really want things I can give, and if they want to keep getting it, they better do what I say.
I know that sounds evil, but I don't plan to order my kids to do much. Just enough to build good habits. Study habits, working habits, eating habits, excersize habits, hygiene habits. Besides making sure they learn to internally want to do those things, I plan to give them more or less free reign.
You know, authoritative.
You could get them hooked on nicotine gum, and then withhold it if they don't do what you want. :angel:
Or put them on heroin. Than they'll kiss your arse every time you begg'em. :angel:
-
I think kids are incredibly easy to understand. But I think that wont stop me from being frustrated in a time sensative situation when I want one thing to happen, and right then they just wont have it.
So if you think kids are easy to understand how do you really know what's coming?
-
Get back to us about this when you have a kid, Nomaken. ;D
-
I plan to manipulate the shit out of my kids(provided I have kids). Plan to train them to believe that they really want things I can give, and if they want to keep getting it, they better do what I say.
I know that sounds evil, but I don't plan to order my kids to do much. Just enough to build good habits. Study habits, working habits, eating habits, excersize habits, hygiene habits. Besides making sure they learn to internally want to do those things, I plan to give them more or less free reign.
You know, authoritative.
You could get them hooked on nicotine gum, and then withhold it if they don't do what you want. :angel:
Or put them on heroin. Than they'll kiss your arse every time you begg'em. :angel:
Yeah, but nicotine gum's easier to get hold of, safer, and if the child abuse people come calling, you can say that you caught them smoking with their friends, and that you're helping them to quit.
-
Will do.
-
Saw a guest reading this thread. I am disappointed it is not about the kind of 'spanking' i thought it was.
Interesting read, though.
-
I don't spank my children.
I cannot understand why I want to motivate them through pain.
Creative solutions solve problems. Each kid is motivated differently.
I just don't think that the government needs to legislate common sense.
My wife, on the other hand, receives several open handed whacks on the ass a day. Se always spanks me after sex while I howl like a wolf.
-
"spare the rod, spoil the child."
-
"spare the rod, spoil the child."
king James version?
You still have to punish your children. Motivating them by fear of pain is a last resort, IMHO.
-
"spare the rod, spoil the child."
king James version?
You still have to punish your children. Motivating them by fear of pain is a last resort, IMHO.
a spanking when deserved, can serve as a deterrent.
constant beatings accomplish nothing, tho.
-
The problem is the PC idiots suggesting a smack on the bottom is child abuse.
I rarely smacked my boy or my girl. By the time they were about 5 they were old enough to be reasoned with and understand consequences beyond bad = sore bottom.
So where do the PC crowd draw the line? Yanking a kid out of harm's way? Withholding stuff from them and emotionally scarring them? Yelling at them and hurting feelings?
Its bullshit.
Beating a child with a kettle cord or belt is not smacking a child's bottom. One is not the other and ought not be treated as such.
People are morons
-
"spare the rod, spoil the child."
king James version?
You still have to punish your children. Motivating them by fear of pain is a last resort, IMHO.
The Catholic version is: "Spoil the child with the rod"
-
From the childs POV they will learn that you can hit people who are smaller than you!
-
From the childs POV they will learn that you can hit people who are smaller than you!
I don't think so
-
I do :razz:
It would be very confusing for a child who has been hit at home, to then get in trouble if they go to school and hit another child. How do you explain that to them? Who could blame them for coming away with the idea that big people get to hit smaller people.
Also i have never understood the human rights side of it. Civilised society has more or less unilaterally agreed that hitting others is bad. As a result laws and rights have been put into place. Have issues with someone? talk, see a solicitor, call the old bill do a variety of things but we don't hit each other..right! This is true for men, women, couples, strangers, so why is it not always extended to children?
-
I do :razz:
It would be very confusing for a child who has been hit at home, to then get in trouble if they go to school and hit another child. How do you explain that to them? Who could blame them for coming away with the idea that big people get to hit smaller people.
Also i have never understood the human rights side of it. Civilised society has more or less unilaterally agreed that hitting others is bad. As a result laws and rights have been put into place. Have issues with someone? talk, see a solicitor, call the old bill do a variety of things but we don't hit each other..right! This is true for men, women, couples, strangers, so why is it not always extended to children?
Oh "hitting"? Or smacking or are you kinda lumping , smacking bottoms, Punching neighbours the fuck out, controlled smack in return for them being naughty and unbridled smashing shit out of others?
Kinda sounds like you are lumping them in together? No?
My kids did not hit other kids that were smaller, or even each other.
What they did learn though is that when they were too young to be reasoned with or accept or respond to punishment...they came to understand boundaries and cause and effect. They came to associate that being naughty, nasty, mean, inappropriate would get a reaction they did not like.
When they were older they could be effectively growled at or have things taken away or have time out or whatever.
Worked for me and them.
-
Smacking, slapping, punching - aren't they just different degrees of hitting. Yes i am lumping them together as a group of actions that deliberately cause hurt.
My kids did not hit other kids that were smaller, or even each other.
I wish. My kid lashed out at people regardless of age or size as soon as he was able. He is a hair yanker too. It bloody hurts. One time i reacted by grabbing his hair and i have never felt so guilty in all my life. I have never done it since.
What they did learn though is that when they were too young to be reasoned with or accept or respond to punishment...they came to understand boundaries and cause and effect. They came to associate that being naughty, nasty, mean, inappropriate would get a reaction they did not like.
When they were older they could be effectively growled at or have things taken away or have time out or whatever.
Sounds like they were quite young when they became able to be reasoned with. What about kids that never reach that stage?
As you say you can 'growl' at them now, i assume you do not hit them anymore. It sounds like you have been reasonable and used it only when necessary and with minimum force. Sounds fair enough and reasonable. Here in UK we have a law that says you can be prosecuted if you leave any mark on your child such as a bruise or a cut. That seems quite reasonable too, as a smack on the botty or a slap on the legs is unlikely to do this and has probably been done as a short, sharp, shock rather than to cause real hurt or pain.
From the childs POV they will learn that you can hit people who are smaller than you!
I don't think so
When i said this i probably should have worded it as "Children who spend their childhood being subject to slaps, smacks and hits and who effectively 'grow up' around hitting......etc" My reasoning comes from the statistics showing abused children are more likely to grow up and abuse children themselves. Now i don't understand this. Why? I sure as hell would not want to do that to anyone if i had suffered its effect myself, but it appears to be the case. Monkey see monkey do. So from this i assume that if a child has grown up around hitting then they are more likely to see it as an available tool and use it.
-
Is smacking a child on the bottom the same as belting them with a cord or a rod or baseball bat perhaps?
"aren't they just different degrees of hitting. Yes i am lumping them together as a group of actions that deliberately cause hurt"
Stabbing people deliberately causes hurt too, maybe....
Nah lets not even go there Bodie.
I think maybe 5 for them both. It is not to say that the were great at forward planning or makers of great choices but even at this age they were able to understand things a bit better and listen to instructions. The incentives around doing the right thing too were starting to sink in. Again it was beginning stuff but still.
My kids are 12 and 16? Did you think I would still be smacking their bottoms for being naughty?
I do not see a reason to keep smacking children once you are able to growl at them or to be creative in punishments. The last time I growled at my boy was about 6 months ago. He lost his MA movies privileges. He understands this. I also told him off and explained why what he did was rude and completely out of line. He is a teenager...meh.
Little kids don't understand this kind of thing but they want to have boundaries and it is a hard thing to manage.
Leaving bruises on kids? I don't think that is needed or nice and I think that was smack bottom should hurt about as long as the problem. (ie smack bottom and sent to room in tears. 5 minutes later quiet again. 5 minutes later door creaks open and child says "Sorry Daddy". Child up on lap and cuddled and congratulated for apologising. No reason for bruising or lacerations. In fact by the time the child has decided to apologise the need for a sore bottom is at an end.)
-
Lots and lots of children get smacked and it continues until they leave home. A lad i went to school with faced this. As he got older the hitting progressed and his Dad was hitting him with a belt when we started senior school. I didn't finish senior school as he was taken into care and moved away. It's a sad story as i heard he is doing a long stretch in prison now.
My point is that lots of parents haven't got the gumption to come up with creative ways to punish their children. Lots of parents don't think reasonably. Lots of kids live in fear. Lots of kids get abused.
Learning boundaries is important. Some kids will also learn other things too, like fear. Like it's ok to hit someone as long as you are bigger/older/have a good reason, can validate it somehow.
Is smacking a child on the bottom the same as belting them with a cord or a rod or baseball bat perhaps?
"aren't they just different degrees of hitting. Yes i am lumping them together as a group of actions that deliberately cause hurt"
Stabbing people deliberately causes hurt too, maybe....
Nah lets not even go there Bodie.
Are you saying that they are not a group of actions that deliberately cause hurt? Or do you just not like the fact that there are two ends of that scale and because you stayed at the lower end you don't want any association with the harsher ones? They can cross over, and they do. One persons idea of a good smack could be another persons idea of a good beating, or a hiding. For that reason i have decided that i won't dabble in punishments that cause physical hurt or pain. If i am going to be asking him 'not' to hit others then i feel i will have the moral high ground if i can say "you don't see mommy or daddy hurting people"
I want my kid to learn right from wrong, yes, but not through hitting.
-
I love a good spanking myself. :mischief:
-
Lots and lots of children get smacked and it continues until they leave home. A lad i went to school with faced this. As he got older the hitting progressed and his Dad was hitting him with a belt when we started senior school. I didn't finish senior school as he was taken into care and moved away. It's a sad story as i heard he is doing a long stretch in prison now.
My point is that lots of parents haven't got the gumption to come up with creative ways to punish their children. Lots of parents don't think reasonably. Lots of kids live in fear. Lots of kids get abused.
Learning boundaries is important. Some kids will also learn other things too, like fear. Like it's ok to hit someone as long as you are bigger/older/have a good reason, can validate it somehow.
Is smacking a child on the bottom the same as belting them with a cord or a rod or baseball bat perhaps?
"aren't they just different degrees of hitting. Yes i am lumping them together as a group of actions that deliberately cause hurt"
Stabbing people deliberately causes hurt too, maybe....
Nah lets not even go there Bodie.
Are you saying that they are not a group of actions that deliberately cause hurt? Or do you just not like the fact that there are two ends of that scale and because you stayed at the lower end you don't want any association with the harsher ones? They can cross over, and they do. One persons idea of a good smack could be another persons idea of a good beating, or a hiding. For that reason i have decided that i won't dabble in punishments that cause physical hurt or pain. If i am going to be asking him 'not' to hit others then i feel i will have the moral high ground if i can say "you don't see mommy or daddy hurting people"
I want my kid to learn right from wrong, yes, but not through hitting.
YES Bodie. I will happily encourage yanking a child physically of a road if a they are unmindful of a car coming, or smacking their hands to get them to drop something sharp or otherwise dangerous. Yes that will hurt a child. Deliberately. Scar them for life, be akin to beating them, set a bad precedent? No. I don't think you or any decent person with a brain would believe any of these things needing justification or needing comparisons to to child abuse to make some exaggerated point.
Smacking a bottom of a child for doing something that they have done wrong likewise is not reasonably compared to the above and trying to make a slippery sloped argument for a smacked bottom being all in with beatings or leading to beatings or that, looks to me a little incredulous.
It sounds to me that you think of smacks on the bottom, as child abuse and that it is all in the same league as beatings. I disagree completely. It sounds to me that you are saying anyone who therefore has smacked a child is a child abuser. I again disagree and regardless of how you try to pitch the allusion, it is not going to make me second guess myself or feel bad. If this is true, I hope not as I would have thought you were a little less judgmental.
You did not smack your boy ever? I do not really have a comment either way? You know why? I don't know what you are like as a parent and I think it would be rude as fuck to presume based on nothing about what you are as a Mother. I understand you love him and I think that is good. I presume because you are a nice, caring lady and Mother, you will do the right thing by him. I think you will be the best parent you can be. When he is older I am sure he will love you as much as he does now.
So rather than dancing around the point. Looks like we have differing opinions on parenting and parenting styles. Looks like we both have good relationships with our kids. Looks like we both have kids who have responded well and are well behaved and sweet and do us proud. So do you have anything to say about the above in respect to me and me as a parent?
-
Oh dear, Can't we debate an issue without getting personal and putting words in my mouth.
I have grabbed kids from the road. I have wrestled with and pinned down my boy to avoid him hurting himself, others and myself. Where did i make a correlation between physical restraint and child abuse? Perhaps you misread, or perhaps i wasn't clear, either way i make no such opinion.
I thought we were debating smacking kids, the actions described above are about restraint in order to preserve safety. Therefore it is quite unnecessary for you to demonstrate how it won't scar and hurt a child for life. I KNOW THIS.
It sounds to me that you think of smacks on the bottom, as child abuse and that it is all in the same league as beatings. I disagree completely. It sounds to me that you are saying anyone who therefore has smacked a child is a child abuser. I again disagree and regardless of how you try to pitch the allusion, it is not going to make me second guess myself or feel bad. If this is true, I hope not as I would have thought you were a little less judgmental.
Can you show me where i said this? or what i said that led you to such an assumtion? Where did i say anyone who smacks a child is a child abuser?
You did not smack your boy ever? I do not really have a comment either way? You know why? I don't know what you are like as a parent and I think it would be rude as fuck to presume based on nothing about what you are as a Mother. I understand you love him and I think that is good. I presume because you are a nice, caring lady and Mother, you will do the right thing by him. I think you will be the best parent you can be. When he is older I am sure he will love you as much as he does now.
Thank you. I have already said that i think you are good parent. Everything that you have described in the way of discipline seems very reasonable and there is nothing you have said which has made me think you are anything other than a decent, caring and loving father.
So rather than dancing around the point.
I dance around lots of points. Don't you? :dance:
Looks like we have differing opinions on parenting and parenting styles. Looks like we both have good relationships with our kids.
Indeed. The world would be very boring if we all had the same opinion.
Looks like we both have kids who have responded well and are well behaved and sweet and do us proud.
Ouch! I think everyone knows that my son is up shit creek at school and is not always well behaved and sweet. I am always proud of him, though. I will persist with my parenting style. This debate has not thrown anything to cause me to change my mind.
So do you have anything to say about the above in respect to me and me as a parent?
No. I have no bitchy comments to make like the one above.
-
I love a good spanking myself. :mischief:
:agreed:
-
I love a good spanking myself. :mischief:
:agreed:
:squiddy: :eyebrows:
-
Oh dear, Can't we debate an issue without getting personal and putting words in my mouth.
I have grabbed kids from the road. I have wrestled with and pinned down my boy to avoid him hurting himself, others and myself. Where did i make a correlation between physical rqestraint and child abuse? Perhaps you misread, or perhaps i wasn't clear, either way i make no such opinion.
I thought we were debating smacking kids, the actions described above are about restraint in order to preserve safety. Therefore it is quite unnecessary for you to demonstrate how it won't scar and hurt a child for life. I KNOW THIS.
It sounds to me that you think of smacks on the bottom, as child abuse and that it is all in the same league as beatings. I disagree completely. It sounds to me that you are saying anyone who therefore has smacked a child is a child abuser. I again disagree and regardless of how you try to pitch the allusion, it is not going to make me second guess myself or feel bad. If this is true, I hope not as I would have thought you were a little less judgmental.
Can you show me where i said this? or what i said that led you to such an assumtion? Where did i say anyone who smacks a child is a child abuser?
You did not smack your boy ever? I do not really have a comment either way? You know why? I don't know what you are like as a parent and I think it would be rude as fuck to presume based on nothing about what you are as a Mother. I understand you love him and I think that is good. I presume because you are a nice, caring lady and Mother, you will do the right thing by him. I think you will be the best parent you can be. When he is older I am sure he will love you as much as he does now.
Thank you. I have already said that i think you are good parent. Everything that you have described in the way of discipline seems very reasonable and there is nothing you have said which has made me think you are anything other than a decent, caring and loving father.
So rather than dancing around the point.
I dance around lots of points. Don't you? :dance:
Looks like we have differing opinions on parenting and parenting styles. Looks like we both have good relationships with our kids.
Indeed. The world would be very boring if we all had the same opinion.
Looks like we both have kids who have responded well and are well behaved and sweet and do us proud.
Ouch! I think everyone knows that my son is up shit creek at school and is not always well behaved and sweet. I am always proud of him, though. I will persist with my parenting style. This debate has not thrown anything to cause me to change my mind.
So do you have anything to say about the above in respect to me and me as a parent?
No. I have no bitchy comments to make like the one above.
Actually every child has some problem at school at some point, because school is shitty. . I remember one thread about a year ago where you had some issues and my recollection is that you found some effective strategies to resolving them.
Find the thread to see what I mean.
It is interesting what you think "everybody" knows. I do not second guess. You say he is a dear little boy and you resolved some issues at school with positive reinforcement I assumed you had back then, a year ago. Unless I am informed otherwise, I don't second guess. "Bodie had some issues then that she.seemed to straighten out through relying on his want to be a good boy therefore.."
By all means though you can explain bitchy to me, as I can't see what you see in my comments
As for taking things personally. When I tell you that I stopped smacking my kids bottoms when they were about five and had you say "You assume I still don't", why assume? When you further tell of some Father who smack his teenged kid's bottoms (but doesn't really because he hits them with a belt) and when you know that I smacked my kids bottoms when they were little and you say " isn't all the same as other forms of deliberately hurting them?", I am amazed you would expect I do not take it personally as an insult. I assume that was your intent.
The only irony is I was trying to be nice in return and say different strokes for different folks and you saw it as me being bitchy
-
It's interesting how social norms changed our perceptions. What was 'normal' even a generation or two ago (more or less depending on one's specific culture) is now considered abusive. Go farther back and it's more intense. Ever read the "Little house" books? Very wholesome. About very loving families. Children's books, and ones I would honestly recommend for kids, wholeheartedly. And yet, the books talk about hitting children with switches and whips.
What I'll say is, from what I've seen (and, what I've experienced), yes, there's lines, and yes, there's gray areas. However, what seems to be the biggest dividing line between whether or not it's actually experienced as traumatic, is how it's implemented, and what the overall family culture is. A loving and supportive family culture with clear expectations of rewards and punishments is much less likely to be viewed as traumatic as one which is cold, angry, chaotic, etc. and where punishment is handed out according to the moods of the punisher, not according to the behavior of the punishee.
Because of this, you sometimes get the interesting cases of people defending having had harsh physical punishments in what may well have been a healthy family environment, yet you get people who were given comparatively mild (or no) physical punishments in a very unhealthy family environment who were traumatized by the ways they were disciplined. Which is of course not to advocate dangerous beatings or extreme physical punishments- or even to advocate spankings (I'm not sure how I feel about that practice, anymore, tbh, though I am less opposed to it now that I understand the bigger-context issue). But, it's kind of interesting, I think.
Just my own somewhat-anecdotal $.02.
-
From the childs POV they will learn that you can hit people who are smaller than you!
:agreed:
Once saw a mother "play" with her kid. Spanking play. She slapped the kid, not hard, no pain, but the movement was there. And the kid was supposed to like it. The moment the kid, a toddler, mimicked his mum, and did to her what she did to him, she told him he was not allowed to do that, because he was just a kid.
I turned out completely wild of course, because of lack of physical punishment. :hyke:
My kids will turn out just as feral.
Kids hurt themselves enough, when going in the wrong. No need to ad to that with a smack.
-
Well, i've read a bit of this "debate" and am of the opinion that it didn't do me any bad so why not for my kids!? (when i have them that is!)
The best way my mum taught me how to behave involved a bar of soap! i tell you that after sucking on that for mere seconds i quickly learned to behave! and there was no smacking at all, until i got older and stronger, then i'd get a light smack if i was doing something particularly wrong (like abusing the neighbours cat! (Don't attempt to ask about that!)).
Although i believe that i am a generation behind in my thinking/reasoning i still think that what my parents did was right, i mean how else are you supposed to create boundaries if the little buggers can't intellectually understand/rationalise!?
However, i won't be "spanking" my kids, that activity will be for the (future!) missus, in the confines of the bedroom/kitchen!
-
From the childs POV they will learn that you can hit people who are smaller than you!
:agreed:
Once saw a mother "play" with her kid. Spanking play. She slapped the kid, not hard, no pain, but the movement was there. And the kid was supposed to like it. The moment the kid, a toddler, mimicked his mum, and did to her what she did to him, she told him he was not allowed to do that, because he was just a kid.
I turned out completely wild of course, because of lack of physical punishment. :hyke:
My kids will turn out just as feral.
Kids hurt themselves enough, when going in the wrong. No need to ad to that with a smack.
My kids did not learn that lesson.
Nor did they turn out traumatised for it.
Nor did they pick on other kids on that basis.
So I am not sure, how them being the recipients of smacks on the bottom when they were naughty, relates to the above. It does not sound causal as it seems to be framed? Is it supposed to be?
-
Woo Saaa Folks... take 5 (hours!)
-
There are many studies involving smacking children. Most of them report undesirable effects.
This article gives a few examples.
http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/legacyforum/legacyforum_home.cfm?&ForumID=1&fuseAction=displayMessage&messageID=73 (http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/legacyforum/legacyforum_home.cfm?&ForumID=1&fuseAction=displayMessage&messageID=73)Previous generations had the excuse that there wasn't the abundance of information available to them that we have today.
From the childs POV they will learn that you can hit people who are smaller than you!
:agreed:
Once saw a mother "play" with her kid. Spanking play. She slapped the kid, not hard, no pain, but the movement was there. And the kid was supposed to like it. The moment the kid, a toddler, mimicked his mum, and did to her what she did to him, she told him he was not allowed to do that, because he was just a kid.
I turned out completely wild of course, because of lack of physical punishment. :hyke:
My kids will turn out just as feral.
Kids hurt themselves enough, when going in the wrong. No need to ad to that with a smack.
I think it makes it so much easier for a kid to understand that he shouldn't hit his sister when you can say mommy and daddy don't hit you, or your sister, or each other. In other words a blanket ban on hitting. A no hitting policy.
-
Agreed. Soap is better hehe!
-
There are many studies involving smacking children. Most of them report undesirable effects.
This article gives a few examples.
http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/legacyforum/legacyforum_home.cfm?&ForumID=1&fuseAction=displayMessage&messageID=73 (http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/legacyforum/legacyforum_home.cfm?&ForumID=1&fuseAction=displayMessage&messageID=73)Previous generations had the excuse that there wasn't the abundance of information available to them that we have today.
From the childs POV they will learn that you can hit people who are smaller than you!
:agreed:
Once saw a mother "play" with her kid. Spanking play. She slapped the kid, not hard, no pain, but the movement was there. And the kid was supposed to like it. The moment the kid, a toddler, mimicked his mum, and did to her what she did to him, she told him he was not allowed to do that, because he was just a kid.
I turned out completely wild of course, because of lack of physical punishment. :hyke:
My kids will turn out just as feral.
Kids hurt themselves enough, when going in the wrong. No need to ad to that with a smack.
I think it makes it so much easier for a kid to understand that he shouldn't hit his sister when you can say mommy and daddy don't hit you, or your sister, or each other. In other words a blanket ban on hitting. A no hitting policy.
WE could of course make the same argument for:
not growling at them and thus risking self esteem
or not with holding affection as it may make them make bad associations with punishment and affection/attention
or scaring them from raising your voice and risk making them deathly afraid and traumatised
or actually giving them good things when they are good even as they may learn to do something naughty to prompt a campaign of rewarding good behaviour
or withholding desired toys as it may influence stealing
....the sky is the limit really.
It may be argued that whilst all of these things may happen, it is unlikely. It may also be argued that by degrees matters.
Always yelling at them very loudly and badly....may well cause trauma
Withholding things constantly may make a child feel unloved and that you are cold
Maybe if all there valuables are constantly and unreasonably taken, they may steal or see no value in their possessions.
But all this is extreme. Hell if we were to take this approach then we have pretty much taken away parents ability to parent for fear that their parenting style will be used in the most inappropriate way and that they do not know their own child or be able to parent effectively.
Would be silly.
-
I turned out completely wild of course, because of lack of physical punishment. :hyke:
My kids will turn out just as feral.
Hey. You know Jack.
-
There are many studies involving smacking children. Most of them report undesirable effects.
This article gives a few examples.
http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/legacyforum/legacyforum_home.cfm?&ForumID=1&fuseAction=displayMessage&messageID=73 (http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/legacyforum/legacyforum_home.cfm?&ForumID=1&fuseAction=displayMessage&messageID=73)Previous generations had the excuse that there wasn't the abundance of information available to them that we have today.
From the childs POV they will learn that you can hit people who are smaller than you!
:agreed:
Once saw a mother "play" with her kid. Spanking play. She slapped the kid, not hard, no pain, but the movement was there. And the kid was supposed to like it. The moment the kid, a toddler, mimicked his mum, and did to her what she did to him, she told him he was not allowed to do that, because he was just a kid.
I turned out completely wild of course, because of lack of physical punishment. :hyke:
My kids will turn out just as feral.
Kids hurt themselves enough, when going in the wrong. No need to ad to that with a smack.
I think it makes it so much easier for a kid to understand that he shouldn't hit his sister when you can say mommy and daddy don't hit you, or your sister, or each other. In other words a blanket ban on hitting. A no hitting policy.
Internal server error.
One problem I'll point out with spanking studies in general is the issue of confounding variables. Ask yourself who is more vs. less likely to spank, or to use corporal punishment. In general, parents with more time and resources are more likely to be able to use the more behavioral punishment/reward systems consistently, which require more time and patience, and (I believe/anecdotally have noticed) these also tend to be more heavily advocated higher-up in SES.
This isn't to say physical abuse doesn't fuck kids up, but demographics and life situations (which would in turn effect likelihood of use of corporal punishment) also effect kids- tremendously.
-
Spanking was the subject of a discussion in the basic Psychology class I took to satisfy a social science requirement.
Spanking is punishment in the form of an aversive stimulus. Another form of punishment is to remove a positive stimulus, the example the professor gave was sitting his son on the back of the toilet and removing all towels and toilet paper from the bathroom and leaving the room (he said his son was around 5 when this technique was employed). He called the latter an example of playing mind games with your children. The discussion went on to cover the fact that any punishment does not completely stop a behavior, but only temporarily deters it.
-
Kids?
Beat 'em 'till they're senseless.
-
Yes i see what you are saying Elle.
I went on a triple p parenting course in Jan and interestingly one of the things the tutor said was "back in the days when we used to hit our children" I just had a quick look and i can't find one course in the UK that advocates physical punishments like smacking.
The UN Human Rights Act promotes that children ought to have the same rights as adults, and that would mean a ban on smacking.
-
That reminds me of the policies and procedures training i had in my last job. The guy said "On the subject of Abuse by the end of a care workers first year around 60% will have committed some form of abuse to clients in their care. Rising to 90% in five years." not a very comforting thought.
-
I am in favour of keeping spanking in the bedroom :squiddy:
-
Yes i see what you are saying Elle.
I went on a triple p parenting course in Jan and interestingly one of the things the tutor said was "back in the days when we used to hit our children" I just had a quick look and i can't find one course in the UK that advocates physical punishments like smacking.
The UN Human Rights Act promotes that children ought to have the same rights as adults, and that would mean a ban on smacking.
I see what you are saying. In the world 84% of the Earth's population have faith and of those at least 55% are believers in the Abrahamic God (32% are Christians and 23% are Muslims"
Therefore it follows that these people have a better belief system than anyone else.
OR it is an appeal to popularity. Just because something is popular or have strident followers of a practice or whatever, does not make the practice better or worse.
Same goes with raising a child, to an extent. We all have our lines in the sand. What was popular or normal back then may not be now and who knows where we will focus on with parenting in years to come. We may see ourselves then as more enlightened and today's practices wrong. So it is shifting lines in the sand.
I think if what you mean by this is that people in this course had an idea of how they wanted their kids bought up and that they wanted what was best for their kids and to give the best upbringing for their kids, then more power to them.
Is that what you were saying or was it something more?
-
Yes i see what you are saying Elle.
I went on a triple p parenting course in Jan and interestingly one of the things the tutor said was "back in the days when we used to hit our children" I just had a quick look and i can't find one course in the UK that advocates physical punishments like smacking.
The UN Human Rights Act promotes that children ought to have the same rights as adults, and that would mean a ban on smacking.
I see what you are saying. In the world 84% of the Earth's population have faith and of those at least 55% are believers in the Abrahamic God (32% are Christians and 23% are Muslims"
Therefore it follows that these people have a better belief system than anyone else.
OR it is an appeal to popularity. Just because something is popular or have strident followers of a practice or whatever, does not make the practice better or worse.
Same goes with raising a child, to an extent. We all have our lines in the sand. What was popular or normal back then may not be now and who knows where we will focus on with parenting in years to come. We may see ourselves then as more enlightened and today's practices wrong. So it is shifting lines in the sand.
I think if what you mean by this is that people in this course had an idea of how they wanted their kids bought up and that they wanted what was best for their kids and to give the best upbringing for their kids, then more power to them.
Is that what you were saying or was it something more?
*nod* Another good point- what are we doing now with good intentions that we will, in retrospect, condemn? I already talked in another thread about some of the well-meaning parenting practices that, IMO, have kinda pulled for fragile narcissism, though the intent was to show kids they were loved and help them have self-esteem. Will these practices be widely condemned someday?
Yes i see what you are saying Elle.
I went on a triple p parenting course in Jan and interestingly one of the things the tutor said was "back in the days when we used to hit our children" I just had a quick look and i can't find one course in the UK that advocates physical punishments like smacking.
The UN Human Rights Act promotes that children ought to have the same rights as adults, and that would mean a ban on smacking.
One big problem with comparing children with adults in this case is that very small children don't have the processing/verbal/cognitive abilities that adults do. You can, for example, enter into a verbal contract with an 11 year old that if he does not do his chores, he does not get his allowance (side note: why the fuck do kids never have chores any more???), or that if he acts out, his video games are gone for a week. Can you really hold a toddler to the same standard?
(Again, devil's advocate, not endorsing.)
-
Yes. Also, what is the intent? What is it that the parenting is supposed to do and what is it likely to do?
We live in a time of political correctness, overlegislated and overcensoring. In these times, unlike times of the past, we are less trusting, less accepting, less willing to allow people to determine a sensible or reasonable line of thought. Because some people in some situations make poor choices ,even when give enough information, skills or whatever to make a good choice, and so we legislate or put in place policy or procedures to censor or legislate the worst of people, who do not have brains or common sense
In schools they are now banned from hugging. Why/ Because "some people" can not discern a hug done platonically for something else so ban hugging entirely. It is the same with smacking a naughty child. Some people doing this will not have the common sense, judgement or whatever to do this responsibly or with good intent or effect. They will thrash their kids or beat them or whatever. So throw out the baby with the bathwater. No hugs. No smacks. Because some people are uncommonly stupid.
I don't know. I think a hug from a friend or girlfriend at school is kind of sweet. I think a teacher being able to sooth a crying child by giving them a gentle hug and so is fine. In a few years we may well report that back in the old days we used to hug and that all forms of "intimacy"....i mean hugs are just a varying degree of intimacy, is inappropriate to express in public and akin to having sex.
That argument will not win me either and i will claim that intellectually dishonest too.
-
Yes. Also, what is the intent? What is it that the parenting is supposed to do and what is it likely to do?
We live in a time of faggotry, bossiness and bitchiness. In these times, unlike times of the past, we are nosy as fuck, judgemental, tyrants. Because some people fuck up, even like.. once, some really obnoxious cunts will start a wave of shit tht annoys everyone so much they comply just for a moment's peace. An example of this is the behavior of atheism plusser, Richard cuntier.
In schools they are now banned from hugging. Why/ Because "some tyrannical cuts" are jealous of some kid being more successful socially than they are so ban hugging entirely. It is the same with smacking a naughty child. Some drunken redneck who belongs in prison will not have the common sense, judgement or whatever to do this responsibly or with good intent or effect. They will thrash their kids or beat them or whatever. So throw out the baby with the bathwater. No hugs. No smacks. Because some people were raised exactly like what these tyrants are trying to do to the entire world..
I don't know. I think a hug from a friend or girlfriend at school is kind of sweet. I think a teacher being able to sooth a crying child by giving them a gentle hug and so is fine. In a few years we may well report that back in the old days we used to hug and that all forms of "intimacy"....i mean hugs are just a varying degree of intimacy, is inappropriate to express in public and akin to having sex.
That argument will not win me either and i will claim that intellectually dishonest too.
Fixed. I agree now, man. :zoinks:
-
There are loads of kids who received the odd smack and have not been damaged. I am one of them. My Dad never, but my Mom smacked me a few times. No biggie really. My Mom and Dad were good people and loving parents.
I would also say that some parents who do fuck all, and ignore bad behaviour totally, are probably causing more damage than the ones who 'responsibly smack'.
Other kids get proper beatings. Their parents will not stop while it is still socially acceptable.
-
IT never was socially acceptable to beat the fuck out of children. Cmon.
-
I mean while it is still socially acceptable to use physical punishments then you will always get the extreme.
-
I mean while it is still socially acceptable to use physical punishments then you will always get the extreme.
Where is this coming from? Its common sense that only a fucking ignorant ass fuckface criminal type BEATS children. IT always has been. Probably cavemen were using the "not cool man" grunt when some dillhole socked a kid.
Its not socially acceptable, and there shouldn't have to be a law telling people how to raise their children. Guilty of child abuse? You go to jail and get raped by other inmates when they find out you like to beat up kids. Are people getting dumber or something?
-
:2thumbsup: i dunno. When i was growing up i got slapped, a lot did. A few got worse.
Thirty years ago the following would not be unheard of:
Two blokes in a pub. Bloke 1 says " I got home from a hard days work on Wed and do you know what? the missus hadn't even got my dinner ready" Bloke 2 nods, sympathetically. Bloke 1 continues "It happened again on Fri, now I'm a patient man but i had to give her a bit of a slap. How else is she going to learn?"
^ We frown on this now yet at the time it was 'oh it's between a man and his wife, let them deal with it' 'keep it in the family'
Not saying this kind of thing doesn't happen any more. It does. But it is no longer a typical conversation in a pub. It's no longer acceptable.
The day is coming when striking children no matter how 'lovingly' (eh?) will be seen as unacceptable too.
-
:2thumbsup: i dunno. When i was growing up i got slapped, a lot did. A few got worse.
Thirty years ago the following would not be unheard of:
Two blokes in a pub. Bloke 1 says " I got home from a hard days work on Wed and do you know what? the missus hadn't even got my dinner ready" Bloke 2 nods, sympathetically. Bloke 1 continues "It happened again on Fri, now I'm a patient man but i had to give her a bit of a slap. How else is she going to learn?"
^ We frown on this now yet at the time it was 'oh it's between a man and his wife, let them deal with it' 'keep it in the family'
Not saying this kind of thing doesn't happen any more. It does. But it is no longer a typical conversation in a pub. It's no longer acceptable.
The day is coming when striking children no matter how 'lovingly' (eh?) will be seen as unacceptable too.
And the day is coming when this concept will evolve on its own. It is up to the individual to decide this, and nobody else. I will speak plainly. Someone being a tyrant makes me want to snap someone's neck and do disrespectful things to their dead body. Nobody has the right to decide what rights other people have. NOBODY.
-
IT never was socially acceptable to beat the fuck out of children. Cmon.
You obviously didn't grow up in the midwest.
It was the norm for Nebraskans to beat their kids.
I heard the stories every morning at school.
-
IT never was socially acceptable to beat the fuck out of children. Cmon.
You obviously didn't grow up in the midwest.
It was the norm for Nebraskans to beat their kids.
I heard the stories every morning at school.
But the Midwest isn't the majority of human beings. That's generally considered fucking retarded.
-
:2thumbsup: i dunno. When i was growing up i got slapped, a lot did. A few got worse.
Thirty years ago the following would not be unheard of:
Two blokes in a pub. Bloke 1 says " I got home from a hard days work on Wed and do you know what? the missus hadn't even got my dinner ready" Bloke 2 nods, sympathetically. Bloke 1 continues "It happened again on Fri, now I'm a patient man but i had to give her a bit of a slap. How else is she going to learn?"
^ We frown on this now yet at the time it was 'oh it's between a man and his wife, let them deal with it' 'keep it in the family'
Not saying this kind of thing doesn't happen any more. It does. But it is no longer a typical conversation in a pub. It's no longer acceptable.
The day is coming when striking children no matter how 'lovingly' (eh?) will be seen as unacceptable too.
And the day is coming when this concept will evolve on its own. It is up to the individual to decide this, and nobody else. I will speak plainly. Someone being a tyrant makes me want to snap someone's neck and do disrespectful things to their dead body. Nobody has the right to decide what rights other people have. NOBODY.
Then what about the rights of the child. Human Right Act. Don't you think it should include children? It does in many countries. Lots of places still exist whereby children are the only members of society that can be hit without consequence. :thumbdn:
-
:2thumbsup: i dunno. When i was growing up i got slapped, a lot did. A few got worse.
Thirty years ago the following would not be unheard of:
Two blokes in a pub. Bloke 1 says " I got home from a hard days work on Wed and do you know what? the missus hadn't even got my dinner ready" Bloke 2 nods, sympathetically. Bloke 1 continues "It happened again on Fri, now I'm a patient man but i had to give her a bit of a slap. How else is she going to learn?"
^ We frown on this now yet at the time it was 'oh it's between a man and his wife, let them deal with it' 'keep it in the family'
Not saying this kind of thing doesn't happen any more. It does. But it is no longer a typical conversation in a pub. It's no longer acceptable.
The day is coming when striking children no matter how 'lovingly' (eh?) will be seen as unacceptable too.
And the day is coming when this concept will evolve on its own. It is up to the individual to decide this, and nobody else. I will speak plainly. Someone being a tyrant makes me want to snap someone's neck and do disrespectful things to their dead body. Nobody has the right to decide what rights other people have. NOBODY.
Then what about the rights of the child. Human Right Act. Don't you think it should include children? It does in many countries. Lots of places still exist whereby children are the only members of society that can be hit without consequence. :thumbdn:
Children must be taught to have reliable decision making skills before they have the rights and freedoms of a full grown adult.... but yes, nobody should be the victim of a tyrant in any case.
-
IT never was socially acceptable to beat the fuck out of children. Cmon.
You obviously didn't grow up in the midwest.
It was the norm for Nebraskans to beat their kids.
I heard the stories every morning at school.
But the Midwest isn't the majority of human beings. That's generally considered fucking retarded.
?? Kids in the widwest don't matter as much? i don't get it. I thought equality mattered.
-
IT never was socially acceptable to beat the fuck out of children. Cmon.
You obviously didn't grow up in the midwest.
It was the norm for Nebraskans to beat their kids.
I heard the stories every morning at school.
But the Midwest isn't the majority of human beings. That's generally considered fucking retarded.
?? Kids in the widwest don't matter as much? i don't get it. I thought equality mattered.
Of course they matter, but a small amount of people being fuckfaces ruining things for everyone is dumb. I refuse to obey and observe laws made for emptyheaded rednecks, just because they fucked up.
I say the death penalty should be used a lot more often, personally. Child rapist, discovered beating your child? DIE.
-
:2thumbsup: i dunno. When i was growing up i got slapped, a lot did. A few got worse.
Thirty years ago the following would not be unheard of:
Two blokes in a pub. Bloke 1 says " I got home from a hard days work on Wed and do you know what? the missus hadn't even got my dinner ready" Bloke 2 nods, sympathetically. Bloke 1 continues "It happened again on Fri, now I'm a patient man but i had to give her a bit of a slap. How else is she going to learn?"
^ We frown on this now yet at the time it was 'oh it's between a man and his wife, let them deal with it' 'keep it in the family'
Not saying this kind of thing doesn't happen any more. It does. But it is no longer a typical conversation in a pub. It's no longer acceptable.
The day is coming when striking children no matter how 'lovingly' (eh?) will be seen as unacceptable too.
And the day is coming when this concept will evolve on its own. It is up to the individual to decide this, and nobody else. I will speak plainly. Someone being a tyrant makes me want to snap someone's neck and do disrespectful things to their dead body. Nobody has the right to decide what rights other people have. NOBODY.
Then what about the rights of the child. Human Right Act. Don't you think it should include children? It does in many countries. Lots of places still exist whereby children are the only members of society that can be hit without consequence. :thumbdn:
Children must be taught to have reliable decision making skills before they have the rights and freedoms of a full grown adult.... but yes, nobody should be the victim of a tyrant in any case.
ha! enough adults don't have reliable decision making skills!
-
Yes i see what you are saying Elle.
I went on a triple p parenting course in Jan and interestingly one of the things the tutor said was "back in the days when we used to hit our children" I just had a quick look and i can't find one course in the UK that advocates physical punishments like smacking.
The UN Human Rights Act promotes that children ought to have the same rights as adults, and that would mean a ban on smacking.
some mid west pastor writes books on parenting. He has come under a lot of fire lately for children dying because of his methods.
I wish I remembered the name.
-
WE could of course make the same argument for:
not growling at them and thus risking self esteem
or not with holding affection as it may make them make bad associations with punishment and affection/attention
or scaring them from raising your voice and risk making them deathly afraid and traumatised
or actually giving them good things when they are good even as they may learn to do something naughty to prompt a campaign of rewarding good behaviour
or withholding desired toys as it may influence stealing
....the sky is the limit really.
It may be argued that whilst all of these things may happen, it is unlikely. It may also be argued that by degrees matters.
Always yelling at them very loudly and badly....may well cause trauma
Withholding things constantly may make a child feel unloved and that you are cold
Maybe if all there valuables are constantly and unreasonably taken, they may steal or see no value in their possessions.
But all this is extreme. Hell if we were to take this approach then we have pretty much taken away parents ability to parent for fear that their parenting style will be used in the most inappropriate way and that they do not know their own child or be able to parent effectively.
Would be silly.
This is a very good post. I have never agreed with the practice of spanking but still would not support an actual law against it, as that would create a system where children could be removed from the home over being spanked. I do not believe that is a good idea. It is true there are a number of things not socially considered as abusive, which can be taken to extremes which would change people's mind. You are correct that moderation and sensibility are important in all of these areas. Years ago I volunteered as a tutor for elementary children. There was a boy who I brought breakfast each day, because he otherwise received none. He was so neglected as an infant that it deformed his natural bone growth of his head. He'll suffer a lifetime of cognitive deficiencies, visual problems, as well as pain in his head, neck, and back; not because of anything that was done to him, but because of what was not done. I have certainly encountered people in life who I believe should not have children, but have never thought that about someone because they spank.
-
IT never was socially acceptable to beat the fuck out of children. Cmon.
You obviously didn't grow up in the midwest.
It was the norm for Nebraskans to beat their kids.
I heard the stories every morning at school.
But the Midwest isn't the majority of human beings. That's generally considered fucking retarded.
Whether or not it is fucking retarded is a separate discussion of whether or not laws should be passed against it.
-
Surely someone in power should change the name of the thread from spanking to smacking... as over in these parts the term "spanking" is used for pleasure not discipline!
-
I would never condone kids being taken away from their family because they spanked them. That would harm a lot of children. That would be silly and achieve nothing.
-
Surely someone in power should change the name of the thread from spanking to smacking... as over in these parts the term "spanking" is used for pleasure not discipline!
It is the only reason i was drawn to this thread :P
-
Surely someone in power should change the name of the thread from spanking to smacking... as over in these parts the term "spanking" is used for pleasure not discipline!
It is the only reason i was drawn to this thread :P
it worked. :lol1:
-
:2thumbsup: i dunno. When i was growing up i got slapped, a lot did. A few got worse.
Thirty years ago the following would not be unheard of:
Two blokes in a pub. Bloke 1 says " I got home from a hard days work on Wed and do you know what? the missus hadn't even got my dinner ready" Bloke 2 nods, sympathetically. Bloke 1 continues "It happened again on Fri, now I'm a patient man but i had to give her a bit of a slap. How else is she going to learn?"
^ We frown on this now yet at the time it was 'oh it's between a man and his wife, let them deal with it' 'keep it in the family'
Not saying this kind of thing doesn't happen any more. It does. But it is no longer a typical conversation in a pub. It's no longer acceptable.
The day is coming when striking children no matter how 'lovingly' (eh?) will be seen as unacceptable too.
And the day is coming when this concept will evolve on its own. It is up to the individual to decide this, and nobody else. I will speak plainly. Someone being a tyrant makes me want to snap someone's neck and do disrespectful things to their dead body. Nobody has the right to decide what rights other people have. NOBODY.
Then what about the rights of the child. Human Right Act. Don't you think it should include children? It does in many countries. Lots of places still exist whereby children are the only members of society that can be hit without consequence. :thumbdn:
Children must be taught to have reliable decision making skills before they have the rights and freedoms of a full grown adult.... but yes, nobody should be the victim of a tyrant in any case.
ha! enough adults don't have reliable decision making skills!
:apondering: Oh shit. I am formulating a new, even angrier outlook. Give it time.
-
I would never condone kids being taken away from their family because they spanked them. That would harm a lot of children. That would be silly and achieve nothing.
Then what would be the legal consequences for spanking? Small fine similar to a parking ticket? How many tickets is too many?
-
If swatting their bottom is not a good way to discipline a child, what aversive stimulus would you use?
-
Me? The kids did calisthenics and ran laps around the house, not that it was needed much, good kids; mostly to break up sibling spats and burn off that steam.
-
This is part of the problem of this discussion. I will make sure I am deliberately blunt..
I want you to consider and contrast these two statements:
"Bodie's partner hits her at when he is at her house"
"Bodie's partner smacks her bottom when they are in her bedroom"
Are both true statements? Anyone can try telling me that smacking and hitting are interchangeable and therefore ought to be interjected as replacement word BUT they DO know j(ust like I did before I changed the context of the above sentences) that is is a dishonest technique. Words and context do matter.
Hitting,smacking and beating are NOT interchangeable term.
Also there is another thing in all of this. That is the presumption that other methods of parenting are better and will work better for every other child
I have not and would not seek to make the case either way.
tell me if a logical parallel could be made for the following
Taking away toys for being naughty = stealing from those more vulnerable
Timeout = isolating and restricting others freedoms is OK
Raising your voice = scaring and intimidation is a powerful way to get what you need.
Say the better parenting style and I will deduce a terrible lesson it teaches and how it sets up a child for bad outcomes.
Shitty, I know. Its not fair and except on the rarest situations or with most excess in application true risking such a result, but hey, fair is not the name of the game when make sweeping generalisations about what smacking teaches.
-
True. Every method will have its critic. A gym teacher once criticized mine as negative toward healthy activity, but it wasn't negative in an active family, not at the time or even in hindsight.
-
Me? The kids did calisthenics and ran laps around the house, not that it was needed much, good kids; mostly to break up sibling spats and burn off that steam.
The question was directed at all participants.
-
Decided to use the words of others, i have copied the below texts from a Human Rights document you can find here http://www.childrenareunbeatable.org.uk/pdfs/Equal%20protection%20for%20children%20-%20human%20rights%20obligations.pdf (http://www.childrenareunbeatable.org.uk/pdfs/Equal%20protection%20for%20children%20-%20human%20rights%20obligations.pdf)
If it doesn't change your view i hope it demonstrates that i am not deliberately using terminology to cause drama. The terms i refer to such as slap, smack and beat are all readily used by United Nations and those campaigning for human rights. They are in our newspapers, and on our TV's. The association with violence is already there. I didn't just make it up.
“Violence against children is a violation of their human rights, a disturbing reality of our societies. It can never be justified whether for disciplinary reasons or cultural tradition. No such thing as a ‘reasonable’ level of violence is acceptable.
Legalized violence against children in one context risks tolerance of violence against children generally." LOUISE ARBOUR, UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
“All forms of physical punishment of children are a violation of basic human rights. These rights, protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Social Charter and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, belong to children and adults. We care for children and help them to develop, but we do not own them. As guardians of their well-being, we have a legal and moral responsibility to provide them with a childhood which honours their rights and leaves them with a legacy which does not condone violence. Only when this happens will Europe become a true home for children.”MAUD DE BOER-BUQUICCHIO, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE, 2007
“How can we expect children to take human rights seriously and to help build a culture of human rights, while adults not only persist in slapping, spanking, smacking and beating them, but actually defend doing so as being ‘for their own good’?
Smacking children is not just a lesson in bad behaviour: it is a potent demonstration of contempt for the human rights of smaller, weaker people.” THOMAS HAMMARBERG, COUNCIL OF EUROPE COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, 2008
Maybe we should just accept that we see the act of spanking a child differently. I happen to support the Human Rights path in extending the rights we have to include our children.
-
Maybe we should just accept that we see the act of spanking a child differently. I happen to support the Human Rights path in extending the rights we have to include our children.
Who is the 'we' implied. This doesn't answer the question of consequences to parents who spank.
-
I would never condone kids being taken away from their family because they spanked them. That would harm a lot of children. That would be silly and achieve nothing.
Then what would be the legal consequences for spanking? Small fine similar to a parking ticket? How many tickets is too many?
The goal of such a law is to prevent it from happening rather than introducing petty fines with the expectation that the law will be ignored.
It seems that the countries who have already taken steps to ban all forms of corporal punishment have had desirable effects. The focus being on education more than prosecution.
This article is a little dated, (2002) but does give an idea of how the policy has been working in places like Sweden.
http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/news/725230/ (http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/news/725230/)
Laws against physically punishing children have been used to educate parents rather than prosecute them. Jackie Cosh reports
Aban on smacking children was implemented in Sweden in 1979. Since then only four children have been killed after being assaulted by an adult, and only one of these was at the hands of a parent - one child in 23 years, compared with Britain's one child a week.
Last year the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment was launched in Geneva. Endorsed by both UNICEF and UNESCO, it is made up of prominent individuals from children's organisations worldwide. Its members call on governments to declare their opposition to corporal punishment of children and to set a timetable for eliminating corporal punishment.
A number of European countries have introduced some form of anti-smacking law - Austria (1989), Germany (2000), Croatia (1998), Cyprus (1994), Latvia (1998), Denmark (1997), Norway (1987), Finland (1983) and Sweden (1979). Generally reform has tended to be proposed not for the purpose of punishing people, but educating them, and so legislation has been passed under family or civil law instead of penal law, without automatic penalties.
Lena Nyberg is the Children's Ombudsman of Sweden, a position set up to safeguard the rights and interests of children and young people. She says, 'I think Sweden is a safer place for children since the introduction of the law in 1979. Opinions concerning physical punishment of children have changed drastically since then. Fewer persons find corporal punishment acceptable.'
Lasting effects
Sweden, the first country in Europe to ban all forms of corporal punishment of children, has conducted several studies into its effect. Much of this is documented in A Generation Without Smacking: The impact of Sweden's ban on physical punishment, a research paper by Dr Joan Durrant of the University of Manitoba, Canada, and published by Save the Children.
Dr Durrant found that Sweden has experienced a drop in the number of children taken into care and a decrease in compulsory measures of social work intervention. Concerns that the law would lead to an increase in prosecutions also appear to be unfounded. Dr Durrant discovered that the proportion of reported assaults legally pursued without trial has remained steady in Sweden, while prosecution rates have declined.
Likewise, Austria and Germany have reported no increase in prosecutions for child abuse, while in Denmark there have been no prosecutions since its law was introduced in 1997.
Adults, referring back to their own childhoods, often use the argument 'it did me no harm' to defend smacking. But in Germany, research had established a clear link between childhood experiences of physical punishment and the likelihood that young people would turn to violence and other anti-social behaviour. Concern about youth crime was high and anti-smacking laws were seen as a far-sighted way of dealing with the problem for years to come.
Lena Nyberg believes that teenage drug abuse would have been an even more widespread problem in Sweden had corporal punishment not been forbidden. 'The psychological and sometimes physical injury felt by the child or young person might provoke him or her to protest against his parents by resorting to anti-social behaviour such as drug abuse,' she says.
In Finland, Save the Children is working with schools to investigate the effect of violence on children. 'Two years ago we introduced a questionnaire to schools and kindergartens,' says the organisation's Jari Virtanen. 'The children answer simple questions on their lives in school and at home, and we hope to add in a further question to obtain a clearer picture about the level of violence in homes.'
Changing attitudes
It has been argued that legislation is not what the public want, and that the law of a country will not work unless it reflects this. But none of these countries introduced reforms in response to public demand.
Soren Gade Hansen, secretariat for the National Council for Children in Denmark, says, 'In 1998, 6,000 mothers of children born in 1995 were interviewed, and figures compared to a similar survey in 1968. It was found that parents are now less likely to hit their children than 30 years ago. Danish parents are much more interested in the child now as an interacting and participating person and treat their child according to that interpretation. They do not use physical power as much any more.'
Anti-smacking reform has always worked best when combined with education programmes. In Finland, the Ministry of Justice and National Board of Social Affairs launched a campaign with leaflets entitled 'What is a good upbringing?' and 'When you can't cope, find help: don't hit the child', which were made available in health clinics and social welfare offices. Just before the law came into effect, it was publicised on television at peak viewing times.
Attitudes have certainly changed in Finland. As Jari Virtanen of Save the Children Finland explains, 'Corporal violence and punishment towards children is seen as a barbaric method of educating or bringing up human beings. The phenomenon of smacking children in our country is very rare. If someone does it in a public place, you can be quite sure the person is not Finnish.'
In Sweden, the Ministry of Justice led a large-scale public education campaign in 1979. Pamphlets distributed to every household that had children emphasised that 'the law now forbids all forms of physical punishment of children, including smacking etc, although it goes without saying that you can still snatch a child away from a hot stove or open window if there is a risk of the child being injured.'
Information about the law was printed on milk cartons for two months in order to have information present at mealtimes when parents and children are together to discuss it. Parents were given paid time off work to attend parenting classes before and after a child's birth.
Lena Nyberg believes that this level of publicity was necessary. 'An important part of the success of the legislation can be attributed to the information campaign,' she says.
Alternative education
Germany also launched a public awareness campaign to accompany its law reform. This involved posters, advertisements and television spots. Projects and community initiatives were set up all over Germany, with prominent personalities appointed as ambassadors to promote non-violent methods of managing children. Slogans such as 'Help, instead of punish' and 'More respect for children' were used. Again, a wide range of media were used to get the message across - television, leaflets, public events, workshops and courses.
The purpose of reform is to educate parents about other forms of discipline, not to punish. This is the aim of EPOCH-worldwide (End Physical Punishment of Children), an informal alliance of organisations, whose members in Britain include Save the Children and Barnardo's. EPOCH has produced booklets and pamphlets promoting alternative forms of discipline (contact it on tel: 020 7700 0627).
It makes sense to look to Europe and learn from other countries' experience that education is the key to change.
As Lucy Thorpe of the NSPCC explains, 'The NSPCC doesn't believe that legal reform on its own would be fair or workable. Public education needs to go hand in hand with legislation, as has been the case in other European countries. We need mass media campaigns backed up by written information and sustained programmes of parenting education and family support.
'Here in Britain we tend to focus heavily on antenatal care, but relatively little help is available to parents to help them with the emotional side of parenting and behaviour difficulties. For attitudes to change, professionals must be able to educate parents and discuss alternatives to physical punishment. Change will only come through such sustained educational programmes, backed up by professional advice, guidance and support.'
-
I don't know. Is it just me BUT when they too, use the framing of child abuse or murdering rates and corporal punishment....it kind of feels (tell me I am wrong by all means) that they may be throwing in spanking a child's bottom with hitting , beating and bloody murder. i am trying not to be biased or sensitive over this but when they say that since introducing anti-spanking laws there has been less deaths...it kind of points to spanking being related to deaths?
Does spanking a child (giving three controlled smacks on the bottom for bad behaviour for example cause death? No bottoms falling off or heart attacks or anything? No, no then what? Oh these particular people smacked their kids but ALSO did stuff that ought to be banned like beating them senseless. Was it smacking bottoms or beating them senseless that killed the children? Money on the later.
Was there research into their own methods or questions about their effectiveness or their preferred parenting method? I did not see it in the article.
Sounds a little slanted...more than a little.
-
I don't know. Is it just me BUT when they too, use the framing of child abuse or murdering rates and corporal punishment....it kind of feels (tell me I am wrong by all means) that they may be throwing in spanking a child's bottom with hitting , beating and bloody murder. i am trying not to be biased or sensitive over this but when they say that since introducing anti-spanking laws there has been less deaths...it kind of points to spanking being related to deaths?
Does spanking a child (giving three controlled smacks on the bottom for bad behaviour for example cause death? No bottoms falling off or heart attacks or anything? No, no then what? Oh these particular people smacked their kids but ALSO did stuff that ought to be banned like beating them senseless. Was it smacking bottoms or beating them senseless that killed the children? Money on the later.
Was there research into their own methods or questions about their effectiveness or their preferred parenting method? I did not see it in the article.
Sounds a little slanted...more than a little.
;)
(http://img1.ak.crunchyroll.com/i/spire2/4c6a3ea808acad7b76920c4823c2d94f1357547785_full.jpg)
Physically and mentally. Its happening.
-
The European Commission of Human Rights document is not really relevant to other parts of the world. It is relevant to me in UK because the Uk is in the European Union. Well it is 'in' with it's arse hanging out. UK won't relinquish its pound and it has yet to follow all the requirements regarding corporal punishment.
However the powers of The European Court of Human Rights supersede domestic law anyway. Therefore it doesn't really matter what the people of the UK think, or what the government think for that matter. They can, and have done, ruled over British law. Therefore the UK has to follow this policy anyway.
I don't think it is such a bad thing, if you look at the results from Sweden, if they are accurate. My only gripe with the whole process is the way they imply that smacking is done due to a lack of education, or lack of intellect. I do not agree.
Just to clear up how the UN defines corporal punishment
The Committee provides a broad definition of co
rporal punishment in its General Comment:
“The Committee defines ‘corporal’ or ‘physical’ pun
ishment as any punishment in which
physical force is used and intended to cause some d
egree of pain or discomfort, however
light. Most involves hitting (‘smacking’, ‘slappin
g’, ‘spanking’) children, with the hand or with
an implement - a whip, stick, belt, shoe, wooden sp
oon, etc. But it can also involve, for
example, kicking, shaking or throwing children, scr
atching, pinching, biting, pulling hair or
boxing ears, forcing children to stay in uncomforta
ble positions, burning, scalding or forced
ingestion (for example, washing children’s mouths o
ut with soap or forcing them to swallow
hot spices). In the view of the Committee, corpora
l punishment is invariably degrading. In
addition, there are other non-physical forms of pun
ishment that are also cruel and
degrading and thus incompatible with the Convention
...”
https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?Index=no&command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=1016557&SecMode=1&DocId=1318136&Usage=2 (https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?Index=no&command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=1016557&SecMode=1&DocId=1318136&Usage=2)
-
The European Commission of Human Rights document is not really relevant to other parts of the world. It is relevant to me in UK because the Uk is in the European Union. Well it is 'in' with it's arse hanging out. UK won't relinquish its pound and it has yet to follow all the requirements regarding corporal punishment.
However the powers of The European Court of Human Rights supersede domestic law anyway. Therefore it doesn't really matter what the people of the UK think, or what the government think for that matter. They can, and have done, ruled over British law. Therefore the UK has to follow this policy anyway.
I don't think it is such a bad thing, if you look at the results from Sweden, if they are accurate. My only gripe with the whole process is the way they imply that smacking is done due to a lack of education, or lack of intellect. I do not agree.
Just to clear up how the UN defines corporal punishment
The Committee provides a broad definition of co
rporal punishment in its General Comment:
“The Committee defines ‘corporal’ or ‘physical’ pun
ishment as any punishment in which
physical force is used and intended to cause some d
egree of pain or discomfort, however
light. Most involves hitting (‘smacking’, ‘slappin
g’, ‘spanking’) children, with the hand or with
an implement - a whip, stick, belt, shoe, wooden sp
oon, etc. But it can also involve, for
example, kicking, shaking or throwing children, scr
atching, pinching, biting, pulling hair or
boxing ears, forcing children to stay in uncomforta
ble positions, burning, scalding or forced
ingestion (for example, washing children’s mouths o
ut with soap or forcing them to swallow
hot spices). In the view of the Committee, corpora
l punishment is invariably degrading. In
addition, there are other non-physical forms of pun
ishment that are also cruel and
degrading and thus incompatible with the Convention
...”
https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?Index=no&command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=1016557&SecMode=1&DocId=1318136&Usage=2 (https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?Index=no&command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=1016557&SecMode=1&DocId=1318136&Usage=2)
I agree with the sentiment that the "trying to educate" implies that the parents who agree with smacking to be uneducated or unable to reason NOT that they would choose that given other choices.
A mother with three young kids in the doctor's surgery today.
I witnessed a lot of attempts to stop her kids being naughty. Ranging from telling her daughters that she would get the police to arrest them to rewarding them with a toy to distract them.
It did not stop them and i was not impressed. At one point, I said to one of the who was pulling another off balance by her clothes 'i really don't think she likes that", to which she let go and gave me a frightened slack jawed look. Mind you I have a throat infection and a croaky voice.
I was funny, it reminded me of this thread for some reason
-
"trying to educate", Means taking away rights and passing laws, to prevent people from acting in a way you don't like.
-
Matter of fact, THIS is how I plan to raise any kids i'll have. Try and stop me and I will literally kill you. Seriously, folks. Mind your own fucking business.
TFS Dragon Ball Z Abridged (Ep 5) !DODGE! HD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6npO-NoOPOg#ws)
-
Hahahaha, Gotta love TeamFourStar!
It's a shame really that they only made 3 episodes of Hellsing Ultimate Abridged!
"Get that Bitch a Cannon... Bitches LOVE Cannons"! >:D
-
Eh. They might make more.
-
The European Commission of Human Rights document is not really relevant to other parts of the world. It is relevant to me in UK because the Uk is in the European Union.
Fair enough. This would be very problematic in the US. There's still corporal punishment in the schools, not just spankings but those nasty little isolation rooms. The department of children's services has a bad reputation as it is; can't imagine them mandating such a law.
-
The European Commission of Human Rights document is not really relevant to other parts of the world. It is relevant to me in UK because the Uk is in the European Union.
Fair enough. This would be very problematic in the US. There's still corporal punishment in the schools, not just spankings but those nasty little isolation rooms. The department of children's services has a bad reputation as it is; can't imagine them mandating such a law.
Isolation rooms? are they medical rooms?
-
Locked in an empty room; maybe some work to do. Thinking I first heard of it here from Callaway bringing it up. Never knew such a thing existed until looking it up. It's not extremely common but not uncommon either...can't remember exactly, though that's true of corporal punishment too. It's not everywhere. It made me wonder if the parents are even aware those rooms exist, since have never heard of it until a couple years ago.
-
Sounds a bit dodgy.
-
You mean you don't believe it?
-
Na just mean it sounds like ....something kept hush hush!
-
Yes, made me wonder that. Maybe not. Parents are informed about corporal punishment policy in schools that still have it, so maybe those schools have a little section in their school handbook about their creepy isolation policy. It's dumbfounding either way, really.
-
Really hope some naughty person comes forward now who got the isolation treatment! I *need* to know what goes on in there now! It's a wonder it has never been the source of a good book or film. :laugh:
-
This is what Callaway said about them. Seeing now it wasn't learned from her; not sure where.
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,16916.30.html (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,16916.30.html)
-
If I remember correctly, there was this Jewish school who used shock treatment (irony) on their special needs students.
We had a discussion about it her in 2006. Somewhere. Probably in the AS advocacy section.
-
From the childs POV they will learn that you can hit people who are smaller than you!
:agreed:
Once saw a mother "play" with her kid. Spanking play. She slapped the kid, not hard, no pain, but the movement was there. And the kid was supposed to like it. The moment the kid, a toddler, mimicked his mum, and did to her what she did to him, she told him he was not allowed to do that, because he was just a kid.
I turned out completely wild of course, because of lack of physical punishment. :hyke:
My kids will turn out just as feral.
Kids hurt themselves enough, when going in the wrong. No need to ad to that with a smack.
My kids did not learn that lesson.
Nor did they turn out traumatised for it.
Nor did they pick on other kids on that basis.
So I am not sure, how them being the recipients of smacks on the bottom when they were naughty, relates to the above. It does not sound causal as it seems to be framed? Is it supposed to be?
I was not talking about your kids. Plenty of kids have had a smack on the bottom and turned out OK.
Have only once see someone do what I described, and I was quite abhorred by it. The mother actively taught her sons that hitting is allowed when you are bigger and have more power. It was as a cartoonesque show of how hitting does have to do with power. Those boys did turn out quite feral on the playground btw.
Of course, disciplining my kids has to do with power too. In the end, I am the parent, and sometimes that is the only reason they have to comply with what I say. Discussion about that can be done later, when heads have cooled and the night is over.
Disciplining differs a lot per kid. For my youngest, I have to let her rage, calm down, realise what she has done, apologise, and, then I let her think up a punishment for herself. She is very harsh on herself, so, I take away a chunk of her punishment, and make half of what is left probational. Works well. For the oldest that would not work at all.
Growling, yes, I do growl, my kids growl at me too, now and then. As long as we can talk and get back to normal, that is OK. They have to learn to defend themselves. And, I as a parent, do make mistakes. Nothing wrong with my kids realising that. They make mistakes too, and I love them no less for that.
-
Yes i see what you are saying Elle.
I went on a triple p parenting course in Jan and interestingly one of the things the tutor said was "back in the days when we used to hit our children" I just had a quick look and i can't find one course in the UK that advocates physical punishments like smacking.
The UN Human Rights Act promotes that children ought to have the same rights as adults, and that would mean a ban on smacking.
some mid west pastor writes books on parenting. He has come under a lot of fire lately for children dying because of his methods.
I wish I remembered the name.
That guy advising not to feed a crying infant, because the crying infant is not respecting its parent?
Forgot his name too, and the name of the movement he was in. Worldwide footage in the papers about that couple of years ago.
-
My dad smacked me when I was a toddler, I reacted totally different from the effect wanted. :laugh:
He had hated doing the smacking. So, he found other ways to discipline me.
When he told about the times he got smacked or beaten with a rod as a kid, he only remembered one just beating, the others he remembered had been unfair, and that had made a way bigger impression on him.
His dad apologising to him, after an unjust beating did do him a lot of good though. Also because his dad changed his smacking policy afterwards. The teacher and his rod at school, my dad never got over hating that man and his unjust ways.
-
This is what Callaway said about them. Seeing now it wasn't learned from her; not sure where.
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,16916.30.html (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,16916.30.html)
:o that gave me goose bumps on my arms, that is more awful than i had imagined.
-
Yes i see what you are saying Elle.
I went on a triple p parenting course in Jan and interestingly one of the things the tutor said was "back in the days when we used to hit our children" I just had a quick look and i can't find one course in the UK that advocates physical punishments like smacking.
The UN Human Rights Act promotes that children ought to have the same rights as adults, and that would mean a ban on smacking.
some mid west pastor writes books on parenting. He has come under a lot of fire lately for children dying because of his methods.
I wish I remembered the name.
That guy advising not to feed a crying infant, because the crying infant is not respecting its parent?
Forgot his name too, and the name of the movement he was in. Worldwide footage in the papers about that couple of years ago.
His name is Gary Ezzo and he is an evil prick. Babies have died because of his methods, I'm amazed the sale of his book hasn't been outlawed.
-
My kids slept through the night from 4 and 5 weeks on. No need for the methods of that man.
-
My kids slept through the night from 4 and 5 weeks on. No need for the methods of that man.
My daughter started sleeping through the night by herself too.
-
My kids slept through the night from 4 and 5 weeks on. No need for the methods of that man.
My daughter started sleeping through the night by herself too.
How old is she?
* heading off to question thread now *
-
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/kyshia-cammock-fired-little-folks-3211029 (http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/kyshia-cammock-fired-little-folks-3211029)
Going back to earlier this is a story about a woman who lost her job because she smacked her own child. This is absurd and very stupid but it is a sign of the times.
Also, it is not uncommon for people to report to social services (in spite) such incidents and they then have a duty to investigate. An investigation entails unannounced spot checks at school and at home and questioning your child. In other words - hassle!
-
I don't know. Is it just me BUT when they too, use the framing of child abuse or murdering rates and corporal punishment....it kind of feels (tell me I am wrong by all means) that they may be throwing in spanking a child's bottom with hitting , beating and bloody murder. i am trying not to be biased or sensitive over this but when they say that since introducing anti-spanking laws there has been less deaths...it kind of points to spanking being related to deaths?
Does spanking a child (giving three controlled smacks on the bottom for bad behaviour for example cause death? No bottoms falling off or heart attacks or anything? No, no then what? Oh these particular people smacked their kids but ALSO did stuff that ought to be banned like beating them senseless. Was it smacking bottoms or beating them senseless that killed the children? Money on the later.
Was there research into their own methods or questions about their effectiveness or their preferred parenting method? I did not see it in the article.
Sounds a little slanted...more than a little.
It's not what they are saying, though, mate. Not what they are saying at all, as far as I can see.
-
I don't know. Is it just me BUT when they too, use the framing of child abuse or murdering rates and corporal punishment....it kind of feels (tell me I am wrong by all means) that they may be throwing in spanking a child's bottom with hitting , beating and bloody murder. i am trying not to be biased or sensitive over this but when they say that since introducing anti-spanking laws there has been less deaths...it kind of points to spanking being related to deaths?
Does spanking a child (giving three controlled smacks on the bottom for bad behaviour for example cause death? No bottoms falling off or heart attacks or anything? No, no then what? Oh these particular people smacked their kids but ALSO did stuff that ought to be banned like beating them senseless. Was it smacking bottoms or beating them senseless that killed the children? Money on the later.
Was there research into their own methods or questions about their effectiveness or their preferred parenting method? I did not see it in the article.
Sounds a little slanted...more than a little.
;)
(http://img1.ak.crunchyroll.com/i/spire2/4c6a3ea808acad7b76920c4823c2d94f1357547785_full.jpg)
Physically and mentally. Its happening.
What a shame. This was a nice thread and a good read, until you invoked Godwin's Law. Now it's over.
And yes, you'll probably defend your post and tell me how your post was appropriate and on topic, but then, they all do.
-
If I remember correctly, there was this Jewish school who used shock treatment (irony) on their special needs students.
We had a discussion about it her in 2006. Somewhere. Probably in the AS advocacy section.
Judge Rotenberg Educational Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Rotenberg_Educational_Center)
Cunts. >:(
-
:indeed:
Weren't there schools using comfort blankets as punishment also?
I vaguely remember a school doing that without then taking care of the kid, leaving it to die, suffocating in what was meant as a comfort tool.
-
Ah, here it is http://www.blisstree.com/2008/06/20/mental-health-well-being/boy-dies-wrapped-in-weighted-blanket/ (http://www.blisstree.com/2008/06/20/mental-health-well-being/boy-dies-wrapped-in-weighted-blanket/)
Bringing those people to a boil on a stove is too easy a fate for them.
-
They don't have to be boiled quickly.
-
That is true. The slower the boiling process, the least likely they will try to escape.
I do think there needs to be a heavy glass lid on the kettle.
-
I do think they should try to escape. They should try their very damnest. Much more enjoyable that way.
-
kebab them :orly:
-
I do think they should try to escape. They should try their very damnest. Much more enjoyable that way.
I hardly ever have tendencies to torture, but in this case, yes, I'd like them to simmer for a long time, once the temperature of the water has gotten to that level where they realise they need to get out asap.
-
I do think they should try to escape. They should try their very damnest. Much more enjoyable that way.
I hardly ever have tendencies to torture, but in this case, yes, I'd like them to simmer for a long time, once the temperature of the water has gotten to that level where they realise they need to get out asap.
Torture? I wouldn't do such a thing! This is for their own good.
-
I do think they should try to escape. They should try their very damnest. Much more enjoyable that way.
I hardly ever have tendencies to torture, but in this case, yes, I'd like them to simmer for a long time, once the temperature of the water has gotten to that level where they realise they need to get out asap.
Torture? I wouldn't do such a thing! This is for their own good.
:laugh:
Aye, they have time to repent, before they leave the world of the living.
-
Surely it won't be harmful, only educational?
-
We'll leave them to simmer, and will check on them half a day later. :M
-
Or later, if everything is quiet and they've accepted their punishment. :M
-
No need to go in as long as they make noises, indeed. :M
-
The only suitable punishment for someone who would deprive others of their liberties in order to increase their own, is DEATH. I know this seems asinine, but it is the only effective way to stop this kind of filth.
-
If I remember correctly, there was this Jewish school who used shock treatment (irony) on their special needs students.
We had a discussion about it her in 2006. Somewhere. Probably in the AS advocacy section.
Judge Rotenberg Educational Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Rotenberg_Educational_Center)
Cunts. >:(
i remember that I went on a email campaign contacting several Jewish influence groups about their methods. Including the Simon Wiesenthal museum of tolerance.
I also, believe this was the main reason for the startup of THE WRONGED-AS advocacy forum.
-
Kind of wish they had an isolation room when I was going to school :apondering:. I would have acted up just to get put in there away from the other kids.
I was a weird child. :autism:
-
Kind of wish they had an isolation room when I was going to school :apondering:. I would have acted up just to get put in there away from the other kids.
I was a weird child. :autism:
Depends what kind of isolation it is. Locked up with someone guarding the door, as if you are kept prison, it would have completely freaked me out.
The option my kid has in primary school, to leave the classroom, and find a more quiet spot to work, that I would have loved indeed. And, when upset, there are hide-out places too.
-
If I remember correctly, there was this Jewish school who used shock treatment (irony) on their special needs students.
We had a discussion about it her in 2006. Somewhere. Probably in the AS advocacy section.
Judge Rotenberg Educational Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Rotenberg_Educational_Center)
Cunts. >:(
i remember that I went on a email campaign contacting several Jewish influence groups about their methods. Including the Simon Wiesenthal museum of tolerance.
I also, believe this was the main reason for the startup of THE WRONGED-AS advocacy forum.
Ah, yes. Whatever happened to that one?
-
None of the Jewish groups got back with me.
And the wronged is probably defunct, like DD.
-
None of the Jewish groups got back with me.
And the wronged is probably defunct, like DD.
It is
-
That's a bit sad. Not unexpected but sad. Spazzes are not the kind of group to keep any kind of activism going for long.
-
That's a bit sad. Not unexpected but sad. Spazzes are not the kind of group to keep any kind of activism going for long.
unless you take one of their sock puppets. :lol1:
-
That's a bit sad. Not unexpected but sad. Spazzes are not the kind of group to keep any kind of activism going for long.
unless you take one of their sock puppets. :lol1:
:lol1:
-
If I remember correctly, there was this Jewish school who used shock treatment (irony) on their special needs students.
We had a discussion about it her in 2006. Somewhere. Probably in the AS advocacy section.
Th JRC, as mentioned.
The way the place is run pulls for abusiveness. I think employees have to sign some kind of NDA, even. It's horrifying.
I would never condone kids being taken away from their family because they spanked them. That would harm a lot of children. That would be silly and achieve nothing.
Then what would be the legal consequences for spanking? Small fine similar to a parking ticket? How many tickets is too many?
The goal of such a law is to prevent it from happening rather than introducing petty fines with the expectation that the law will be ignored.
It seems that the countries who have already taken steps to ban all forms of corporal punishment have had desirable effects. The focus being on education more than prosecution.
This article is a little dated, (2002) but does give an idea of how the policy has been working in places like Sweden.
http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/news/725230/ (http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/news/725230/)
Laws against physically punishing children have been used to educate parents rather than prosecute them. Jackie Cosh reports
Aban on smacking children was implemented in Sweden in 1979. Since then only four children have been killed after being assaulted by an adult, and only one of these was at the hands of a parent - one child in 23 years, compared with Britain's one child a week.
I'd like to know Sweden's baseline, though. It's a powerful statistic, but it's backed up by comparing apples and oranges.
-
I think there is less spanking of kids in Sweden than in most other countries. It's incredibly hard to know anything about child abuse of any kind, though. It's not like people tell you that they beat or are getting beaten.
-
Yes and the obvious flaw. Does smacking a childs backside for being naughty have the slightest correlation to child being beaten to deat?
-
Yes and the obvious flaw. Does smacking a childs backside for being naughty have the slightest correlation to child being beaten to deat?
The only connection is the desire people have to decide how to run everyone else's lives.
-
Yes and the obvious flaw. Does smacking a childs backside for being naughty have the slightest correlation to child being beaten to deat?
You are missing the point. They aren't talking about that kid being beaten to death, they are talking about indirectly preventing violent crimes later in life.
-
Yes and the obvious flaw. Does smacking a childs backside for being naughty have the slightest correlation to child being beaten to deat?
The only connection is the desire people have to decide how to run everyone else's lives.
Especially the kid's. S/he is the one who doesn't have a choice.
-
Yes and the obvious flaw. Does smacking a childs backside for being naughty have the slightest correlation to child being beaten to deat?
You are missing the point. They aren't talking about that kid being beaten to death, they are talking about indirectly preventing violent crimes later in life.
Replying to my own reply, here, but... I am talking about the overall statistics. The changed laws and their effects were big news, once, but the real benefit as advocated had less to do with the number of kids surviving childhood and more with the number of violent crimes later on. Lit, correct me if I remember this wrong.
-
I think that is correct.
-
Yes and the obvious flaw. Does smacking a childs backside for being naughty have the slightest correlation to child being beaten to deat?
You are missing the point. They aren't talking about that kid being beaten to death, they are talking about indirectly preventing violent crimes later in life.
Replying to my own reply, here, but... I am talking about the overall statistics. The changed laws and their effects were big news, once, but the real benefit as advocated had less to do with the number of kids surviving childhood and more with the number of violent crimes later on. Lit, correct me if I remember this wrong.
I dunno whether there is a causal relationship with this either. Are we saying that parents who smack their children if they are naughty also teach bad values and so forth to children or conversely that the parents who don't smack their children teach their kids good values?
One does not seem in my mind to lend the other.
-
He means that if children are beaten they will be more prone to use violence themselves.
-
Less tolerated violence leads to less violence in general.
-
I also think so.
-
Sure.
So of those statistical figures how many were beaten and how many were smacked on the bottom, solely, and as punishment? No division? Then the figures do not really lend much to the spanking debate do they?
They are as relevant as lumping all those people having sex in with rapists because they too have sex and trying to make figures statistics based around those that do not and will not rape. It is probably not even worth defending imho.
-
But that's exactly why they are relevant. Their argument is that spanking, including smacking on the bottom, is a problem, and their statistics show that the actions taken to remove that problem are effective.
They are also, in effect, saying that they'd rather protect kids from severe beatings than argue the semantics. Not all of the kids in the statistics are being beaten (they are only "smacked") but by banning it all instead of getting caught in an argument about what is considered spanking, they do ascertain that there is no grey zone and thus will be able to protect the kids.
Me, I think it's a good thing to give the kids the same rights as the grown-ups.
-
Children are the last members of society to be granted the human rights we enjoy as adults.
Striking a child with an open hand is still a violent act. Granted it can be done with minimum force but the idea to cause pain is still there.
When kids do it to each other it is called bullying. When adults do it then it's called assault.
There is also the humiliation associated with it. Probably not an issue for some, but i'm sure plenty of kids get smacked in front of their siblings which is a double whammy - pain and humiliation.
-
But that's exactly why they are relevant. Their argument is that spanking, including smacking on the bottom, is a problem, and their statistics show that the actions taken to remove that problem are effective.
They are also, in effect, saying that they'd rather protect kids from severe beatings than argue the semantics. Not all of the kids in the statistics are being beaten (they are only "smacked") but by banning it all instead of getting caught in an argument about what is considered spanking, they do ascertain that there is no grey zone and thus will be able to protect the kids.
Me, I think it's a good thing to give the kids the same rights as the grown-ups.
I could possibly make a similar argument for sexual abstinence saying that sexual gratification leads to rape. Some people seeking sexual gratification will be rapists and rape is a form of sexual gratification, therefore let's not argue the semantics of rape being an assault rather than a sexual act nor the intent nor the type of sexual gratification. Call sexual gratification on everything and be done with it.
I think that type of argument doesn't deserve a serious defense. I think if anyone were to commission a statistician and drive this kind of ideology....then they could possibly make some kind of a case for dropping any form of sexual gratification and pointing to non-rapists in the larger group of people who do indulge in sexual gratification, as tarred with the same brush as rapists who do.
Children are the last members of society to be granted the human rights we enjoy as adults.
Striking a child with an open hand is still a violent act. Granted it can be done with minimum force but the idea to cause pain is still there.
When kids do it to each other it is called bullying. When adults do it then it's called assault.
There is also the humiliation associated with it. Probably not an issue for some, but i'm sure plenty of kids get smacked in front of their siblings which is a double whammy - pain and humiliation.
I see things differently. I see you lumping in again, and hey that is OK Bodie, you don't have to believe what I believe. You want to believe that Smacking a bottom is a violent act and its idea is to cause pain and humiliate then you are wrong. That is ok. You do not have to be right.
I could say similar that a man smacking a lady's bottom is violent (especially with an open hand) the idea is to cause pain and further it is equivalent to slapping the face (which also uses an open hand) and is a mere hop step and a jump to beating a spouse to death.....
Except of course for a minor point that I have it completely wrong.
If I was to hold on tightly to this opinion, that would be ok. I would still have a right to believe what i want to believe.
-
It is an argument they have made, though, Al, and one they have made well in that the statistics do show a provable decline in violent crime as a result. I, for one, think it is a commendable result.
I have yet to smack my kids for any purpose, but they have turned out all right, in my opinion. To me, that suggests that it is possible to foster children without smacking them. They do me proud every day.
Is it the only way? No idea. It is the only way I know of, and my kids are not worse off than kids that were smacked. They know the difference between right and wrong, and they listen to their parents. How does one measure such things?
And yes, by all means, make that argument about sexual abstinence. Provide the statistics and see if you can make a difference. See if there is legislation to be made, see if it leads somewhere. Me, I don't really believe in it because to me, it is you being a devil's advocate, but anything is possible. Although I remain so unconvinced that I don't think it really warrants a serious response.
-
I see things differently. I see you lumping in again, and hey that is OK Bodie, you don't have to believe what I believe. You want to believe that Smacking a bottom is a violent act and its idea is to cause pain and humiliate then you are wrong. That is ok. You do not have to be right.
I could say similar that a man smacking a lady's bottom is violent (especially with an open hand) the idea is to cause pain and further it is equivalent to slapping the face (which also uses an open hand) and is a mere hop step and a jump to beating a spouse to death.....
Except of course for a minor point that I have it completely wrong.
If I was to hold on tightly to this opinion, that would be ok. I would still have a right to believe what i want to believe.
I don't know why people smack childrens bottoms. Never done it. I can only imagine it is to cause a certain amount of pain otherwise what would be the point? The word 'smack' means to strike with an open hand or flat object. Are you saying there is another purpose to it? if so, what?
As far as humiliation goes then i guess it depends on if there are witnesses or not. Not really sure if it is often used to humiliate, only that it could be very humiliating if done in front of others.
Lumping together, yes. Only because creating grey areas is unworkable. How do you measure a smack? I can't think of a way where a smack can be seperated into acceptable and unacceptable force. I do know the difference but for the purpose of the law it makes sense to lump it together if it means children suffer less abuse.
I am not obsessed with being right. I can't make you believe the stats and the research that shows a marked reduction in abuse to children. You can chose to dismiss it. You can remain suspicious of it. I happen to believe this is a move in the right direction. That feels 'right' to me.
-
It is an argument they have made, though, Al, and one they have made well in that the statistics do show a provable decline in violent crime as a result. I, for one, think it is a commendable result.
I have yet to smack my kids for any purpose, but they have turned out all right, in my opinion. To me, that suggests that it is possible to foster children without smacking them. They do me proud every day.
Is it the only way? No idea. It is the only way I know of, and my kids are not worse off than kids that were smacked. They know the difference between right and wrong, and they listen to their parents. How does one measure such things?
And yes, by all means, make that argument about sexual abstinence. Provide the statistics and see if you can make a difference. See if there is legislation to be made, see if it leads somewhere. Me, I don't really believe in it because to me, it is you being a devil's advocate, but anything is possible. Although I remain so unconvinced that I don't think it really warrants a serious response.
My kids are not worse than kids who were never smacked and do me proud. They too know the difference of right and wrong. My style of parenting has seemed to pay off well too.
But then I have not once objected to parents NOT smacking their children or pointed this as a failing.
The problem with the argument is simply that it tries to draw parallels that I do not believe exist.
That is OK. Basically to me the statistics are always questionable and should be examined. When I hear things like smacking is hitting, Smacking alluded to being a violent act used to cause pain, Smacking and beating as being put in the same box as it were, then, I look at stats like this and think "I wonder, the person or group writing this statistical report, were they doing the same? What did they consider smacking? Were they showing kids who were smacked for being naughty, or kids who were smacked and beaten? Were they showing kids who were smacked on the bottom as a form of parenting (teaching aversion to wrong behaviours) or kids who were "smacked around" for sadistic thrill, nastiness, spite, due to anything else? If this is right, then what pool of kids are we working with and what percentage of the kids that were ONLY smacked on the bottom (as a parenting style of teaching aversion to bad behaviours) made up that portion of violent kids? How did that compare overall?
I am betting that this was kind of not bothered with or examined or even bought up because it did not matter in the big scheme of things. It was easier to lump them in. That is OK too. I do not agree with this, but I don't have to.
But in respect to the hypothetical. Yes this is not something I am remotely invested in. People get sexual gratification, great. Non-issue.
EXCEPT....it makes a point. If we say that rapists try to gratify themselves sexually, and that makes sexual gratification as a whole wrong , then we can say "Whoah wait up, not all sexuality is bad or wrong. Rapists are wrong. Being sexually active does not predispose you to be a rapist nor does it predispose the people you are sexually involved with becoming rape victims. Rapists do not deserve to be smearing this group and whatever claims you make against this group (people who get sexual gratification) ought not ride shotgun with rapists. It is unfair. One is not the other. It is agenda and value spinning and to an extent possibly more than a little biased if not dishonest"
Statistics? It would make no difference what stats I attached to this, even were I to research it enough to place relevant figures on. The point of course has nothing to do with Sexual Abstinence or its merits but rather making key assumptions and working from there is key. By working from the position of people seeking sexual gratification, who are we talking about? The rapist, the person having a wank, the porn actor/actress, the prostitute, the pedophile, the loving couple? all of them but none of them are the same, motives, methods, intent, types of sex, everything is up for grabs and inclusive. No excluding the couple away from the rapist because that would not further the ills of sexual gratification.
I question the stats and the general mindset that tries to say no smacking = good, smacking = bad, Smacking = Hitting = Beating = Assault = whatever. I have seen that here in the thread, i disagree with it. But then I tend to disagree with such cut n dried argument especially where it looks like their is an ideological position involved. I think it generally shows oversimplification and a skewing or bias of information to back a claim.
-
I see things differently. I see you lumping in again, and hey that is OK Bodie, you don't have to believe what I believe. You want to believe that Smacking a bottom is a violent act and its idea is to cause pain and humiliate then you are wrong. That is ok. You do not have to be right.
I could say similar that a man smacking a lady's bottom is violent (especially with an open hand) the idea is to cause pain and further it is equivalent to slapping the face (which also uses an open hand) and is a mere hop step and a jump to beating a spouse to death.....
Except of course for a minor point that I have it completely wrong.
If I was to hold on tightly to this opinion, that would be ok. I would still have a right to believe what i want to believe.
I don't know why people smack childrens bottoms. Never done it. I can only imagine it is to cause a certain amount of pain otherwise what would be the point? The word 'smack' means to strike with an open hand or flat object. Are you saying there is another purpose to it? if so, what?
As far as humiliation goes then i guess it depends on if there are witnesses or not. Not really sure if it is often used to humiliate, only that it could be very humiliating if done in front of others.
Lumping together, yes. Only because creating grey areas is unworkable. How do you measure a smack? I can't think of a way where a smack can be seperated into acceptable and unacceptable force. I do know the difference but for the purpose of the law it makes sense to lump it together if it means children suffer less abuse.
I am not obsessed with being right. I can't make you believe the stats and the research that shows a marked reduction in abuse to children. You can chose to dismiss it. You can remain suspicious of it. I happen to believe this is a move in the right direction. That feels 'right' to me.
What is your purpose for the parenting methods you have? Not to humiliate or cause your child pain? You know I have possibly not used the exact methods you have either but I would not for a second jump in and say that the way you parent is used to hurt/humiliate/scar your child mentally for life. Why do you think that is? No, honestly Bodie. I have no knowledge of what methods you use. It could be massive psychological mind fucking, just not smacking. I don't know and I do not guess.
So I would not for a second jump in and say that the way you parent is used to hurt/humiliate/scar your child mentally for life. Why do you think that is?
You do what feels right for you and i presume you to be a responsible parent who loves your boy and parents him best you know how and are rewarded for your efforts in getting the results you want. Like me.
Lumping in together creates grey areas? I don't think so. Unworkable? No I again disagree.
-
You know I have possibly not used the exact methods you have either but I would not for a second jump in and say that the way you parent is used to hurt/humiliate/scar your child mentally for life. Why do you think that is?
Did i imply this about you? You say you have used smacking as a parenting method, but you seem to take offence at the words i use to describe it - corporal punishment, spanking, smacking, hitting? What word is it that describes what you mean? I ask you if the reason behind hitting is to hurt because it's the only reason i know. Show me where i implied you were using humiliation and scarring children mentally for life? It was a genuine question with no implications intended.
No worries, i lose interest in discussions when people put words in my mouth.
-
There seems to be a lot of people here that confuse themselves bodie!
although they are the same people over and over!
You make a general statement and then everyone and their dog are accusing you of targetting them!
It almost makes me laugh out loud... almost!
-
I don't really understand the response either, maybe a misunderstanding. I certainly did not mean to imply
anything like that.
-
I'm sure you didn't, it seems to be the hallmark of autism that people take things so damn personally!
People should learn to READ better, and comprehend the meanings of grammar and syntax!
-
I think kids need a little spanking every now and then.
-
You would think that Gary!
That's why you don't live in the UK anymore!!!! Because you like "spanking" them kids too much!!!!
-
The problem with the argument is simply that it tries to draw parallels that I do not believe exist.
But which they claim do exist, and they also claim to have the numbers that prove it.
Now, you say that you are sceptical of statistics. That is a wise course of action. So am I. But it does form proof of sorts and if you want to contest it, you have to provide your own to counter it. That's the way debates work, you know that. All that back up your shit stuff.
-
Excellent debate folks. No winners. Just an exchange of ideas.
:popcorn:
-
Excellent debate folks. No winners. Just an exchange of ideas.
:popcorn:
I always fucking win.
-
Excellent debate folks. No winners. Just an exchange of ideas.
:popcorn:
I always fucking win.
even in Vietnam nam?
-
You know I have possibly not used the exact methods you have either but I would not for a second jump in and say that the way you parent is used to hurt/humiliate/scar your child mentally for life. Why do you think that is?
Did i imply this about you? You say you have used smacking as a parenting method, but you seem to take offence at the words i use to describe it - corporal punishment, spanking, smacking, hitting? What word is it that describes what you mean? I ask you if the reason behind hitting is to hurt because it's the only reason i know. Show me where i implied you were using humiliation and scarring children mentally for life? It was a genuine question with no implications intended.
No worries, i lose interest in discussions when people put words in my mouth.
Not that I have. Or did you misunderstand what I was saying?
Was not sure whether this was your way of asking whether I was saying that I accused you of saying "i implied you were using humiliation and scarring children mentally for life?" or were you accusing me of implying "you were using humiliation and scarring children mentally for life?"
If the latter, I wasn't. If the former, no.
What I am saying is that I do not seek to pass judgement on your parenting style nor question its appropriateness and assume your intentions are good and you have the best interests of your child. That you do the best you can.
Now I also say I do not know your specific parenting methods (apart from a reward system you implemented once that had at least some effect with him at school when he was having issues there). I am not overly interested but will happily join in support discussions around this and have in the past. I am a parent too, after all.
Now IF I knew your parenting styles I could presume any particular form of punishment or whatever as a reprehensible act and ascribe it rather weighted and mean-spirited and harmful intent and being devoid of having any interests for the child for the purposes of mentally scarring the child or hurting their feelings or humiliating them (I have posted on this very thread the different ways this can be done. Parenting action condemned and so on). I don't. It is not that I could not make a half baked claim to that end, that anything you do to parent your child may be unfairly questioned as wrong.
You could say "Well sure, but I do not make those judgement or presume bad intent to you and your intentions or interests of your child either"
Then without placing words into your mouth I will cut and paste a couple of examples where you have done this.
If you do want to take your leave of this thread, by all means but stating you are losing interest because I am placing words into your mouth is pretty weak I would have thought
-
I'm sure you didn't, it seems to be the hallmark of autism that people take things so damn personally!
People should learn to READ better, and comprehend the meanings of grammar and syntax!
Goes both ways of course. The critic does not understand and so criticises what is written and assumes that the fault lays with the writer.
-
The problem with the argument is simply that it tries to draw parallels that I do not believe exist.
But which they claim do exist, and they also claim to have the numbers that prove it.
Now, you say that you are sceptical of statistics. That is a wise course of action. So am I. But it does form proof of sorts and if you want to contest it, you have to provide your own to counter it. That's the way debates work, you know that. All that back up your shit stuff.
Yes I am skeptical of the statistics. Let me ask though, in all honesty. If the agenda of the people was to "prove" such an end and there is no stats to accommodate the questions I ask in either the affirmative or negative, then you are not saying that without such access to such figures I am expected to retrieve "evidence" or "figures" out of thin air to back it.
If "corporal punishment" for example is used to include random furious beatings and also smacking bottoms when kids are naughty I call foul. If this is what is being assessed then I dismiss it. If there is a tarring with the same brush or muddying waters then those stats are redundant to what point they try top make with smacking bottoms.
-
It is, of course, possible to prove pretty much anything using statistics, but I doubt this is one of those cases. Here's the basic A/B comparison:
Smacking/spanking/etc allowed: crime rates/etc value at year XXXX is "X"
Smacking/spanking/etc banned: crime rates/etc value at year YYYY is "Y"
The years and their respective values are not numbers in any way controlled by the lawmakers. They are yearly statistics. They are also numbers that can be obtained in similar manner from other countries, as reported by the other country.
Now, if Y<X, I'm sure you agree that in principle it means the new legislation works. Note that since they avoid the issue of defining "smacking" as opposed to "hitting" by making them equal for the purposes of the new law, any smacking/spanking/etc is a crime and thus means every reported instance after the legislation was passed affects Y.
Of course, there is any number of other reasons for crime rates fluctuating so getting relevant numbers is hard. What causes what? Does one change correlate to the new figure or not?
So the easiest solution is to interpret the numbers using the same methods for both X and Y. With everything else being equal, the easiest explanation (attributing the smallest change) is likely (or at least possible) to be true.
It's not perfect but it's what we have.
What's the alternative? Well, you could say that "no, I don't believe 'smacking' is harmful to my child" and be right, but in a situation where the laws also are permissive enough to allow the person who *hits* his child or smacks it with intent to harm to go unpunished, the statistics will be skewed, but for you it will be in the wrong direction for what you were trying to prove.
So your burden of proof is actually much harder than mine. For my study, I have been able to say "ban it all" and watch what happens, but you have to a) define "smacking" as opposed to "hitting", b) provide the statistics that support you definitions, and c) interpret them in such a way that a comparison between them and my study is possible and relevant.
See the difference? If I choose to ban every form of smacking, regardless of definition, my work is easier, with everything else being equal, and I actually don't have to work the numbers as hard.
If we assume that both parties might work the numbers in their favour but the basic data is freely available, it should be easy to make a feasibility study.
What does this mean? Well, only that I do have the numbers and an accompanying study, but you don't. If you mean to prove me wrong, you'll be busy for quite some time.
-
Oh, and btw--I don't for a second think or mean to imply that you are in any way a bad parent, Al. I know you are a great Dad.
-
You know I have possibly not used the exact methods you have either but I would not for a second jump in and say that the way you parent is used to hurt/humiliate/scar your child mentally for life. Why do you think that is?
Did i imply this about you? You say you have used smacking as a parenting method, but you seem to take offence at the words i use to describe it - corporal punishment, spanking, smacking, hitting? What word is it that describes what you mean? I ask you if the reason behind hitting is to hurt because it's the only reason i know. Show me where i implied you were using humiliation and scarring children mentally for life? It was a genuine question with no implications intended.
No worries, i lose interest in discussions when people put words in my mouth.
Not that I have. Or did you misunderstand what I was saying?
Was not sure whether this was your way of asking whether I was saying that I accused you of saying "i implied you were using humiliation and scarring children mentally for life?" or were you accusing me of implying "you were using humiliation and scarring children mentally for life?"
If the latter, I wasn't. If the former, no.
What I am saying is that I do not seek to pass judgement on your parenting style nor question its appropriateness and assume your intentions are good and you have the best interests of your child. That you do the best you can.
Now I also say I do not know your specific parenting methods (apart from a reward system you implemented once that had at least some effect with him at school when he was having issues there). I am not overly interested but will happily join in support discussions around this and have in the past. I am a parent too, after all.
Now IF I knew your parenting styles I could presume any particular form of punishment or whatever as a reprehensible act and ascribe it rather weighted and mean-spirited and harmful intent and being devoid of having any interests for the child for the purposes of mentally scarring the child or hurting their feelings or humiliating them (I have posted on this very thread the different ways this can be done. Parenting action condemned and so on). I don't. It is not that I could not make a half baked claim to that end, that anything you do to parent your child may be unfairly questioned as wrong.
You could say "Well sure, but I do not make those judgement or presume bad intent to you and your intentions or interests of your child either"
Then without placing words into your mouth I will cut and paste a couple of examples where you have done this.
If you do want to take your leave of this thread, by all means but stating you are losing interest because I am placing words into your mouth is pretty weak I would have thought
Sorry i just don't have the patience to decipher your posts, it is so time consuming to pick through the ''what if's'' and ''suppose i'' and ''you could say'' and actually work out your point. If you can't talk straight without going round the wrekin then i would need a translator.
-
I have not been monitoring this heavily, but I will take a middle ground approach on the general subject, give the child a choice of punishment for a serious offense. They can either have a positive stimulus removed (loss of privileges, being sent to their room) or they can choose the aversive stimulus of a smacked bottom. Good, bad, what say you?
-
Ah but the child would have to be able to understand the question? Not easy for younger children.
I would have chosen to get a smack, all the time, then i would have been rubbing my bottom on my play station that i was allowed to keep :zoinks:
-
You know I have possibly not used the exact methods you have either but I would not for a second jump in and say that the way you parent is used to hurt/humiliate/scar your child mentally for life. Why do you think that is?
Did i imply this about you? You say you have used smacking as a parenting method, but you seem to take offence at the words i use to describe it - corporal punishment, spanking, smacking, hitting? What word is it that describes what you mean? I ask you if the reason behind hitting is to hurt because it's the only reason i know. Show me where i implied you were using humiliation and scarring children mentally for life? It was a genuine question with no implications intended.
No worries, i lose interest in discussions when people put words in my mouth.
Not that I have. Or did you misunderstand what I was saying?
Was not sure whether this was your way of asking whether I was saying that I accused you of saying "i implied you were using humiliation and scarring children mentally for life?" or were you accusing me of implying "you were using humiliation and scarring children mentally for life?"
If the latter, I wasn't. If the former, no.
What I am saying is that I do not seek to pass judgement on your parenting style nor question its appropriateness and assume your intentions are good and you have the best interests of your child. That you do the best you can.
Now I also say I do not know your specific parenting methods (apart from a reward system you implemented once that had at least some effect with him at school when he was having issues there). I am not overly interested but will happily join in support discussions around this and have in the past. I am a parent too, after all.
Now IF I knew your parenting styles I could presume any particular form of punishment or whatever as a reprehensible act and ascribe it rather weighted and mean-spirited and harmful intent and being devoid of having any interests for the child for the purposes of mentally scarring the child or hurting their feelings or humiliating them (I have posted on this very thread the different ways this can be done. Parenting action condemned and so on). I don't. It is not that I could not make a half baked claim to that end, that anything you do to parent your child may be unfairly questioned as wrong.
You could say "Well sure, but I do not make those judgement or presume bad intent to you and your intentions or interests of your child either"
Then without placing words into your mouth I will cut and paste a couple of examples where you have done this.
If you do want to take your leave of this thread, by all means but stating you are losing interest because I am placing words into your mouth is pretty weak I would have thought
Sorry i just don't have the patience to decipher your posts, it is so time consuming to pick through the ''what if's'' and ''suppose i'' and ''you could say'' and actually work out your point. If you can't talk straight without going round the wrekin then i would need a translator.
Did you really miss it? The point in this post seems to be that he's presented his presented his parental disciplinary style in this thread for discussion, and you haven't, but only argued against his.
-
Ah but the child would have to be able to understand the question? Not easy for younger children.
I would have chosen to get a smack, all the time, then i would have been rubbing my bottom on my play station that i was allowed to keep :zoinks:
It would be difficult for a child 2-3 to understand, but a school age child (the age where spanking is frequently used) at least 4-5 would likely understand the choice. The key would be to teach them about the general concept of choices as early as possible and even offer more choices as they got older.
-
I have not been monitoring this heavily, but I will take a middle ground approach on the general subject, give the child a choice of punishment for a serious offense. They can either have a positive stimulus removed (loss of privileges, being sent to their room) or they can choose the aversive stimulus of a smacked bottom. Good, bad, what say you?
Loss of privileged can be tricky; disagree with taking away things from children that were given to them as gifts.
-
Ooooh suits you sir! All this talk of spanking makes me want to wank my cock.
-
I have not been monitoring this heavily, but I will take a middle ground approach on the general subject, give the child a choice of punishment for a serious offense. They can either have a positive stimulus removed (loss of privileges, being sent to their room) or they can choose the aversive stimulus of a smacked bottom. Good, bad, what say you?
Loss of privileged can be tricky; disagree with taking away things from children that were given to them as gifts.
That was just an example of the removal of a positive stimulus, there are many other positive stimuli that can be removed.
-
I have not been monitoring this heavily, but I will take a middle ground approach on the general subject, give the child a choice of punishment for a serious offense. They can either have a positive stimulus removed (loss of privileges, being sent to their room) or they can choose the aversive stimulus of a smacked bottom. Good, bad, what say you?
Loss of privileged can be tricky; disagree with taking away things from children that were given to them as gifts.
That was just an example of the removal of a positive stimulus, there are many other positive stimuli that can be removed.
Is my cock positive stimulus?
-
It is, of course, possible to prove pretty much anything using statistics, but I doubt this is one of those cases. Here's the basic A/B comparison:
Smacking/spanking/etc allowed: crime rates/etc value at year XXXX is "X"
Smacking/spanking/etc banned: crime rates/etc value at year YYYY is "Y"
The years and their respective values are not numbers in any way controlled by the lawmakers. They are yearly statistics. They are also numbers that can be obtained in similar manner from other countries, as reported by the other country.
Now, if Y<X, I'm sure you agree that in principle it means the new legislation works. Note that since they avoid the issue of defining "smacking" as opposed to "hitting" by making them equal for the purposes of the new law, any smacking/spanking/etc is a crime and thus means every reported instance after the legislation was passed affects Y.
Of course, there is any number of other reasons for crime rates fluctuating so getting relevant numbers is hard. What causes what? Does one change correlate to the new figure or not?
So the easiest solution is to interpret the numbers using the same methods for both X and Y. With everything else being equal, the easiest explanation (attributing the smallest change) is likely (or at least possible) to be true.
It's not perfect but it's what we have.
What's the alternative? Well, you could say that "no, I don't believe 'smacking' is harmful to my child" and be right, but in a situation where the laws also are permissive enough to allow the person who *hits* his child or smacks it with intent to harm to go unpunished, the statistics will be skewed, but for you it will be in the wrong direction for what you were trying to prove.
So your burden of proof is actually much harder than mine. For my study, I have been able to say "ban it all" and watch what happens, but you have to a) define "smacking" as opposed to "hitting", b) provide the statistics that support you definitions, and c) interpret them in such a way that a comparison between them and my study is possible and relevant.
See the difference? If I choose to ban every form of smacking, regardless of definition, my work is easier, with everything else being equal, and I actually don't have to work the numbers as hard.
If we assume that both parties might work the numbers in their favour but the basic data is freely available, it should be easy to make a feasibility study.
What does this mean? Well, only that I do have the numbers and an accompanying study, but you don't. If you mean to prove me wrong, you'll be busy for quite some time.
Further than that, I think Odeon.
If I was to say that one child was beaten by both parents daily and over nothing, with randomness and ferocity. When they were "smacked" It was with extension cords and until they bled. Then I was to say that child number two was smacked on the bottom by an open hand not hard enough to mark them and only when they were naughty, and was stopped when they reached an age that they could be reasoned with. I think in this instance you are not talking about two children who were parented the same. I think that you could possibly see one becoming badly adjusted and dysfunctional whereas the other possibly would not be at the same risk.
But here is the kicker. If someone defines smacking to make both child one and two part of the same study group then any statistic reliant on the results will tar child two's upbringing with the upbringing of child one and likewise child two's behaviour will be tarred with that of child one. Sure I have no doubt that some of the kids like child two will be tearaways. But I would say that some kids who were not smacked will be affected.
But we can go further, I would assume that if the laws were passed preventing smacking that the culture around this had changed too. I still remember when breathalisers were introduced in Western Australia. It changed the drinking culture. People suddenly were aware that drinking a six pack at a friends and whilst watching the footy was needing to change. The really excessive drink drivers stopped risking it, because their time was up (mostly - exclusions to the general rule and all that not withstanding) . It did ask people to be mindful of what they drank before driving. Where they were excessive they got punished. A glass or two was no bother.
This may be similar to the change of culture just prior to the no spanking laws. When the culture or community was suddenly mindful of a problem. The types of parents who were like child number one's started becoming a rarity because they felt a lot more eyes on them. So the ones who remained where the ones not prepared to change.
Further still, if the community driving these changes (not making moral judgements to merits) were wanting to make the best cases then are they likely to water down the study groups by removing the parents like those of child number two away from the parents of child one or make them equally culpable? Are they going to consider child one and two's upbringing and criminal records the same? Sure it is easier.
Not fair. but easier.
Yes were I to I could, given time and research and enough drive find ways to qualify and quantify this to change results I think do not give decent figures as their definitions are too broad and their results too willing therefore to be interpreted too generally.
I could even perhaps suggest forms of non-smacking parenting approaches that are flawed and make a case for what they may prove. Being clever and with creative definitions, I am sure I could run down most non-smacking parenting available to parents. Would be completely unhelpful aside from a way to give parents an unfair needling.
But I am not so inclined. I can agree to disagree. I do not think that parents who are bad parents should be rewarded or let off from punishment. Do not know any adult who was bought up in abusive households living with fear, angst, pain and dread, that would be well disposed to their parents. I do know a lot of adults who say things like "I got an occasional smack on the bottom for being a little shit. but Mum and Dad were pretty cool" but I have yet to hear anyone say "When I was a little kid, I used to be bone tired when Dad finally pull up in the drive way. Late. He would make a racket coming in. He knew he was in trouble with Mum. I would shake because it was the moments of reprieve before the fights. I could not cry because I was about to go out and face him and stop him getting angry with Mum, because she was little, almost as short as me. When he was out I was the man of the home and protect her from noises outside. I had to protect her now because she was upset and scared. I was frightened. I came to love them both." Will not hear it from me, either
I think it is a little off collating them all together and I could define them differently 10 ways but it will not matter if they are included together for the definitions stipulated in the studies.
-
You know I have possibly not used the exact methods you have either but I would not for a second jump in and say that the way you parent is used to hurt/humiliate/scar your child mentally for life. Why do you think that is?
Did i imply this about you? You say you have used smacking as a parenting method, but you seem to take offence at the words i use to describe it - corporal punishment, spanking, smacking, hitting? What word is it that describes what you mean? I ask you if the reason behind hitting is to hurt because it's the only reason i know. Show me where i implied you were using humiliation and scarring children mentally for life? It was a genuine question with no implications intended.
No worries, i lose interest in discussions when people put words in my mouth.
Not that I have. Or did you misunderstand what I was saying?
Was not sure whether this was your way of asking whether I was saying that I accused you of saying "i implied you were using humiliation and scarring children mentally for life?" or were you accusing me of implying "you were using humiliation and scarring children mentally for life?"
If the latter, I wasn't. If the former, no.
What I am saying is that I do not seek to pass judgement on your parenting style nor question its appropriateness and assume your intentions are good and you have the best interests of your child. That you do the best you can.
Now I also say I do not know your specific parenting methods (apart from a reward system you implemented once that had at least some effect with him at school when he was having issues there). I am not overly interested but will happily join in support discussions around this and have in the past. I am a parent too, after all.
Now IF I knew your parenting styles I could presume any particular form of punishment or whatever as a reprehensible act and ascribe it rather weighted and mean-spirited and harmful intent and being devoid of having any interests for the child for the purposes of mentally scarring the child or hurting their feelings or humiliating them (I have posted on this very thread the different ways this can be done. Parenting action condemned and so on). I don't. It is not that I could not make a half baked claim to that end, that anything you do to parent your child may be unfairly questioned as wrong.
You could say "Well sure, but I do not make those judgement or presume bad intent to you and your intentions or interests of your child either"
Then without placing words into your mouth I will cut and paste a couple of examples where you have done this.
If you do want to take your leave of this thread, by all means but stating you are losing interest because I am placing words into your mouth is pretty weak I would have thought
Sorry i just don't have the patience to decipher your posts, it is so time consuming to pick through the ''what if's'' and ''suppose i'' and ''you could say'' and actually work out your point. If you can't talk straight without going round the wrekin then i would need a translator.
Did you really miss it? The point in this post seems to be that he's presented his presented his parental disciplinary style in this thread for discussion, and you haven't, but only argued against his.
Yes, if I was given Bodie's parenting methods, I am sure as hell I can shoot holes in this too. I showed a lot of examples earlier such as for example taking away toys for being naughty as teaching stealing to children. It could well be argued that this is what children are taught. If I was really Orly Tait type fanatical about this, i could probably drive this into the social discourse on parenting.
Give me a method and see how i go.
Would not be fair though would it. It would likely be making some very large assumptions on a lot of things I do not know about. For example would i be including children who had their toys thrown away? What about those that had their given to younger siblings? What about those that were locked away for a month, a week, a day? What about the ones who were keep out of reach until they stopped the naughty behaviour? What about those that earned the toy back in return for good behaviour.
See what i mean?
Now relate this back to the thread and you will see how stats do not tell the whole picture, how they can be used, and also importantly how definitions DO matter.
-
It is, of course, possible to prove pretty much anything using statistics, but I doubt this is one of those cases. Here's the basic A/B comparison:
Smacking/spanking/etc allowed: crime rates/etc value at year XXXX is "X"
Smacking/spanking/etc banned: crime rates/etc value at year YYYY is "Y"
The years and their respective values are not numbers in any way controlled by the lawmakers. They are yearly statistics. They are also numbers that can be obtained in similar manner from other countries, as reported by the other country.
Now, if Y<X, I'm sure you agree that in principle it means the new legislation works. Note that since they avoid the issue of defining "smacking" as opposed to "hitting" by making them equal for the purposes of the new law, any smacking/spanking/etc is a crime and thus means every reported instance after the legislation was passed affects Y.
Of course, there is any number of other reasons for crime rates fluctuating so getting relevant numbers is hard. What causes what? Does one change correlate to the new figure or not?
So the easiest solution is to interpret the numbers using the same methods for both X and Y. With everything else being equal, the easiest explanation (attributing the smallest change) is likely (or at least possible) to be true.
It's not perfect but it's what we have.
What's the alternative? Well, you could say that "no, I don't believe 'smacking' is harmful to my child" and be right, but in a situation where the laws also are permissive enough to allow the person who *hits* his child or smacks it with intent to harm to go unpunished, the statistics will be skewed, but for you it will be in the wrong direction for what you were trying to prove.
So your burden of proof is actually much harder than mine. For my study, I have been able to say "ban it all" and watch what happens, but you have to a) define "smacking" as opposed to "hitting", b) provide the statistics that support you definitions, and c) interpret them in such a way that a comparison between them and my study is possible and relevant.
See the difference? If I choose to ban every form of smacking, regardless of definition, my work is easier, with everything else being equal, and I actually don't have to work the numbers as hard.
If we assume that both parties might work the numbers in their favour but the basic data is freely available, it should be easy to make a feasibility study.
What does this mean? Well, only that I do have the numbers and an accompanying study, but you don't. If you mean to prove me wrong, you'll be busy for quite some time.
Further than that, I think Odeon.
If I was to say that one child was beaten by both parents daily and over nothing, with randomness and ferocity. When they were "smacked" It was with extension cords and until they bled. Then I was to say that child number two was smacked on the bottom by an open hand not hard enough to mark them and only when they were naughty, and was stopped when they reached an age that they could be reasoned with. I think in this instance you are not talking about two children who were parented the same. I think that you could possibly see one becoming badly adjusted and dysfunctional whereas the other possibly would not be at the same risk.
But here is the kicker. If someone defines smacking to make both child one and two part of the same study group then any statistic reliant on the results will tar child two's upbringing with the upbringing of child one and likewise child two's behaviour will be tarred with that of child one. Sure I have no doubt that some of the kids like child two will be tearaways. But I would say that some kids who were not smacked will be affected.
But we can go further, I would assume that if the laws were passed preventing smacking that the culture around this had changed too. I still remember when breathalisers were introduced in Western Australia. It changed the drinking culture. People suddenly were aware that drinking a six pack at a friends and whilst watching the footy was needing to change. The really excessive drink drivers stopped risking it, because their time was up (mostly - exclusions to the general rule and all that not withstanding) . It did ask people to be mindful of what they drank before driving. Where they were excessive they got punished. A glass or two was no bother.
This may be similar to the change of culture just prior to the no spanking laws. When the culture or community was suddenly mindful of a problem. The types of parents who were like child number one's started becoming a rarity because they felt a lot more eyes on them. So the ones who remained where the ones not prepared to change.
Further still, if the community driving these changes (not making moral judgements to merits) were wanting to make the best cases then are they likely to water down the study groups by removing the parents like those of child number two away from the parents of child one or make them equally culpable? Are they going to consider child one and two's upbringing and criminal records the same? Sure it is easier.
Not fair. but easier.
Yes were I to I could, given time and research and enough drive find ways to qualify and quantify this to change results I think do not give decent figures as their definitions are too broad and their results too willing therefore to be interpreted too generally.
I could even perhaps suggest forms of non-smacking parenting approaches that are flawed and make a case for what they may prove. Being clever and with creative definitions, I am sure I could run down most non-smacking parenting available to parents. Would be completely unhelpful aside from a way to give parents an unfair needling.
But I am not so inclined. I can agree to disagree. I do not think that parents who are bad parents should be rewarded or let off from punishment. Do not know any adult who was bought up in abusive households living with fear, angst, pain and dread, that would be well disposed to their parents. I do know a lot of adults who say things like "I got an occasional smack on the bottom for being a little shit. but Mum and Dad were pretty cool" but I have yet to hear anyone say "When I was a little kid, I used to be bone tired when Dad finally pull up in the drive way. Late. He would make a racket coming in. He knew he was in trouble with Mum. I would shake because it was the moments of reprieve before the fights. I could not cry because I was about to go out and face him and stop him getting angry with Mum, because she was little, almost as short as me. When he was out I was the man of the home and protect her from noises outside. I had to protect her now because she was upset and scared. I was frightened. I came to love them both." Will not hear it from me, either
I think it is a little off collating them all together and I could define them differently 10 ways but it will not matter if they are included together for the definitions stipulated in the studies.
The cool thing about the study that changed Swedish legislation is that the initial data was gathered before anyone had an idea there might be a change, and for another purpose altogether. Not easy to work the numbers if you have no idea what to manipulate. Also, I do believe the statisticians know more than you give them credit for; if you start by assuming they cannot take into account some rather obvious ways to skew the numbers suggested by a layman, there's very little hope for society.
As for the introduction of the breathaliser and the changes it brought, doesn't that prove my point?
-
Give me a method and see how i go.
All parent topics are touchy. Very emotional, best avoided, really. Never been the type to care what others think of my parenting or sense of right; neither sought advice no appreciated input. Would have to guess a lot of parents are that way, so they don't really care what I think either.
-
It is, of course, possible to prove pretty much anything using statistics, but I doubt this is one of those cases. Here's the basic A/B comparison:
Smacking/spanking/etc allowed: crime rates/etc value at year XXXX is "X"
Smacking/spanking/etc banned: crime rates/etc value at year YYYY is "Y"
The years and their respective values are not numbers in any way controlled by the lawmakers. They are yearly statistics. They are also numbers that can be obtained in similar manner from other countries, as reported by the other country.
Now, if Y<X, I'm sure you agree that in principle it means the new legislation works. Note that since they avoid the issue of defining "smacking" as opposed to "hitting" by making them equal for the purposes of the new law, any smacking/spanking/etc is a crime and thus means every reported instance after the legislation was passed affects Y.
Of course, there is any number of other reasons for crime rates fluctuating so getting relevant numbers is hard. What causes what? Does one change correlate to the new figure or not?
So the easiest solution is to interpret the numbers using the same methods for both X and Y. With everything else being equal, the easiest explanation (attributing the smallest change) is likely (or at least possible) to be true.
It's not perfect but it's what we have.
What's the alternative? Well, you could say that "no, I don't believe 'smacking' is harmful to my child" and be right, but in a situation where the laws also are permissive enough to allow the person who *hits* his child or smacks it with intent to harm to go unpunished, the statistics will be skewed, but for you it will be in the wrong direction for what you were trying to prove.
So your burden of proof is actually much harder than mine. For my study, I have been able to say "ban it all" and watch what happens, but you have to a) define "smacking" as opposed to "hitting", b) provide the statistics that support you definitions, and c) interpret them in such a way that a comparison between them and my study is possible and relevant.
See the difference? If I choose to ban every form of smacking, regardless of definition, my work is easier, with everything else being equal, and I actually don't have to work the numbers as hard.
If we assume that both parties might work the numbers in their favour but the basic data is freely available, it should be easy to make a feasibility study.
What does this mean? Well, only that I do have the numbers and an accompanying study, but you don't. If you mean to prove me wrong, you'll be busy for quite some time.
Further than that, I think Odeon.
If I was to say that one child was beaten by both parents daily and over nothing, with randomness and ferocity. When they were "smacked" It was with extension cords and until they bled. Then I was to say that child number two was smacked on the bottom by an open hand not hard enough to mark them and only when they were naughty, and was stopped when they reached an age that they could be reasoned with. I think in this instance you are not talking about two children who were parented the same. I think that you could possibly see one becoming badly adjusted and dysfunctional whereas the other possibly would not be at the same risk.
But here is the kicker. If someone defines smacking to make both child one and two part of the same study group then any statistic reliant on the results will tar child two's upbringing with the upbringing of child one and likewise child two's behaviour will be tarred with that of child one. Sure I have no doubt that some of the kids like child two will be tearaways. But I would say that some kids who were not smacked will be affected.
But we can go further, I would assume that if the laws were passed preventing smacking that the culture around this had changed too. I still remember when breathalisers were introduced in Western Australia. It changed the drinking culture. People suddenly were aware that drinking a six pack at a friends and whilst watching the footy was needing to change. The really excessive drink drivers stopped risking it, because their time was up (mostly - exclusions to the general rule and all that not withstanding) . It did ask people to be mindful of what they drank before driving. Where they were excessive they got punished. A glass or two was no bother.
This may be similar to the change of culture just prior to the no spanking laws. When the culture or community was suddenly mindful of a problem. The types of parents who were like child number one's started becoming a rarity because they felt a lot more eyes on them. So the ones who remained where the ones not prepared to change.
Further still, if the community driving these changes (not making moral judgements to merits) were wanting to make the best cases then are they likely to water down the study groups by removing the parents like those of child number two away from the parents of child one or make them equally culpable? Are they going to consider child one and two's upbringing and criminal records the same? Sure it is easier.
Not fair. but easier.
Yes were I to I could, given time and research and enough drive find ways to qualify and quantify this to change results I think do not give decent figures as their definitions are too broad and their results too willing therefore to be interpreted too generally.
I could even perhaps suggest forms of non-smacking parenting approaches that are flawed and make a case for what they may prove. Being clever and with creative definitions, I am sure I could run down most non-smacking parenting available to parents. Would be completely unhelpful aside from a way to give parents an unfair needling.
But I am not so inclined. I can agree to disagree. I do not think that parents who are bad parents should be rewarded or let off from punishment. Do not know any adult who was bought up in abusive households living with fear, angst, pain and dread, that would be well disposed to their parents. I do know a lot of adults who say things like "I got an occasional smack on the bottom for being a little shit. but Mum and Dad were pretty cool" but I have yet to hear anyone say "When I was a little kid, I used to be bone tired when Dad finally pull up in the drive way. Late. He would make a racket coming in. He knew he was in trouble with Mum. I would shake because it was the moments of reprieve before the fights. I could not cry because I was about to go out and face him and stop him getting angry with Mum, because she was little, almost as short as me. When he was out I was the man of the home and protect her from noises outside. I had to protect her now because she was upset and scared. I was frightened. I came to love them both." Will not hear it from me, either
I think it is a little off collating them all together and I could define them differently 10 ways but it will not matter if they are included together for the definitions stipulated in the studies.
The cool thing about the study that changed Swedish legislation is that the initial data was gathered before anyone had an idea there might be a change, and for another purpose altogether. Not easy to work the numbers if you have no idea what to manipulate. Also, I do believe the statisticians know more than you give them credit for; if you start by assuming they cannot take into account some rather obvious ways to skew the numbers suggested by a layman, there's very little hope for society.
As for the introduction of the breathaliser and the changes it brought, doesn't that prove my point?
It may, but it certainly does not harm mine.
The unmindful, uncaring, dangerous, drinkers in society, who drove were targeted. The ones who caused damage to society. Those who had a social wine over lunch or whatever, were not considered in the same overall category. To include those responsible drinkers would be unfair.
It was about raising public consciousness and helping society. Both which are commendable. Not marginalising the responsible to drive a point about drinking in general terms. Hence the "Two and that'll do" campaign
-
Give me a method and see how i go.
All parent topics are touchy. Very emotional, best avoided, really. Never been the type to care what others think of my parenting or sense of right; neither sought advice no appreciated input. Would have to guess a lot of parents are that way, so they don't really care what I think either.
Absolutely and also topics that are about differences
Of course when one member knows another has had smacks on the bottom as a disciplinary measure then firing broadsides like: smacking, hitting, beating is all just varying degrees of the same action, the use of this is to cause pain and humiliation otherwise what point it there? It just teaches hurting others is OK, and that smacking children's bottoms predisposes them to a life of crime.....well it may be quite reasonable for the member (me) to be affronted.
The irony of course is that I am in return trying hard to be polite and agreeing to disagree. I am trying to explain my position. In doing when I basically say hey we both have different parenting styles and lovely children as result. Our styles and it works for us and was told "I" was being bitchy because her child was having issues at school and that everyone knew.
Would love that irony or the bitchy reference explained
-
It sounds to me that you think of smacks on the bottom, as child abuse and that it is all in the same league as beatings. I disagree completely. It sounds to me that you are saying anyone who therefore has smacked a child is a child abuser. I again disagree and regardless of how you try to pitch the allusion, it is not going to make me second guess myself or feel bad. If this is true, I hope not as I would have thought you were a little less judgmental
So what did i say that ''sounded like i think smacks on the bottom is child abuse''? and what did i say that ''sounds to you like i am saying anyone who has smacked a child is a child abuser'' ?
-
If it's not abusive, then why should there be laws against it?
-
It sounds to me that you think of smacks on the bottom, as child abuse and that it is all in the same league as beatings. I disagree completely. It sounds to me that you are saying anyone who therefore has smacked a child is a child abuser. I again disagree and regardless of how you try to pitch the allusion, it is not going to make me second guess myself or feel bad. If this is true, I hope not as I would have thought you were a little less judgmental
So what did i say that ''sounded like i think smacks on the bottom is child abuse''? and what did i say that ''sounds to you like i am saying anyone who has smacked a child is a child abuser'' ?
Look at the preceding post and say if it might well be at least intimated that saying smacking bottoms and hitting kids with things (especially when you then reference "smacking" with an anecdote about a teenage friend who's Father beat his kids with things) and that hitting and smacking and beating are all the same thing to varying degrees. When further you say that trying to separate smacking a child's bottom from things like violent beatings is just grey areas. But also when you say that the use of smacking bottoms of children is to cause the child pain and humiliation. (Yup or parents who do are clearly NOT doing it purely as an aversion tool to parent child but rather it use is just a means to hurt and humiate their children, besides they are.......sadists?).
I would say this pretty much leads the reader to the garden gate in so far of convincing the reader that you believe smacking children's bottoms as assault and child abuse to be considered with beating children. In fact I think you not only lead up the garden path,but you knock on the door for good measure.
Are you honestly saying that you don't think it looks this way? Really?
-
It sounds to me that you think of smacks on the bottom, as child abuse and that it is all in the same league as beatings. I disagree completely. It sounds to me that you are saying anyone who therefore has smacked a child is a child abuser. I again disagree and regardless of how you try to pitch the allusion, it is not going to make me second guess myself or feel bad. If this is true, I hope not as I would have thought you were a little less judgmental
So what did i say that ''sounded like i think smacks on the bottom is child abuse''? and what did i say that ''sounds to you like i am saying anyone who has smacked a child is a child abuser'' ?
Quote me where i said that.
-
It may, but it certainly does not harm mine.
The unmindful, uncaring, dangerous, drinkers in society, who drove were targeted. The ones who caused damage to society. Those who had a social wine over lunch or whatever, were not considered in the same overall category. To include those responsible drinkers would be unfair.
It was about raising public consciousness and helping society. Both which are commendable. Not marginalising the responsible to drive a point about drinking in general terms. Hence the "Two and that'll do" campaign
And by not attempting to define "smacking" as opposed to "hitting" and banning both (actually, the consensus was that both were harmful to the child), the legislation did protect children. Perpetrators who would previously not be committing a crime when beating a child now were, and many no longer did.
So the next question is: even if they were wrong is saying both are harmful to the child, isn't saving a few children from an unnecessary beating (crossing the line but previously within accepted limits) worth it?
As for drinking and driving, what are the limits down under?
-
If it's not abusive, then why should there be laws against it?
Because there is disagreement over the definition of "abuse".
-
Both spanking and yelling with an angry tone can be just as bad as each other. As for what is a better option, if I ever become a father, I'll let you guys know. I hope just having a gentle talk with the kid should work when he/she does something troublesome, but how effective is that, I have no idea.
With all that said, my mother used to spank me a lot when I was a kid (and in her case, it often seemed like she was lashing out in anger at me and my brother because of how her husband treated her, and not purely to discipline). My mother was otherwise extremely loving when she wasn't spanking/yelling. I think had it not been for her continual expressions of love, I would've hated just as much as I hate my father.
The irony is my father never laid a finger on me. But he was nasty regardless (and still is).
-
Both spanking and yelling with an angry tone can be just as bad as each other. As for what is a better option, if I ever become a father, I'll let you guys know. I hope just having a gentle talk with the kid should work when he/she does something troublesome, but how effective is that, I have no idea.
With all that said, my mother used to spank me a lot when I was a kid (and in her case, it often seemed like she was lashing out in anger at me and my brother because of how her husband treated her, and not purely to discipline). My mother was otherwise extremely loving when she wasn't spanking/yelling. I think had it not been for her continual expressions of love, I would've hated just as much as I hate my father.
The irony is my father never laid a finger on me. But he was nasty regardless (and still is).
My darkest hour as a parent was the day i grabbed the urchins hair after he had been pulling hair a lot. I vowed that day i would never ever do anything like that again. I thought to myself why have i spent the last three or four years running around behind him preventing him from getting hurt and then i go and do it myself' dohhh I was angry too. I promised myself that i would not cross that line and i haven't. Other kids pulled his hair too and it didn't stop him. We got there in the end, using a girls world hair model.
I am glad i made that promise now. He still makes me mad at times, and sometimes i will lock his scooter in the boot of my car, sometimes i will be that mad i will say 'for a week' or 'for a year' but it's ok if i overreact as i can put it right.
-
If it's not abusive, then why should there be laws against it?
Because there is disagreement over the definition of "abuse".
A spanking law would certainly clear that up, the legal definition of abuse.
Though the question was for bodaccea.
-
Bodaccea, do you think spanking is abusive?
-
It may, but it certainly does not harm mine.
The unmindful, uncaring, dangerous, drinkers in society, who drove were targeted. The ones who caused damage to society. Those who had a social wine over lunch or whatever, were not considered in the same overall category. To include those responsible drinkers would be unfair.
It was about raising public consciousness and helping society. Both which are commendable. Not marginalising the responsible to drive a point about drinking in general terms. Hence the "Two and that'll do" campaign
And by not attempting to define "smacking" as opposed to "hitting" and banning both (actually, the consensus was that both were harmful to the child), the legislation did protect children. Perpetrators who would previously not be committing a crime when beating a child now were, and many no longer did.
So the next question is: even if they were wrong is saying both are harmful to the child, isn't saving a few children from an unnecessary beating (crossing the line but previously within accepted limits) worth it?
As for drinking and driving, what are the limits down under?
.08 I think.
I think this is the crux of things.
So the next question is: even if they were wrong is saying both are harmful to the child, isn't saving a few children from an unnecessary beating (crossing the line but previously within accepted limits) worth it?
Is it a reasonable question?
I think so. The answer is i do not believe in the type of mindset of "Kill them all, God will know his own". The reason for it is that the superficial answer is "Yes if it spares the kids it is great, children need protecting from beatings". I am not a heartless person so I am encourage to give this answer until i consider it on a deeper level. It protects kids, even if they do not need it, BUT it potentially punishes good and bad parents. Is that also as commendable?" My answer is, "No"
I think the military call this collateral damage.
I think it demands a case by case basis. Kind of innocence til proven guilty.
It also is likely to drive a discourse which tars one with another unfairly and I think this is not beneficial to the parents, the kids, or society. Bad parents deserve bad repercussions and good parents deserve to be praised.
-
Bodaccea, do you think spanking is abusive?
If used mildly and rarely then no i do not think it is abusive.
-
If it's not abusive, then why should there be laws against it?
Because there is disagreement over the definition of "abuse".
A spanking law would certainly clear that up, the legal definition of abuse.
Though the question was for bodaccea.
I support the law in an outright ban simply to aid the kids at the extreme end of corporal punishment. I think the stats from Sweden,, and other places where it has been implemented make a good argument. If it saves just one kids life i think it is worth it.
-
Actually, the question that has troubled me the most, and one which i am still thinking about (from the UN website) is
DO YOU OWN YOUR CHILDREN? ???
-
It sounds to me that you think of smacks on the bottom, as child abuse and that it is all in the same league as beatings. I disagree completely. It sounds to me that you are saying anyone who therefore has smacked a child is a child abuser. I again disagree and regardless of how you try to pitch the allusion, it is not going to make me second guess myself or feel bad. If this is true, I hope not as I would have thought you were a little less judgmental
So what did i say that ''sounded like i think smacks on the bottom is child abuse''? and what did i say that ''sounds to you like i am saying anyone who has smacked a child is a child abuser'' ?
I have addressed this and happy to post the quotes of yours that I believe lead the reader up the garden path to that conclusion but before I do, in fairness, explain the "bitchy" comment.
Ouch! I think everyone knows that my son is up shit creek at school and is not always well behaved and sweet. I am always proud of him, though. I will persist with my parenting style. This debate has not thrown anything to cause me to change my mind. ........No. I have no bitchy comments to make like the one above.
As I mentioned, you DID actually start a thread on this some time ago. Year ago was it? As I recall there was an issue at his school, you had (correct me if I am wrong) started a reward system because he wanted to be a good boy. From what i remember , this cleared up the issue and after letting us know that this seemed to be working, the thread died......so the assumption was end of issue.
I that a pretty good recollection? If it is, then is it a reasonable assumption that he has been ok ever since? If so then is it odd to suggest that "everyone knows he is up shit creek at school"? Because I sure as fuck didn't.
So explain bitchy...in this context and then i will cut n paste your own quotes back at you about why and what you have said which sounds to me that you are saying " i think smacks on the bottom is child abuse''? and what did i say that ''sounds to you like i am saying anyone who has smacked a child is a child abuser"
You first though Bodie
-
Bodaccea, do you think spanking is abusive?
If used mildly and rarely then no i do not think it is abusive.
I think it is. That's why it's avoided. I think a lot of things are. I think threatening abandonment is worse than spanking, like the lady mentioned early in this thread who threatened to call the police, people who threaten boarding school, a home, or wherever kids get sent. I think those parents need their asses whipped. I could make up a lot of good laws like that one. I wouldn't actually support any of them. Still, it's hard to discuss the legalities across countries, so wont really try to.
-
Oops forgot my quote; fixed my post. Rushing about avoiding duty this morning.
If it's not abusive, then why should there be laws against it?
Because there is disagreement over the definition of "abuse".
A spanking law would certainly clear that up, the legal definition of abuse.
Though the question was for bodaccea.
I support the law in an outright ban simply to aid the kids at the extreme end of corporal punishment. I think the stats from Sweden,, and other places where it has been implemented make a good argument. If it saves just one kids life i think it is worth it.
That's a really good answer, there actually being one to support where you are. It's different here, people in the US don't generally support the government being that deeply involved in the public's personal lives. This mentality makes notions like this almost seem absurd, and like said before, the government would have to first start treating children differently first, starting with the schools. Even then, a national campaign would be more fitting here. Can see such a law being accepted, though admit I've no idea about your country's state of family affairs, nor anyone else in this thread.
-
Bodaccea, do you think spanking is abusive?
If used mildly and rarely then no i do not think it is abusive.
I think it is. That's why it's avoided. I think a lot of things are. I think threatening abandonment is worse than spanking, like the lady mentioned early in this thread who threatened to call the police, people who threaten boarding school, a home, or wherever kids get sent. I think those parents need their asses whipped. I could make up a lot of good laws like that one. I wouldn't actually support any of them. Still, it's hard to discuss the legalities across countries, so wont really try to.
Name a discipline that is effective for a small child and i will turn it into a possibly damaging punishment teaching the kids bad things to bad ends. :)
-
Name a discipline that is effective for a small child and i will turn it into a possibly damaging punishment teaching the kids bad things to bad ends. :)
Absolutely, so could I, but maybe for different reasons. Do realize my personal views on parenting are extreme and it's seemingly impossible for me to know how to express them without being offensive. Still, have no need to impose my view in the form of law and don't think spanking should be included in what's legally considered as child abuse, but this is also true of many things people do to kids, some of which are viewed as worse than spanking. The fact is, I personally view all forms of parental punishment to be unnecessary; not all of them viewed as abusive, but yes, all unnecessary. It's easy to deduce that, like most people, my views are a direct reflections of my own upbringing. This neither means punishment equals poor parenting, nor does it mean I've been completely successful at living my own point of view; it simply means I wasn't punished.
-
Oops forgot my quote; fixed my post. Rushing about avoiding duty this morning.
If it's not abusive, then why should there be laws against it?
Because there is disagreement over the definition of "abuse".
A spanking law would certainly clear that up, the legal definition of abuse.
Though the question was for bodaccea.
I support the law in an outright ban simply to aid the kids at the extreme end of corporal punishment. I think the stats from Sweden,, and other places where it has been implemented make a good argument. If it saves just one kids life i think it is worth it.
That's a really good answer, there actually being one to support where you are. It's different here, people in the US don't generally support the government being that deeply involved in the public's personal lives. This mentality makes notions like this almost seem absurd, and like said before, the government would have to first start treating children differently first, starting with the schools. Even then, a national campaign would be more fitting here. Can see such a law being accepted, though admit I've no idea about your country's state of family affairs, nor anyone else in this thread.
Uk Government have dragged their heels. It's the campaigns by the major charities that have been influential. Like NSPCC and Barnado's. They have very prominent patrons. Princess Diana was one, and various royals and then you get celebrity
patrons. Campaigns have been huge, TV adverts and fundraising events. At one time there was an advert at the start of every commercial break saying "if you suspect a child is in danger please call XYZ"
The other factor that affects us here is the 'mighty european union' which can, has, and will overide domestic laws set by the government.
BTW, regarding abuse, i was smacked a few times by my mom but by far the most humiliating and degrading act ever enforced upon me as a child was having to wear mis-shapen, multicoloured, hand knitted jumpers that appeared on christmas morning! Oh God, you could just tell before even opening it was the dreaded jumper! I remember having some roller skates one year and going outside in the dreaded jumper and having the piss took out of me. That jumper would have made an effective deterrent.!
(http://thumbs3.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/m7fNsGiaFq2BHNjmWYXP9rQ.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRdI4lld-C22N77UTPn_hYQVFuxrlf7hAeKi7WTLcH7hOg-Sses)
I was born into a decade of a knitting frenzy!! I am still haunted by those dreaded christmas jumpers.
-
At one time there was an advert at the start of every commercial break saying "if you suspect a child is in danger please call XYZ"
In danger of spanking? *shudder*. Not going there.
This thread was a good discussion.
-
I think this is the crux of things.
So the next question is: even if they were wrong is saying both are harmful to the child, isn't saving a few children from an unnecessary beating (crossing the line but previously within accepted limits) worth it?
Is it a reasonable question?
I think so. The answer is i do not believe in the type of mindset of "Kill them all, God will know his own". The reason for it is that the superficial answer is "Yes if it spares the kids it is great, children need protecting from beatings". I am not a heartless person so I am encourage to give this answer until i consider it on a deeper level. It protects kids, even if they do not need it, BUT it potentially punishes good and bad parents. Is that also as commendable?" My answer is, "No"
I think the military call this collateral damage.
I think it demands a case by case basis. Kind of innocence til proven guilty.
It also is likely to drive a discourse which tars one with another unfairly and I think this is not beneficial to the parents, the kids, or society. Bad parents deserve bad repercussions and good parents deserve to be praised.
Why is this superficial? Let's say I had a) reputable, peer-reviewed numbers that strongly indicate an outright ban would bring down crime rates in the future and save a couple of kids from outright beating every year, and b) equally strong methods detailing alternative form of parenting, without any smacking necessary, that would produce responsible, well-behaved adults?
I mean, what would it take? When would it stop being a government meddling with its citizens' private lives? A case by case basis would not work. Lots of kids would fall through the cracks and nothing would change.
-
I would never condone kids being taken away from their family because they spanked them. That would harm a lot of children. That would be silly and achieve nothing.
Then what would be the legal consequences for spanking? Small fine similar to a parking ticket? How many tickets is too many?
The goal of such a law is to prevent it from happening rather than introducing petty fines with the expectation that the law will be ignored.
It seems that the countries who have already taken steps to ban all forms of corporal punishment have had desirable effects. The focus being on education more than prosecution.
This article is a little dated, (2002) but does give an idea of how the policy has been working in places like Sweden.
http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/news/725230/ (http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/news/725230/)
Laws against physically punishing children have been used to educate parents rather than prosecute them. Jackie Cosh reports
Aban on smacking children was implemented in Sweden in 1979. Since then only four children have been killed after being assaulted by an adult, and only one of these was at the hands of a parent - one child in 23 years, compared with Britain's one child a week.
I'd like to know Sweden's baseline, though. It's a powerful statistic, but it's backed up by comparing apples and oranges.
Bodie, did you ever address this? I scanned for you replying to me but didn't find it. I would legitly like to know.
-
I think this is the crux of things.
So the next question is: even if they were wrong is saying both are harmful to the child, isn't saving a few children from an unnecessary beating (crossing the line but previously within accepted limits) worth it?
Is it a reasonable question?
I think so. The answer is i do not believe in the type of mindset of "Kill them all, God will know his own". The reason for it is that the superficial answer is "Yes if it spares the kids it is great, children need protecting from beatings". I am not a heartless person so I am encourage to give this answer until i consider it on a deeper level. It protects kids, even if they do not need it, BUT it potentially punishes good and bad parents. Is that also as commendable?" My answer is, "No"
I think the military call this collateral damage.
I think it demands a case by case basis. Kind of innocence til proven guilty.
It also is likely to drive a discourse which tars one with another unfairly and I think this is not beneficial to the parents, the kids, or society. Bad parents deserve bad repercussions and good parents deserve to be praised.
Why is this superficial? Let's say I had a) reputable, peer-reviewed numbers that strongly indicate an outright ban would bring down crime rates in the future and save a couple of kids from outright beating every year, and b) equally strong methods detailing alternative form of parenting, without any smacking necessary, that would produce responsible, well-behaved adults?
I mean, what would it take? When would it stop being a government meddling with its citizens' private lives? A case by case basis would not work. Lots of kids would fall through the cracks and nothing would change.
Boycotting things is the work of someone lazy, or a coward. A real leader finds the root cause of a problem, and gets it at the source. Its kind of like watching a shitty doctor prescribe a bunch of bullshit medications to try and treat the symptoms of an illness he doesn't understand.
-
^^^^so is bitching without action.
Lazy.
-
^^^^so is bitching without action.
Lazy.
Oh I take action daily, bro. Believe me. I'm not just sitting on my hands here.
-
^^^^so is bitching without action.
Lazy.
Oh I take action daily, bro. Believe me. I'm not just sitting on my hands here.
i know. I was agreeing with you.
You didn't think I was kicking you in the ass...did you?
-
^^^^so is bitching without action.
Lazy.
Oh I take action daily, bro. Believe me. I'm not just sitting on my hands here.
i know. I was agreeing with you.
You didn't think I was kicking you in the ass...did you?
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/6111/lightbox/RTR377SC.jpg?1347660875)
-
GFY, Scott Walker.
Go. Fuck. Yourself.
-
HAHAHAHA :LOL:
-
I would never condone kids being taken away from their family because they spanked them. That would harm a lot of children. That would be silly and achieve nothing.
Then what would be the legal consequences for spanking? Small fine similar to a parking ticket? How many tickets is too many?
The goal of such a law is to prevent it from happening rather than introducing petty fines with the expectation that the law will be ignored.
It seems that the countries who have already taken steps to ban all forms of corporal punishment have had desirable effects. The focus being on education more than prosecution.
This article is a little dated, (2002) but does give an idea of how the policy has been working in places like Sweden.
http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/news/725230/ (http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/news/725230/)
Laws against physically punishing children have been used to educate parents rather than prosecute them. Jackie Cosh reports
Aban on smacking children was implemented in Sweden in 1979. Since then only four children have been killed after being assaulted by an adult, and only one of these was at the hands of a parent - one child in 23 years, compared with Britain's one child a week.
I'd like to know Sweden's baseline, though. It's a powerful statistic, but it's backed up by comparing apples and oranges.
Bodie, did you ever address this? I scanned for you replying to me but didn't find it. I would legitly like to know.
Sorry, missed this.
The biggest study carried out (that i can find) is found here http://snifferdogonline.com/reports/Corporal%20Punishment/Evaluating%20the%20Success%20of%20Sweden%27s%20Corporal%20Punishment%20Ban.pdf (http://snifferdogonline.com/reports/Corporal%20Punishment/Evaluating%20the%20Success%20of%20Sweden%27s%20Corporal%20Punishment%20Ban.pdf)
Success has been measured on five variables - public support for corporal
punishment, reporting of child physical assault, child abuse mortality, prosecution rates, and intervention by the social
authorities. Lines of best fit were generated and Cox and Stuart tests for trend were conducted.
Article pasted for Jack, to save her the trouble of asking :zoinks: :zoinks:
INTRODUCTION
IN 1979, SWEDEN became the first nation to abolish all types of corporal punishment of children
by all caretakers. This law represents the end of a series of legislative reforms spanning 50 years
which were aimed at making the rejection of corporal punishment increasingly explicit in law.
While the history of this law has been described in detail elsewhere (Durrant, 1996; Durrant &
Olsen, 1997; Newell, 1989; Ziegert, 1983, 1987), it will be summarized here to provide a context
for the analyses to follow.
HISTORY OF THE SWEDISH CORPORAL PUNISHMENT BAN
At the beginning of the twentieth century, severe corporal punishment was common in Sweden
(Sverne, 1993). However, concerns about the welfare of children began to be expressed early in the
century (see Durrant & Olsen, 1997); the first legislative reform took place in 1928 when corporal
punishment was abolished from Swedish secondary schools (
gymnasiums
).
Continued concern about the levels of violence directed toward children during the ensuing
The data collection for this study was partially supported by the University of Manitoba Research Grants Committee.
Received for publication June 8, 1998; final revision received September 23, 1998; accepted September 28, 1998.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Joan E. Durrant, Ph.D., Department of Family Studies, University of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada.
Pergamon
Child Abuse & Neglect, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 435– 448, 1999
Copyright © 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved
0145-2134/99/$–see front matter
435
decades led to the repeal in 1957 of the Penal Code defence for caretakers using corporal
punishment. It was intended that children would then receive the same degree of protection from
assault that adults receive. A second goal of the repeal was to clarify the grounds for criminal
prosecution of parents who physically harmed their children. In 1966, the paragraph permitting
mild forms of corporal punishment was also removed from the civil Parents’ Code
(Fo
̈ra
̈ldrabalken).
It was expected that these legislative changes, together with bans on corporal punishment in child
care institutions and reformatory schools, would convey that the use of physical force with children
was no longer acceptable. However, in the 1970s, a case of serious child physical abuse occurred
and the father who had beaten the child was acquitted by the court. Public outcry over this case,
and over child abuse in general, contributed to a decision by the Minister of Justice to appoint a
Commission on Children’s Rights with the objective of reviewing the Parents’ Code.
The Commission concluded that the guidelines for parents and legal authorities were not
sufficiently clear with regard to corporal punishment and proposed unanimously to add a paragraph
to the Parents’ Code stating explicitly that this practice was not permitted. The proposal was
supported by 28 of the 30 experts who reviewed it, all political parties, and 98% of Parliamentary
members. The proposal was put into force on July 1, 1979. The relevant paragraph in the Parents’
Code states:
Children are entitled to care, security and a good upbringing. Children are to be treated with respect for their person and
individuality and may not be subjected to physical punishment or other injurious or humiliating treatment. (Chapter 6,
Section 1)
Therefore, it is clear that the criminal law on assault applies equally to assaults of adults and
children. However, the law was not intended as a means of criminalizing caretakers; it was written
into the Parents’ Code, which carries no criminal penalties, rather than the Penal Code for this
reason. Its primary purpose was to educate, not to coerce.
Should physical chastisement meted out to a child cause bodily injury or pain which is more than of very temporary
duration it is classified as assault and is an offence punishable under the Criminal Cod
e...
although as before trivial
offences will remain unpunished, either because they cannot be classified as assault or because an action is not brought.
(Ministry of Justice, 1979)
The passage of the ban was accompanied by national distribution of a 16-page public education
brochure that was translated into all major immigrant languages. In addition, information about the
law was printed on milk cartons for 2 months in order to have information about the law present
at mealtimes so that families could discuss the issue. For further information on these and other
supportive measures (see Durrant & Olsen, 1997).
Objectives of the Swedish Corporal Punishment Ban
The ban had three primary objectives. First, it was intended to alter attitudes toward the use of
physical force with children as a first step toward eliminating its use. It was expected that the law
would produce a shift in social pressure such that a “good” parent would be seen as one who does
not use corporal punishment.
Second, the ban was intended to set a clear guideline for parents and professionals. Professionals
now could state clearly to families that physical force was not permitted and could identify at-risk
parents early in the cycle of abuse. It was also expected that Swedes would now act promptly upon
witnessing or hearing disclosures of physical harm.
Third, earlier identification was expected to result in earlier intervention. It was intended that
436 J. E. Durrant
more supportive and less coercive measures would be used than is the case where intervention
occurs only after a child has been harmed.
THE PRESENT STUDY
Purpose
Given the international significance of the Swedish corporal punishment ban, it is surprising that
no systematic studies have been conducted to evaluate social changes following its passage. The
primary purpose of the present study is to examine such trends in an attempt to determine whether
the goals of the Children’s Rights Commission have been met, that is, whether attitudes have
shifted, early identification has increased, and intervention has become less intrusive.
Hypotheses
Public attitudes toward corporal punishment.
Given the evolutionary nature of Swedish legislation
aimed at reducing the prevalence of corporal punishment, it was expected that public support for
this method would have gradually declined over recent decades.
Identification.
The corporal punishment ban was intended to increase awareness and early identi-
fication of child physical abuse. Therefore, it was expected that child assault reports would be
found to have increased following its passage and that the majority of assaults reported after 1979
would not be of a serious nature. It also was expected that the ages of adult assault suspects would
increase as greater numbers of younger Swedish parents were raised in a post-ban culture.
Corporal punishment bans now have been passed in all Nordic countries. At the same time, the
annual number of immigrants to Sweden more than doubled between 1980 and 1993 (in 1993, 90%
were from non-Nordic countries) and the annual number of refugees seeking asylum in Sweden
was 19 times greater in 1993 than it was in the early 1980s (Svenska Institutet, 1994). Such
individuals are likely to be experiencing high levels of stress and to have been raised in nations
without corporal punishment bans. It was expected that the proportion of adult assault suspects who
were raised in nations without such bans would increase over time, while the proportion of assault
suspects who were raised in Sweden or other Nordic nations would decrease over time as the bans
had their long-term effects.
Finally, it was hypothesized that earlier identification would be reflected in a decreasing rate of
fatal child physical abuse.
Intervention.
Early identification was intended to lead to earlier, more supportive intervention.
Therefore, it was hypothesized that, following the passage of the ban, prosecution rates would not
increase and that child welfare measures would become increasingly preventive.
METHOD
Data Collection
The research findings presented here are based on data collected by three methods. First, a series
of interviews was conducted in Sweden to provide an understanding of the history and implemen-
tation of the corporal punishment ban. The individuals interviewed included: (1) the former Chair
and a former member of the Children’s Rights Commission which proposed the ban; (2) the
Administrative Director of and the Legal Advisor to the Office of the Children’s Ombudsman; (3)
two prosecuting attorneys and a legal scholar; (4) the First Secretary of the Ministry of Health and
Sweden’s corporal punishment ban 437
Social Affairs; (5) the Director of the Department of Pediatrics at a University Hospital; and (6)
several child psychiatric social workers, well-baby clinic nurses, and academics working in the
areas of violence against children and children in the care of Social Services.
Second, to permit examination of trends in the variables of interest, primary data were collected
from: (1) Statistics Sweden (Statistiska Centralbyrån: SCB); (2) the National Board of Health and
Welfare (Socialstyrelsen); and (3) the National Crime Prevention Council (Brottsfo
̈rebyggande
rådet: BRÅ). The data were collected in Sweden during the spring of 1997. For each variable, data
were obtained from before or shortly after the ban’s passage until the mid-1990s. The time frames
for which reliable data were available were as follows: (1) 1965 to 1994 for public attitudes toward
corporal punishment; (2) 1984 to 1994 for identification and characteristics of assault suspects; (3)
1971 to 1996 for rates of fatal child abuse; (4) 1984 to 1994 for prosecution rates; and (5) 1982 to
1995 for child welfare measures. To ensure the accuracy of translations and interpretations of the
data, personal interviews were conducted with the Principal Research Officer at BRÅ and the
researcher responsible for the collection of child welfare statistics at SCB.
Third, interviews were conducted with several Swedish experts to obtain background informa-
tion on sociocultural shifts, legislative reforms, and criminal procedures which contextualized
trends found in the data. These individuals were: (1) the Vice-Prosecutor-General; (2) a Detective
Inspector with the National Criminal Investigation Department who investigates child abuse
reports; (3) a District Court Judge; (4) a criminologist at Stockholm University; and (5) a social
worker and child abuse expert at the National Board of Health and Welfare.
Data Analysis
Overall trends across time were examined with regard to the following variables: (1) public
attitudes toward corporal punishment; (2) reporting of assaults against children; (3) characteristics
of suspects in cases of reported assaults against children; (4) estimates of child maltreatment rates;
(5) prosecution of reported assaults against children; and (6) measures taken by the social
authorities. A line of best fit was generated for each of these variables; one-tailed Cox and Stuart
tests for trends (Conover, 1980) were conducted to determine whether their slopes were statistically
significant.
RESULTS
Public Attitudes Toward Corporal Punishment
National opinion polls have been conducted intermittently in Sweden since the mid-1960s by the
Swedish Opinion Research Institute (Svenska Institutet fo
̈r Opinionsunderso
̈kningar: SIFO) and
SCB to chart trends in support for corporal punishment. As Table 1indicates, support for corporal
punishment has declined markedly over the past 30 years (
n
5
2,
t
5
2,
p
5
.0000;
range
5
11%
Table 1. Percentage of Swedish Public Supportive of Corporal
Punishment
Year Percent Supportive
1965 53
1968 42
1971 35
1981 26
1994 11
Sources: SCB, 1996c; SIFO, 1981.
438 J. E. Durrant
to 53%,
M
5
33.4%). While in 1965, 8 years after the repeal of the Criminal Code defence,
one-half of the Swedish population believed that corporal punishment was necessary in childrear-
ing, by 1981 that proportion had decreased by 50% (SIFO, 1981). By 1994, the proportion of
Swedes supportive of corporal punishment, even in its mildest forms, had been halved once again
(SCB, 1996c).
Among the current cohorts of adults, those who support corporal punishment are three times as
likely to be over 54 years of age (18%) than under 35 years of age (6%) (SCB, 1996c). Those who
still support its use are almost three times as likely to be men (16%) as women (6%) and more than
four times as likely to have an elementary school (18%) than University level (4%) education.
Despite these group differences, only a minority of any particular group is positively inclined
toward the use of corporal punishment.
Among middle school pupils (grades 6, 7, and 8), support for corporal punishment is related to
immigrant status. Those pupils who were born in Sweden or who immigrated to Sweden before
1985 are less likely to have positive attitudes (5% and 6%, respectively) than are those who
immigrated to Sweden in 1985 or later (12.5%). Therefore, the “the longer the pupil has lived in
Sweden, the less he/she accepts physical punishment of children” (SCB, 1996c, p. 9). However,
even among children who immigrated to Sweden after 1990, support is relatively low (13%).
IDENTIFICATION: REPORTING OF ASSAULTS AGAINST CHILDREN
Data are available on the rate of assaults against children that were reported to the police (crimes)
between 1981 and 1996, as well as on the proportion of children who were allegedly assaulted
(cases) between 1984 and 1996 (BRÅ, 1997; SCB 1995a). It should be noted that any reports that
are made to the police must be recorded in the official statistics; the police have no discretionary
power to not register reported crimes, no matter how minor. Also, these figures include not only
alleged assaults by parents, but by all individuals from the ages of less than 15 years to more than
50 years. These rates, therefore, refer to all assaults reported to the police prior to investigation or
prosecution.
As expected, rates (per 1,000 population) of reported crimes (
n
5
8,
t
5
8,
p
5
.0000;
range
5
.6 to 3.1,
M
5
1.5) and cases (
n
5
6,
t
5
6,
p
5
.0000;
range
5
.7 to 2.8,
M
5
1.5) have increased.
However, even at its peak, the annual proportion of children under the age of 15 who were
allegedly assaulted has not exceeded 2.8 per 1,000 population.
Types of Assaults Reported
Assault is categorized into three levels in Sweden. Aggravated assaults are serious offenses
warranting prison sentences of one to 10 years. Common assaults are of a moderate nature, carrying
a maximum prison term of 2 years. Petty assaults constitute the mildest level and are punishable
by fines.
Between 1981 and 1996, the vast majority of reported assaults against children (averaging 92%)
were petty or common offenses, suggesting that identification has been occurring before serious
injury is sustained (BRÅ, 1997; SCB 1995a). The proportion of reports that concern aggravated
assaults did not increase between 1981 and 1996 (
n
5
8,
t
5
4,
p
5
.3633;
range
5
3% to 15%,
M
5
7.50%), indicating that the seriousness of reported assaults has not increased.
Characteristics of Suspects
Limited data are available on the characteristics of suspects (SCB, 1995a); that is, alleged
perpetrators in reported cases that are legally pursued. It is important to note that the data on adult
Sweden’s corporal punishment ban 439
suspects presented here are not limited to parents. They may include relatives, strangers, baby-
sitters, or others who have contact with the child.
Ages of suspects.
It was expected that, as the proportion of the youngest adult age group who were
children when the ban was passed increased, the proportion of total suspects that they would
constitute would decrease. As expected, the proportion of adults suspected of assault against
children who were in the youngest age group (20 to 29 years) at the time of the offense declined
between 1984 and 1994 (
n
5
5,
t
5
4,
p
5
.0312;
range
5
15% to 27%,
M
5
21.3%) (SCB,
1995a). This was the case whether the alleged victim was 0 to 6 years of age (
n
5
5,
t
5
5,
p
5
.0000;
range
5
28% to 52%,
M
5
38.5%) or 7 to 14 years of age (
n
5
5,
t
5
4,
p
5
.0312;
range
5
11% to 25%,
M
5
16.5%).
In contrast, the proportion of adult suspects charged with assaults against young children who
were in their 30s (
range
5
27% to 47%,
M
5
37.4%) or 40s (
range
5
13% to 25%,
M
5
17.3%)
at the time of the alleged assault increased during the same period (
n
5
5,
t
5
4,
p
5
.0312, in both
cases) (SCB, 1995a). In the case of alleged assaults against older children, the proportion of adult
suspects who were in their 30s remained steady (
n
5
5,
t
5
2,
p
5
.5000;
range
5
30% to 41%,
M
5
36.3%), while the proportion who were in their 40s increased (
n
5
5,
t
5
4,
p
5
.0312;
range
5
25% to 38%,
M
5
31.2%).
The proportion of suspects charged with assault against young children who were 50 years of age
or older at the time of the alleged assault remained steady between 1984 and 1994 (
n
5
5,
t
5
2,
p
5
.5000;
range
5
3% to 12%,
M
5
6.9%). However, the proportion of suspects charged with
assault against older children who were in this age group declined over the same time period (
n
5
5,
t
5
4,
p
5
.0312;
range
5
11% to 23%,
M
5
15.7%).
The proportion of suspects aged 15 to 19 in cases of alleged assaults against young children
(aged 0 to 6) showed a declining, but nonsignificant, trend between 1984 and 1994 (
n
5
5,
t
5
2,
p
5
.5000;
range
5
2% to 7%,
M
5
4.2%) (SCB, 1995a). It should be noted that the annual mean
number of youth suspected of assaults against young children was 3, with a range of 0 to 5 over
the decade.
The number of youth aged 15 to 19 years who were suspected of assault against older children
increased between 1984 and 1994 (
n
5
4,
t
5
4,
p
5
.0312;
range
5
88 to 354,
M
5
166.3).
However, as a proportion of total suspects, youth involvement did not increase significantly during
that decade (
n
5
5,
t
5
2,
p
5
.5000;
range
5
34% to 48%,
M
5
40.4%).
Cultural socialization of suspects.
To test the hypothesis that individuals raised in Sweden or other
Nordic countries with corporal punishment bans would comprise a decreasing proportion of child
assault suspects, Nordic and nonNordic suspects were compared. The proportion of assault suspects
who were Swedish or Nordic declined between 1984 and 1994 (
n
5
5,
t
5
5,
p
5
.0000), while
the proportion of suspects who were nonNordic citizens increased (SCB, 1995a).
CHILD PHYSICAL ABUSE
Clearly, reporting rates are not equivalent to rates of actual assaults against children. As public
awareness of child physical abuse increases, reporting rates will increase accordingly— even if
rates of actual abuse remain steady or decline. Therefore, additional measures are needed to
determine whether the recent trends in reporting rates reflect increased public awareness of the
problem or actual increases in child physical assault.
Although the actual child physical abuse rate can never be known, it can be estimated through
an examination of child criminal deaths, which are unequivocal as indicators of violence. Criminal
child deaths in Sweden did not increase between 1974 and 1996 (
n
5
11,
t
5
3,
p
5
.8867;
range
5
440 J. E. Durrant
3to14,
M
5
8.0) and have never exceeded .009 per 1,000 children (SCB, 1976a, 1978a, 1979a,
1980a, 1981a, 1982a, 1983a, 1984a, 1985a, 1986a, 1987a, 1988a, 1990a, 1991a, 1992a, 1992b,
1993a, 1994a, 1994b, 1996a, 1997a, 1998).
It is important to note, however, that not all criminal deaths of children result from child physical
abuse. They can occur, for example, within the context of maternal postnatal depression, suicide of
the perpetrator, neglect or neonaticide (Somander & Rammer, 1991). It is those child deaths that
result specifically from physical abuse which the World Health Organization considers to most
reliably reflect the rate of child abuse in a nation (UNICEF, 1994).
Between 1971 and 1975, five children died in Sweden as a result of physical abuse during
incidents in which the caretaker’s motive was “a disciplinary measure to eliminate a disturbing
behaviour of a child without the intention to kill” (Somander & Rammer, 1991, p. 53). However,
during the ensuing 15 years (1976 to 1990), no children died in Sweden as a result of abuse (SCB,
1978a, 1979a, 1980a, 1981a, 1982a, 1983a, 1984a, 1985a, 1986a, 1987a, 1988a, 1990a, 1991a,
1992a, 1992b). Between 1990 and 1996, four children died from the effects of physical abuse; only
one of these children was killed by a parent (SCB, 1992a, 1993a, 1994a, 1994b, 1996a, 1997a,
1998) and this rate does not represent a significant increase since 1971 (
n
5
13,
t
5
3,
p
5
.9539).
INTERVENTION: CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
Prior to 1982, in the case of petty or common assaults committed on private property, legal
proceedings could only be initiated by the victim or the victim’s caretaker. (The prosecutor had the
power to prosecute in the case of serious assaults.) Thus, the prosecutor could not proceed without
the victim’s consent, which had to be explicitly given to the police investigator. Since 1982, the
prosecutor has been obliged to prosecute where there is sufficient evidence to proceed.
Decisions to Pursue Reported Assaults
When an assault report is made to the police, a preliminary investigation is carried out. The
decision to pursue it further depends primarily on whether: (1) the alleged perpetrator is at least 15
years of age; (2) adequate evidence exists; and (3) the alleged act constitutes a crime. If these
criteria are not met, the investigation is not pursued.
Between 1984 and 1994, the largest proportion of reports were not pursued and this proportion
increased during that period (
n
5
5,
t
5
4,
p
5
.0312;
range
5
22% to 34%,
M
5
24.5%) (SCB,
1995a). This increase appears to be largely due to an increasing trend in the number of reported
assaults by youth under the age of 15 (
n
5
5,
t
5
4,
p
5
.0312;
range
5
126 to 733,
M
5
335.3),
although the proportion of total reports which they comprise did not increase significantly (
n
5
5,
t
5
3,
p
5
.1875;
range
5
10% to 15%,
M
5
12.5%). When reports involving alleged perpetrators
under the age of 15 years were removed from the analysis, the proportion of reports that were not
pursued remained steady between 1984 and 1994 (
n
5
5,
t
5
3,
p
5
.1875;
range
5
13% to 24%,
M
5
15.9%).
Decisions to Prosecute Reported Assaults
When a report is pursued, four outcomes are possible: prosecution in court, summary punishment
(generally a fine levied by the prosecuting attorney), a waiver of prosecution, or no measures taken.
Summary punishments consist of day fines issued by the prosecutor, the number and size of which
are determined by the seriousness of the crime and the suspect’s income, respectively. In order to
issue a summary punishment or a waiver of prosecution, the crime must be of a minor nature and
the suspect must have confessed to its commission (Sarnecki, 1991).
The prosecution rate shows a declining, but nonsignificant, trend between 1984 and 1994 (SCB,
Sweden’s corporal punishment ban 441
1995a) (
n
5
5,
t
5
2,
p
5
.5000;
range
5
17% to 34%;
M
5
20.3%). It is possible that this trend
line is confounded by the number of reported assaults allegedly committed by individuals who are
not old enough to be prosecuted (i.e., less than 15 years of age). Therefore, an analysis of
prosecution rates was conducted on those reported crimes allegedly committed by individuals 15
years of age and older. Prosecution rates still show a declining, but nonsignificant, trend when only
those reported assaults allegedly committed by individuals old enough to be prosecuted are
included in the analysis (
n
5
5,
t
5
2,
p
5
.5000;
range
5
19% to 38%,
M
5
23.6%).
The proportion of reports ending in summary punishments remained steady between 1984 and
1994 (
n
5
5,
t
5
3,
p
5
.1875;
range
5
3% to 5%,
M
5
3.4%), while the rate of prosecution
waivers decreased (
n
5
5,
t
5
5,
p
5
.0000;
range
5
2% to 4%,
M
5
2.6%) (SCB, 1995a). This
is also the case when only those alleged offenders old enough to face prosecution are considered
(for summary punishments
n
5
5,
t
5
2,
p
5
.5000;
range
5
3% to 6%,
M
5
4.0%; for prosecution
waivers
n
5
5,
t
5
4,
p
5
.0312;
range
5
2% to 5%,
M
5
3%).
The proportion of reports which were pursued but for which no measures were taken shows an
increasing, but nonsignificant, trend between 1984 and 1994 (
n
5
5,
t
5
3,
p
5
.1875;
range
5
1% to 4%,
M
5
2.5%). This finding still obtains when only those offenders old enough to be
prosecuted are considered (
n
5
5,
t
5
3,
p
5
.1875;
range
5
1% to 5%,
M
5
2.9%). Note that
the percentages of reports that are cleared up in various ways do not sum to 100%, as many crimes
are not cleared up in the year in which the report was made (Olsson, personal communication,
February 13, 1998).
INTERVENTION: MEASURES TAKEN BY THE SOCIAL AUTHORITIES
Numbers of Children Receiving Support and Care Measures
Two indicators can be examined of the numbers of children receiving support and care measures
in a given year: (1) the number of children subject to measures at any time during that year, that
is, all those still receiving measures first implemented in previous years plus all those who received
measures for the first time during that year; and (2) the number of children who first received
measures in that year (“debutants”—these children were not subject to measures within the
previous 5 years).
As would be expected on the basis of the increase seen in rates of reported assaults against and
by children, the overall trend in the number of children subject to one or more support or care
measures in any given year showed an increasing trend between 1982 and 1995 (Socialstyrelsen,
1995, 1996). However, this increase was not statistically significant (
n
5
7,
t
5
5,
p
5
.0625;
range
5
22,707 to 28,702,
M
5
24,705.8). The mean rate of children receiving support or care
measures in a given year was 13.1 per 1,000 population in the 0- to 17-year-old age group (
range
5
12.2 to 14.6).
The overall trend for debutant children also was an increasing one between 1982 and 1995
(Socialstyrelsen, 1995, 1996). However, this increase was not statistically significant (
n
5
7,
t
5
5,
p
5
.0625). The annual average number of debutant children receiving support or care measures
was 5,692.2 (
range
5
4,528 to 6,974), yielding a mean rate of 3.0 per 1,000 population in the 0-
to 17-year-old age group (
range
5
2.4 to 3.6).
The following findings refer to the former indicator. An appropriate interpretation of these
figures requires an understanding of the types of measures that are possible in Sweden.
Types of Measures
Social services professionals are guided by two acts: (1) the Social Services Act (Socialtja
̈nst-
lagen: SoL); and (2) the Special Provisions for Care of Young People Act (Lagen med sa
̈rskilda
442 J. E. Durrant
besta
̈mmelser om vård av unga: LVU). SoL measures are voluntary, that is, they are carried out
with parental consent—while LVU measures are compulsory. Either of these types of measures can
be implemented if the home is deficient (i.e., in the case of abuse, neglect, parental substance abuse,
parental physical or mental illness) or if the child’s health and development is jeopardized by his
or her own behaviour.
It is important to note that children under the age of 15 alleged to have committed a criminal act
are always referred to social services; although they are registered in the police statistics, the
responsibility for dealing with their crimes lies with the social, not judicial, authorities. Response
to crimes committed by youth between the ages of 15 and 18 (or, in some cases, 20) is shared
between social services and the criminal justice system (Sarnecki, 1991). For those young offenders
who are successfully prosecuted, court-imposed sanctions can include care in accordance with SoL.
Therefore, it should be remembered that Swedish support and care statistics include young
offenders.
It should also be noted that the figures reported below refer to numbers of measures, not numbers
of children. Therefore, children who receive more than one measure in a given year will be counted
more than once.
Measures administered under SoL.
SoL, passed in 1982, substantially altered policies regarding
children receiving support and care measures. This Act was intended to reduce compulsion and
increase voluntary and preventive measures. For example, it eliminated supervision and introduced
the “contact person” (or “contact family”), whose role is to provide friendship and support to the
family (Gould, 1988; Sarnecki, 1991).
Together with the intended preventive function of the corporal punishment ban, it could be
expected that this Act would lead to an increase in voluntary measures and a decrease in
compulsory measures since 1982. This has been the case. Between 1982 and 1995, the proportion
of measures taken with parental consent (SoL) increased significantly (
n
5
7,
t
5
6,
p
5
.0078;
range
5
65% to 83%,
M
5
77.7%), while the proportion of measures implemented on a
compulsory basis (LVU) decreased steadily (
n
5
7,
t
5
7,
p
5
.0000;
range
5
18% to 35%,
M
5
22.4%) (Socialstyrelsen, 1995, 1996). In every year between 1982 and 1995, the majority of
measures have been of a voluntary nature; in 1995, fewer than 20% of measures were implemented
without parental consent.
SoL measures are of two types: (1) assignment of a contact person; or (2) placement of the child
outside the parental home (generally in a foster home, a children’s home operated by a county
council, a special supervisory home, a privately operated care home, or a children’s psychiatric
clinic). While out-of-home placements exceeded provision of contact persons in 1982, the reverse
was true by 1989 and this trend has continued through the mid-1990s (Socialstyrelsen, 1995, 1996).
Assignment of contact persons more than doubled between 1982 and 1995 (
n
5
7,
t
5
6,
p
5
.0078;
range
5
27% to 60%,
M
5
47.0%), while out-of-home placements were reduced by
one-third (
n
5
7,
t
5
7,
p
5
.0000;
range
5
39% to 65%,
M
5
52.1%).
Measures administered under LVU.
Under LVU, three measures are possible: (1) short-term
out-of-home care, primarily during investigations; (2) long-term or permanent out-of-home care;
and (3) assignment of a contact person, a measure available since 1985. These measures are
undertaken when the well-being of the child is seriously jeopardized.
Long-term out-of-home care declined steadily between 1982 and 1995 (
n
5
7,
t
5
7,
p
5
.0000;
range
5
75% to 90%,
M
5
82.0%) in relation to short-term out-of-home care (
n
5
7,
t
5
7,
p
5
.0000;
range
5
18% to 35%,
M
5
22.4%) (Socialstyrelsen, 1995, 1996). The assignment of contact
persons did not increase between 1985 and 1995 (
n
5
5,
t
5
2,
p
5
.5000;
range
5
0.3 to 1.1,
M
5
.8%).
Sweden’s corporal punishment ban 443
DISCUSSION
The primary purpose of the present study was to examine trends in social variables relevant to
the 1979 Swedish corporal punishment ban. The goals of the ban were to: (1) reduce public support
for corporal punishment; (2) encourage earlier identification of children at risk for physical abuse;
and (3) facilitate earlier, more supportive intervention. Data collected from a range of official
sources indicate that these objectives are being met.
Support for Corporal Punishment
Since 1965, public support for corporal punishment has declined dramatically in Sweden, from
53% to 11%. The decrease seen in support for corporal punishment may have contributed to a
decline in its use. Although no longitudinal studies of use exist, findings of a series of cross-
sectional studies suggest that corporal punishment has become less prevalent in Sweden over the
past 40 years. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Stattin, Janson, Klackenberg-Larsson, and
Magnusson (1995) found that more than 90% of mothers in their Swedish sample had struck their
preschool-aged children. However, by 1994, only one-half of adults (aged 18 and older) reported
having received physical punishment as children from a mother or father (SCB, 1996c). Moreover,
only one-third of middle school pupils reported having received physical punishment from a
mother or father and, of these, most had experienced only its mildest forms (e.g., arm grabbing and
mild slaps). Of the children surveyed, only 3% had received harsh slaps and 1% had been hit with
objects.
In another recent study, Durrant, Broberg, and Rose-Krasnor (in press) asked Swedish mothers
of preschool-aged children how they would respond to various child misbehaviors. Only 16% of
these mothers said that they would apply physical force and, of these, none said that they would
strike the child; rather, all said that they would grab or tightly hold the child.
Together, these findings suggest that support for physical punishment has decreased dramatically
in Sweden over recent decades, that this decline has been accompanied by a reduction in its use,
and that its forms have become increasingly mild. Indeed, it appears that the very definition of mild
physical punishment has come to exclude hard slaps (SCB, 1996c), which would be considered
normative in many other countries. Therefore, the corporal punishment ban and ongoing public
education campaigns appear to have been extremely effective in altering the social climate with
regard to corporal punishment. While parental striking of children was a common occurrence 40
years ago, today this practice clearly can be termed nonnormative.
Early Identification
One of the goals of the corporal punishment ban was to increase awareness of child physical
abuse and to encourage the public to protect children at risk. Together with the public awareness
campaigns conducted in Sweden through the 1970s and 1980s, this legal change was expected to
produce an increase in child assault reports through the 1980s.
Indeed, reporting of assaults against children has increased since 1981. However, the proportions
of these reports that are pursued and prosecuted has remained steady since 1984, even when
reported assaults by alleged offenders too young to be prosecuted are excluded from the analysis
and despite a 1982 policy change making prosecution substantially easier to pursue. Together, these
findings clearly indicate that although Swedes have become increasingly aware of child physical
abuse and increasingly willing to report it, the corporal punishment ban has not resulted in greater
criminalization of caretakers.
When the characteristics of adult suspects in child assault cases are examined, further support is
found for the conclusion that the corporal punishment ban has had its desired effects. The
proportion of adult suspects that is comprised of individuals reared after the passage of the ban has
444 J. E. Durrant
decreased since 1984, as has the proportion who are citizens of Sweden or other Nordic countries.
Therefore, individuals raised within a social climate rejecting of corporal punishment are decreas-
ingly likely to become suspects in child assault cases.
Interestingly, the proportion of suspects charged with assault against older children that was
comprised of individuals aged 50 or older was also found to have decreased. This finding may
indicate that grandparents have changed their disciplinary methods in the wake of the corporal
punishment ban. However, conclusions about this group must be drawn cautiously, as it is highly
heterogeneous.
While the number of reports of youth assaults against peers has increased, the proportion of
suspects in assault cases that is comprised of youth has not increased. These findings raise the
question of whether youth are becoming increasingly violent or whether, as in the case of adults,
others are becoming increasingly willing to report assault incidents.
Several sources of data can help to answer this question. First, victimization studies, based on
the reports of young people regarding their experience of “street violence,” which are not subject
to fluctuations in enforcement, indicate that the victimization rate of young people aged 16 to 20
remained steady between 1976 and 1994 (von Hofer, 1995). These findings suggest that the
increase seen in reports of youth violence against peers may be more a function of enforcement
than of change in the behaviour of young people (Junger-Tas, 1996).
Second, the rate of homicides against young people (aged 15 to 19) remained consistently low
from 1975 to 1994 (
range
5
.2 to 1.6 per 100,000), as did the number of young people suspected
of homicide (
range
5
.8 to 3.2 per 100,000) (von Hofer, 1995). Further, the proportion of
individuals convicted of homicide who are aged 15 to 17 years did not increase between 1975 and
1996 (
n
5
11,
t
5
7,
p
5
.1133) (BRÅ, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998; SCB, 1976b, 1977, 1978b, 1979a,
1980b, 1981b, 1982b, 1983b, 1984b, 1985b, 1986b, 1987b, 1988b, 1989, 1990b, 1991b, 1992c,
1993b, 1994c, 1995b, 1996b, 1997b). (It should be noted that the annual average number of 15- to
17-year-olds convicted of homicide was 3.3, a rate of 1 per 100,000, between 1975 and 1996.)
Finally, the proportion of individuals convicted of rape who are between the ages of 15 and 17
years decreased during the same period (
n
5
11,
t
5
10,
p
5
.0005) (BRÅ, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998;
SCB, 1976b, 1977, 1978b, 1979a, 1980b, 1981b, 1982b, 1983b, 1984b, 1985b, 1986b, 1987b,
1988b, 1989, 1990b, 1991b, 1992c, 1993b, 1994c, 1995b, 1996b, 1997b). These findings suggest
that major violence by and toward young people has not increased since the mid-1970s.
Together, these findings suggest that the increasing trend in the number of youth assault suspects
is at least partially attributable to increased enforcement. Indeed, a recent campaign against
bullying in Sweden has resulted in school bans on all forms of aggressive behaviour; principals
now routinely report to the police any instances brought to their attention, including threats and
minor assaults (von Hofer, 1995). The police, in turn, have no discretionary power in registering
such reports; all are entered into the criminal statistics.
An analysis of seasonal trends in youth violence suggests that anti-bullying policies do contrib-
ute to the increase seen in reporting of youth assaults (Olsson, 1995). These data indicate a clear
pattern of increased reporting of assault against older children (aged 7 to 14) during the school
months and decreased reporting during vacation months. Further, approximately 60% of reported
assaults against 7- to 14-year-olds take place on weekdays; in contrast, only 20 to 30% of reported
assaults against adult men take place on weekdays (Olsson, 1995).
Therefore, as in the case of reported assaults by adults against children, increased reporting of
youth assault against peers appears to be largely due to increased awareness of the problem and is
congruent with other social changes in Sweden that have occurred over the past 150 years which
have defined virtually all forms of private and public use of force as illegitimate violence (von
Hofer, 1995). The recent campaign aimed at eliminating bullying has re-defined as assault what
was once considered to be common, even expected, behaviour among youth. And while increasing
Sweden’s corporal punishment ban 445
cultural rejection of violence has resulted in increased reporting of assaults by adults and youth,
their relative proportions have not changed since the mid-1980s.
It is possible, however, that youth assault rates have truly increased to an unknown extent. If this
is the case, could such an increase be directly attributed to the effects of the corporal punishment
ban? Clearly, numerous major social changes occur in any society over a period of almost 20 years.
In Sweden, such changes include the importation of violent videos and television programs, an
increase in the youth unemployment rate, and the erosion of social welfare programs (see Olsen,
1996). Such factors would have to be considered in any interpretation of data demonstrating an
increase in rates of youth assault in Sweden since 1979.
Estimates of Child Physical Abuse
Reports of assaults against children cannot be assumed to reflect rates of child physical abuse,
as they are highly vulnerable to shifts in public awareness and definitions of violence. Child
criminal death rates, which have remained at a constantly low rate since 1974, suggest that child
physical abuse has not increased in the wake of the corporal punishment ban. In fact, by the late
1980s, the Swedish rate of infant (under 1-year-of-age) homicide was among the lowest in the
world; this rate (.009 per 1,000 live births) reflected the criminal death of only one infant between
1985 and 1990 (Belsey, 1993).
Swedish child abuse mortality rates, a more specific indicator of the extent of physical abuse in
a nation, are internationally very low; for 15 years, no children died in Sweden as a result of abuse.
Recent fluctuations of the rate from zero reflect the death of one child in each of four years between
1990 and 1996. These findings suggest that recent trends in reporting rates reflect increased public
awareness of the problem of child abuse, rather than an actual increase in violence.
Measures Taken by the Social Authorities
Through early identification, the corporal punishment ban was intended to contribute to a
stronger emphasis on prevention of abuse. The data presented here demonstrate that since 1982,
support and care interventions have become increasingly preventive, voluntary, and supportive of
families. The proportion of measures carried out with parental consent has increased. Of these, the
proportion involving out-of-home placements has been reduced by one-third, while the proportion
involving the assignment of support persons has doubled. Of compulsory interventions, which
constitute fewer than 20% of measures, the proportion comprised of long-term measures has
decreased steadily while the proportion comprised of short-term measures has increased. The
assignment of LVU contact persons did not increase, most likely because of the serious nature of
these families’ difficulties which would warrant more drastic intervention.
Therefore, child apprehensions and other coercive measures have decreased since the passage of
the ban, while preventive and voluntary measures have increased. Of course, such a dramatic
change cannot be attributed solely to the effects of the corporal punishment ban. A radical change
in legislation, the Social Services Act (SoL), was implemented in 1982 with the explicit goal of
reducing compulsory measures. However, the corporal punishment ban needs to be viewed as one
part of a package of proactive legislative changes aimed at prevention (see Durrant & Olsen, 1997).
CONCLUSION
It is important to note that direct causal relationships between the passage of the corporal
punishment ban and the trends reported here cannot be drawn. Many social changes have occurred
in Sweden over the past 25 years, including ongoing legislative reform, demographic shifts, and
modifications to social policies. These forces have likely interacted with the attitudinal shifts
446 J. E. Durrant
engendered by the corporal punishment ban to produce the trends reported here. However direct or
indirect the route from the ban to these outcomes, it is clear that the original goals of the Swedish
corporal punishment ban have been met
-
Article pasted for Jack, to save her the trouble of asking :zoinks: :zoinks:
:thumbup:
-
I would never condone kids being taken away from their family because they spanked them. That would harm a lot of children. That would be silly and achieve nothing.
Then what would be the legal consequences for spanking? Small fine similar to a parking ticket? How many tickets is too many?
The goal of such a law is to prevent it from happening rather than introducing petty fines with the expectation that the law will be ignored.
It seems that the countries who have already taken steps to ban all forms of corporal punishment have had desirable effects. The focus being on education more than prosecution.
This article is a little dated, (2002) but does give an idea of how the policy has been working in places like Sweden.
http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/news/725230/ (http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/news/725230/)
Laws against physically punishing children have been used to educate parents rather than prosecute them. Jackie Cosh reports
Aban on smacking children was implemented in Sweden in 1979. Since then only four children have been killed after being assaulted by an adult, and only one of these was at the hands of a parent - one child in 23 years, compared with Britain's one child a week.
I'd like to know Sweden's baseline, though. It's a powerful statistic, but it's backed up by comparing apples and oranges.
Bodie, did you ever address this? I scanned for you replying to me but didn't find it. I would legitly like to know.
Sorry, missed this.
The biggest study carried out (that i can find) is found here http://snifferdogonline.com/reports/Corporal%20Punishment/Evaluating%20the%20Success%20of%20Sweden%27s%20Corporal%20Punishment%20Ban.pdf (http://snifferdogonline.com/reports/Corporal%20Punishment/Evaluating%20the%20Success%20of%20Sweden%27s%20Corporal%20Punishment%20Ban.pdf)
Relevant part:
Between 1971 and 1975, five children died in Sweden as a result of physical abuse during
incidents in which the caretaker’s motive was “a disciplinary measure to eliminate a disturbing
behaviour of a child without the intention to kill” (Somander & Rammer, 1991, p. 53).
However, during the ensuing 15 years (1976 to 1990), no children died in Sweden as a result of abuse (SCB,
1978a, 1979a, 1980a, 1981a, 1982a, 1983a, 1984a, 1985a, 1986a, 1987a, 1988a, 1990a, 1991a,
1992a, 1992b).
Between 1990 and 1996, four children died from the effects of physical abuse; only
one of these children was killed by a parent (SCB, 1992a, 1993a, 1994a, 1994b, 1996a, 1997a,
1998) and this rate does not represent a significant increase since 1971[...].
Sweden's baseline was already significantly, significantly lower than "Britain's one child a week."
The conclusion I draw here is genuinely that there's something else going on. The ban on corporal punishment may have had benefits, but as far as child deaths went, Sweden was already doing something different than other countries, either in reporting, or in genuine prevention.
-
While still not amounting to anywhere near "one child a week", it should be pointed out that Sweden's population then was (and still is, as far as I know) about 1/8 of the UK's.
I'd like to know more about Britain's numbers.
-
These figures are from NSPCC website
Ofsted's Annual report 2007/08 (Ofsted, 2008) presented the findings from the first full year of inspection and regulation by Ofsted across its expanded remit that came into being in April 2007, which includes evidence of progress made in safeguarding children.
According to this report, in the 17-month period to the end of August 2008 local authorities in England notified Ofsted of 424 serious incidents involving the deaths of 282 children. This equates to 199 annually, or almost four children each week.
Since publication of this report, Ofsted has clarified that 210 of these deaths, i.e. three each week, were actually attributable to abuse or neglect (Gilbert, 2008). This is still higher than the NSPCC’s estimate of at least one child a week, but it must be borne in mind that the figures stem from very different, albeit complementary, sources of data and are in fact not contradictory.
The NSPCC has traditionally focused on the ONS (previously Home Office) homicide data, which records those cases where there is sufficient evidence that homicide may have taken place. This data has been collected relatively consistently for 30 years by the police and therefore provides a useful long term measure of change. However, it is the NSPCC’s long-held view that these official figures are actually an underestimate.
The Ofsted data include deaths in which abuse or neglect is known or suspected to have played a part in the widest sense: it includes cases with a history of domestic violence between the adults, where substance misuse was evident at time of death, or where investigations were inconclusive but abuse or neglect are suspected.
These deaths, however, are not accounted for in the homicide data. The NSPCC welcomes this important addition to the data pool and see it as a valuable enhancement to what we know about children’s tragic experiences.
There are many reports about child death from abuse in the UK. They seem to range from 1-4 deaths per week.
I couldn't open the PDF files from the Gov.uk website :grrr:
-
I think this is the crux of things.
So the next question is: even if they were wrong is saying both are harmful to the child, isn't saving a few children from an unnecessary beating (crossing the line but previously within accepted limits) worth it?
Is it a reasonable question?
I think so. The answer is i do not believe in the type of mindset of "Kill them all, God will know his own". The reason for it is that the superficial answer is "Yes if it spares the kids it is great, children need protecting from beatings". I am not a heartless person so I am encourage to give this answer until i consider it on a deeper level. It protects kids, even if they do not need it, BUT it potentially punishes good and bad parents. Is that also as commendable?" My answer is, "No"
I think the military call this collateral damage.
I think it demands a case by case basis. Kind of innocence til proven guilty.
It also is likely to drive a discourse which tars one with another unfairly and I think this is not beneficial to the parents, the kids, or society. Bad parents deserve bad repercussions and good parents deserve to be praised.
Why is this superficial? Let's say I had a) reputable, peer-reviewed numbers that strongly indicate an outright ban would bring down crime rates in the future and save a couple of kids from outright beating every year, and b) equally strong methods detailing alternative form of parenting, without any smacking necessary, that would produce responsible, well-behaved adults?
I mean, what would it take? When would it stop being a government meddling with its citizens' private lives? A case by case basis would not work. Lots of kids would fall through the cracks and nothing would change.
Because it is lazy and idealistic. It will target good parenting and bad parenting and redefine good parents as bad.
I see this almost as ridiculous a solution as the more evolved version.
Wow if you call spanking hitting, abusive and beating and apply that to all these parents so that you can write up good stats, then imagine if you outlawed alll forms of parenting. The kids complaining that their parents were never abusive but were cold or would take things off them or whatever will no longer be dysfunctional members of society.
Let's call "parents to be" "potential parents of at risk children"
There will be children saved from bad parenting.
I am sorry but majority rebuttals or going too retorts far won't work here. I think it is ridiculous in exactly the same ways
-
It's actually pretty easy for the authorities here to take children from their parents on very vague grounds - though I think that was the case long before the laws against spanking existed.
-
Again. Common sense being legislated is ridiculous. People need to shut their fucking overactive mouths and work on things that actually matter. Sure people beat their kids. Its a law going to stop it? No. Is a severe beating, people noticing and calling the police and getting them in prison and having the kids moved to a more wholesome location, SHOOTING the fuckers, generally removing this filthy and evil aspect of society going to do anything?
In a word, YES. This is fucking common sense, guys. A law won't solve it, but less laziness, and more awareness for your fellow man. Get your fucking asses in gear instead of trying to tell people what to do. They won't obey you. Trust me.
-
I think kids need a little spanking every now and then.
With your saggy balls?
-
I think this is the crux of things.
So the next question is: even if they were wrong is saying both are harmful to the child, isn't saving a few children from an unnecessary beating (crossing the line but previously within accepted limits) worth it?
Is it a reasonable question?
I think so. The answer is i do not believe in the type of mindset of "Kill them all, God will know his own". The reason for it is that the superficial answer is "Yes if it spares the kids it is great, children need protecting from beatings". I am not a heartless person so I am encourage to give this answer until i consider it on a deeper level. It protects kids, even if they do not need it, BUT it potentially punishes good and bad parents. Is that also as commendable?" My answer is, "No"
I think the military call this collateral damage.
I think it demands a case by case basis. Kind of innocence til proven guilty.
It also is likely to drive a discourse which tars one with another unfairly and I think this is not beneficial to the parents, the kids, or society. Bad parents deserve bad repercussions and good parents deserve to be praised.
Why is this superficial? Let's say I had a) reputable, peer-reviewed numbers that strongly indicate an outright ban would bring down crime rates in the future and save a couple of kids from outright beating every year, and b) equally strong methods detailing alternative form of parenting, without any smacking necessary, that would produce responsible, well-behaved adults?
I mean, what would it take? When would it stop being a government meddling with its citizens' private lives? A case by case basis would not work. Lots of kids would fall through the cracks and nothing would change.
Because it is lazy and idealistic. It will target good parenting and bad parenting and redefine good parents as bad.
I see this almost as ridiculous a solution as the more evolved version.
Wow if you call spanking hitting, abusive and beating and apply that to all these parents so that you can write up good stats, then imagine if you outlawed alll forms of parenting. The kids complaining that their parents were never abusive but were cold or would take things off them or whatever will no longer be dysfunctional members of society.
Let's call "parents to be" "potential parents of at risk children"
There will be children saved from bad parenting.
I am sorry but majority rebuttals or going too retorts far won't work here. I think it is ridiculous in exactly the same ways
But going overboard with it, there would be children falling through the cracks again, for other reasons, which you know and which I know. I'm not discussing outlawing all forms of parenting and you know fully well I'm not. I presented a hypothetical and would appreciate an answer.
With all else being equal, if I could show that yes, there is a method of parenting that works without any form of smacking, and yes, there is reasonable cause for believing the stats as presented by the Swedish authorities, why not?
-
It's actually pretty easy for the authorities here to take children from their parents on very vague grounds - though I think that was the case long before the laws against spanking existed.
Oh yes. It was easier back then, actually. Sweden's always been something of a nanny state.
-
Again. Common sense being legislated is ridiculous. People need to shut their fucking overactive mouths and work on things that actually matter. Sure people beat their kids. Its a law going to stop it? No. Is a severe beating, people noticing and calling the police and getting them in prison and having the kids moved to a more wholesome location, SHOOTING the fuckers, generally removing this filthy and evil aspect of society going to do anything?
In a word, YES. This is fucking common sense, guys. A law won't solve it, but less laziness, and more awareness for your fellow man. Get your fucking asses in gear instead of trying to tell people what to do. They won't obey you. Trust me.
It is common sense not to kill people whenever you feel they are being morons, yet there is legislation in place in most countries to punish you for it, should you decide to do it anyway. Why do you suppose that is?
-
It is common sense not to kill people whenever you feel they are being morons, yet there is legislation in place in most countries to punish you for it, should you decide to do it anyway. Why do you suppose that is?
Cynically speaking: because the state must show its authority. It says that it's because it cares about the citizens, but that's not true if you look at it historically. Originally the punishment for killing someone was only a fine. It was when the state grew stronger and got its monopoly on violence that blood feud etc. became illegal and the punishments became severe.
What sparked the Germanic uprising against the Romans in 9 A.D. was mainly that the Romans executed a free man. This was totally against Germanic customs and morals 2000 years ago. A free man back then only paid a fine for committing any crime, including murder. If he was to be punished in any other way was up to the relatives of the victim. A few nations still have this custom, even if the written law says something else.
Oh, I forgot: the Romans also forbade the Germans to carry weapons in public. This was also unthinkable for a free man back then ;)
-
In Sweden it's very obvious that the state's monopoly on violence is much more important than the right of the citizens to protect life and property. Although most European countries have very severe gunlaws, Sweden is one of the few that doesn't allow the citizens to carry anything that realistically can be used in self-defense. Even Russia allows its citizens to carry a baton or a can of teargas for protecting themselves. Germany allows tasers and teargas guns. Sweden doesn't allow anything :thumbdn:
-
Again. Common sense being legislated is ridiculous. People need to shut their fucking overactive mouths and work on things that actually matter. Sure people beat their kids. Its a law going to stop it? No. Is a severe beating, people noticing and calling the police and getting them in prison and having the kids moved to a more wholesome location, SHOOTING the fuckers, generally removing this filthy and evil aspect of society going to do anything?
In a word, YES. This is fucking common sense, guys. A law won't solve it, but less laziness, and more awareness for your fellow man. Get your fucking asses in gear instead of trying to tell people what to do. They won't obey you. Trust me.
The goals of the Swedish Government have been met. It does work. It has worked without the need to prosecute parents. There has been no sharp increase in kids being taken away. It has been 30 years, and i'm sure any ill effects would have become apparent by now.
-
It would be better to solve things without laws, though, and, as I have stated so many times before: although Sweden is a welfare society with relatively little violence, the authorities don't really care about the individual.
-
It would be better to solve things without laws, though, and, as I have stated so many times before: although Sweden is a welfare society with relatively little violence, the authorities don't really care about the individual.
I don't think it matters if they "care." It matters how they treat the individual/how they effect the individual.
-
Why do you think suicide is so high in Sweden? Why do you think so many people are on antidepressants? :(
-
I think this is the crux of things.
So the next question is: even if they were wrong is saying both are harmful to the child, isn't saving a few children from an unnecessary beating (crossing the line but previously within accepted limits) worth it?
Is it a reasonable question?
I think so. The answer is i do not believe in the type of mindset of "Kill them all, God will know his own". The reason for it is that the superficial answer is "Yes if it spares the kids it is great, children need protecting from beatings". I am not a heartless person so I am encourage to give this answer until i consider it on a deeper level. It protects kids, even if they do not need it, BUT it potentially punishes good and bad parents. Is that also as commendable?" My answer is, "No"
I think the military call this collateral damage.
I think it demands a case by case basis. Kind of innocence til proven guilty.
It also is likely to drive a discourse which tars one with another unfairly and I think this is not beneficial to the parents, the kids, or society. Bad parents deserve bad repercussions and good parents deserve to be praised.
Why is this superficial? Let's say I had a) reputable, peer-reviewed numbers that strongly indicate an outright ban would bring down crime rates in the future and save a couple of kids from outright beating every year, and b) equally strong methods detailing alternative form of parenting, without any smacking necessary, that would produce responsible, well-behaved adults?
I mean, what would it take? When would it stop being a government meddling with its citizens' private lives? A case by case basis would not work. Lots of kids would fall through the cracks and nothing would change.
Because it is lazy and idealistic. It will target good parenting and bad parenting and redefine good parents as bad.
I see this almost as ridiculous a solution as the more evolved version.
Wow if you call spanking hitting, abusive and beating and apply that to all these parents so that you can write up good stats, then imagine if you outlawed alll forms of parenting. The kids complaining that their parents were never abusive but were cold or would take things off them or whatever will no longer be dysfunctional members of society.
Let's call "parents to be" "potential parents of at risk children"
There will be children saved from bad parenting.
I am sorry but majority rebuttals or going too retorts far won't work here. I think it is ridiculous in exactly the same ways
But going overboard with it, there would be children falling through the cracks again, for other reasons, which you know and which I know. I'm not discussing outlawing all forms of parenting and you know fully well I'm not. I presented a hypothetical and would appreciate an answer.
With all else being equal, if I could show that yes, there is a method of parenting that works without any form of smacking, and yes, there is reasonable cause for believing the stats as presented by the Swedish authorities, why not?
Why not? Because it plays hard and loose with definitions.
If you want the all things being equal, and why not I could present it to you this way.
If we put aside the smacking children bit for a moment and consider the same sample population all together without smacking entering the equation. If studies on developing children was made on a new case study into "Children with parents who were drug takers", then from the face of it we probably would not be surprised if this posted some scary results. It would literally scream out for serious attention. Rightly so.
At this point there is nothing wrong with it.
However with the definition, it includes smokers and even social drinkers as drug takers.
So the figures are obviously informed by the heavy drug users not the Dad who has a beer at bbq's with mates on weekends nor the Mum who has a cigarette just before work, with a friend at tea break and one after work and one out the back when kids are asleep.
These people simply do not belong in the same category as the heavy illicit drug users. Nor is there any reason to necessarily think that they contribute in any meaningful way to the statistic born from the drug users are bad parents group.
Now I think it is dishonest if we were to hide behind, too hard to differentiate, stats are stats, what does it matter, or well they are users too just not as bad.
As for Let's say I had a) reputable, peer-reviewed numbers that strongly indicate an outright ban would bring down crime rates in the future and save a couple of kids from outright beating every year, and b) equally strong methods detailing alternative form of parenting, without any smacking necessary, that would produce responsible, well-behaved adults?
I would likely suspect strongly an agenda and a bias and the what is not represented for some of the same reasons I have stated above.
Whilst you may find yourself in the hypothetical situation of being accused of being a drug taking parent (as i and many others would fit the defined criteria of), you would likely shrug your shoulders after a while and say "Meh, well I don't and won't agree with you or your stupid stats and think relating me to drug addled meth head parents may mean something to you, I think you are wrong" i am inclined for exactly the same reasons to dismiss the non-hypothetical parents who spank their kids bottoms are akin to people that beat their children.
-
I think laws are written to best serve the needs of those who write them.
However, laws that protect individuals against harm from other individuals are necessary. Odeon brought up murder. Yes, it is common sense that one should not end the life of another. How many times have you been so filled with rage, that if there was no consequence, you would murder another? So horny that you would rape another. So lazy that you would opt to hit your child and train them through fear of pain?
Common sense is not a good argument to use when protecting one persons liberties against another's actions. Common sense would apply to seat belt laws, helmet laws, drug laws, etc...
-
I think laws are written to best serve the needs of those who write them.
However, laws that protect individuals against harm from other individuals are necessary. Odeon brought up murder. Yes, it is common sense that one should not end the life of another. How many times have you been so filled with rage, that if there was no consequence, you would murder another? So horny that you would rape another. So lazy that you would opt to hit your child and train them through fear of pain?
Common sense is not a good argument to use when protecting one persons liberties against another's actions. Common sense would apply to seat belt laws, helmet laws, drug laws, etc...
That is the thing entirely. You can lead a horse to water but you can not make it drink. stupid people will do stupid things for stupid reasons. Immoral people will dop immoral things for immoral reasons and crazy people will do crazy things for crazy reasons.
Instead of taking away rights and freedoms and making decisions for society because some of the afore mentioned people can not make decent or respectable choices, how about making some laws which do not take away from the decent people in hope to manage the wackos. Instead re-educating the ignorant and getting tough on immoral and managing the crazy.
I can not see a great case for ostracising good elements of society in a netdrag attempt to round up some baddies. I do not believe in the appeal of collateral damage.
-
Actually i am rather interested if after asking twice already, whether Bodie will discuss the accusation of me supposedly being bitchy in respect to her urchin. Not sure i know where she is coming from and genuinely interested in her rational.
More actually than teh spanking debate.
-
Why would you be interested in arguing with me instead of debating this topic? I got no intention of spending any more time talking to you, better stuff to do.
-
Why would you be interested in arguing with me instead of debating this topic? I got no intention of spending any more time talking to you, better stuff to do.
I get a sense of closure on the spanking debate. I feel that there is a sense that the debate is winding down. All views shared and considered and clarified and disputed or agreed with. Maybe not quite but close enough. It is winding down.
That comment/claim/accusation of yours seems to me a little unresolved, unwarranted, illogical, insensible and begging for an explanation. I really have no idea why you said what you did and your initial explanation made bugger all sense.
So that is my "interest". I prefer to call it a curiosity. I am pedantic over these things. I tend too to think that things ought to be backed, when you make the claim and then refuse to explain it, it makes me think you are not interested in backing yourself.
-
Too bad. I thought similar about when you suggested i think anyone smacking a kid is a child abuser.
-
Too bad. I thought similar about when you suggested i think anyone smacking a kid is a child abuser.
Unlike that though, I both back my rationale as to why it looked that way to me ( which you ignored and did not counter) and said I would post the quotes of yours specifically, but did contest that I would after you had explained the whole"bitchy" thing.
So I again can not see your position. Why would you feel that same way? Its totally different.
-
Why do you think suicide is so high in Sweden? Why do you think so many people are on antidepressants? :(
The suicide rate in Sweden is not particularly high. It's about the same as in the US. You want high? Have a look at Finland or Russia.
I couldn't find any prescription rate comparisons per country but I believe Sweden consumes less per capita than France or the US. What's your point?
-
Methinks Sweden is depressing :-\
-
Too bad. I thought similar about when you suggested i think anyone smacking a kid is a child abuser.
Unlike that though, I both back my rationale as to why it looked that way to me ( which you ignored and did not counter) and said I would post the quotes of yours specifically, but did contest that I would after you had explained the whole"bitchy" thing.
So I again can not see your position. Why would you feel that same way? Its totally different.
When did i say i felt the same? Oh my God this is boring. I am not going over any of it again, and no, i don't feel like i need to back myself up. I am amused by how pedantic you are.
-
Methinks Sweden is depressing :-\
Have you never been to England? :zoinks:
-
No :orly:
-
Too bad. I thought similar about when you suggested i think anyone smacking a kid is a child abuser.
Unlike that though, I both back my rationale as to why it looked that way to me ( which you ignored and did not counter) and said I would post the quotes of yours specifically, but did contest that I would after you had explained the whole"bitchy" thing.
So I again can not see your position. Why would you feel that same way? Its totally different.
When did i say i felt the same? Oh my God this is boring. I am not going over any of it again, and no, i don't feel like i need to back myself up. I am amused by how pedantic you are.
Too bad. I thought similar about when you suggested i think anyone smacking a kid is a child abuser.
We stand for freedom of expression, combative debate, and the generation of ideas. There are no boundaries here over what may be said, save for one rule - be prepared to back up your words. Or face the wrath of the community.
This is how this goes. It is as I say not that you specifically said "spanking (smacking bottoms) is child abuse"
What you DID say is that spanking and hitting (or was it beating children) is all just varying degrees.
You did say that. You did talk about a kid who was beaten at home with implements in his teens, by his Father, and framed it in terms of spanking.
You do support a ban on spankings as you believe it leads to violent crimes in children later in life.
You do also say what it apparently teaches them (though it interestingly is not anything my kids have learned)
You even say that a parent spanking a child is motivated to do this to hurt or humiliate their child.
When trying to throw it in with people that beat their children and supposing that any decent parent would spank their child to hurt or humiliating them, then YES I give you bloody good grounds to believe that you are implying that.
Though I am a Father and though I love my kids and though I did use to smack their bottoms when they were little if they were naughty. I have been trying very hard not to take this all personally. I have been trying to argue against positions i think are unwarranted and where possible and without criticising other's parenting styles, saying "Well i disagree. I will agree to disagree.' Look up in this thread of me doing this.
So with the above drive of discourse from you of what parents are like who spank their kids (knowing too I smacked my kids) on one of these exchanges I once again said that the way you parent is fine and suits you and your urchin. The way i did suits mine and we have great kids for it.
You went off on an interesting tangent about me being bitchy because "everyone knew your urchin was up to shit at school". (Interesting and amusing in the same way my being pedantic is amusing no doubt.) Why? Who knew he was up to shit at school? Well not me. I know that a loooooonnnngggg time ago you had some issue with him at school and were asking for advice. From all of this, if memory serves you had a reward system with stickers for when he was good and that it had some effect. I also remember that you said that he liked being a good boy and that it was having an effect.
I kind of take the fact as that was last I saw on the matter as problem solved? Well no, being everyone knows he is up to shit at school, so how does everyone know this? The answer is pretty obvious isn't it Bodie? "Everyone" didn't. That is just insecurities talking.
The fact is you are quite happy to castigate parenting sty;es that differ from yours but therein is the problem. You actually have insecurities about your own parenting style and no doubt your worth as a parent. I did not hint nor did I try to be subtle. I am shit at either. There was no bitchy behaviour to which i was party to. There was a bit of hypocrisy from you and an inability to back yourself though.
Not that it matters but I think you sound like a fine mother and your urchin from the few photos i have seen looks happy and healthy. I think you do love and take an interest in him and regardless of your parenting style, I think he is lucky to have that from his Mum. Many of us did not get that much.
Still does not mean that you should not back yourself, you sign on to do that every day you log in.
-
pe·dan·tic [puh-dan-tik]
adjective
1.
ostentatious in one's learning.
2.
overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, especially in teaching.
-
Again. Common sense being legislated is ridiculous. People need to shut their fucking overactive mouths and work on things that actually matter. Sure people beat their kids. Its a law going to stop it? No. Is a severe beating, people noticing and calling the police and getting them in prison and having the kids moved to a more wholesome location, SHOOTING the fuckers, generally removing this filthy and evil aspect of society going to do anything?
In a word, YES. This is fucking common sense, guys. A law won't solve it, but less laziness, and more awareness for your fellow man. Get your fucking asses in gear instead of trying to tell people what to do. They won't obey you. Trust me.
It is common sense not to kill people whenever you feel they are being morons, yet there is legislation in place in most countries to punish you for it, should you decide to do it anyway. Why do you suppose that is?
Because people are retarded, dude.
-
Again. Common sense being legislated is ridiculous. People need to shut their fucking overactive mouths and work on things that actually matter. Sure people beat their kids. Its a law going to stop it? No. Is a severe beating, people noticing and calling the police and getting them in prison and having the kids moved to a more wholesome location, SHOOTING the fuckers, generally removing this filthy and evil aspect of society going to do anything?
In a word, YES. This is fucking common sense, guys. A law won't solve it, but less laziness, and more awareness for your fellow man. Get your fucking asses in gear instead of trying to tell people what to do. They won't obey you. Trust me.
The goals of the Swedish Government have been met. It does work. It has worked without the need to prosecute parents. There has been no sharp increase in kids being taken away. It has been 30 years, and i'm sure any ill effects would have become apparent by now.
Good for them. They admit to the need of common sense being legislated. Its beautiful, seeing people being able to admit to such stupidity. ::)
-
Every goverment does it nowadays, and it actually started in America, or isn't it true that you have warning texts on screwdrivers that they should not be put into electrical sockets?
-
Every goverment does it nowadays, and it actually started in America, or isn't it true that you have warning texts on screwdrivers that they should not be put into electrical sockets?
Never saw that before, but yeah probably.
-
Every goverment does it nowadays, and it actually started in America, or isn't it true that you have warning texts on screwdrivers that they should not be put into electrical sockets?
Never saw that before, but yeah probably.
coffee cups read: caution contents hot.
-
Every goverment does it nowadays, and it actually started in America, or isn't it true that you have warning texts on screwdrivers that they should not be put into electrical sockets?
Never saw that before, but yeah probably.
coffee cups read: caution contents hot.
Seriously? I can't forget that stupid woman who sued McDonalds for burning herself on their coffee - and won the case! :facepalm2:
-
Every goverment does it nowadays, and it actually started in America, or isn't it true that you have warning texts on screwdrivers that they should not be put into electrical sockets?
Never saw that before, but yeah probably.
coffee cups read: caution contents hot.
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQka-9stcZ8699tbAfTWziE0Kwulu8CXQwhSR6yhh2q7CG1smlK)
-
Methinks Sweden is depressing :-\
Sometimes, yes.
But then, so is Finland.