Appropriate physical punishment

[Skunk]

The poll is intended *only* for people who believe that physical punishment for children is a neccessary and normal parental activity.

It's intention is to gauge what parents deem to be suitable physical punishment for their children - and to gauge 'where' the line should be drawn (something that the courts are constantly struggling with).

Feel free to comment on the questions *only* and note that there is alread a separate and adequate debate on the rights and wrongs here

[johnny]

Well, you know my point of view. But if you don't mind, i didn't vote. You blow this thing way out of proportions, and the poll seemed a bit weird to me as well.

All that fuss because some people slap their kids on the butt when they deserve it, sheesh.

[Melusine]

Originally posted by johnny: Well, you know my point of view. But if you don't mind, i didn't vote. You blow this thing way out of proportions, and the poll seemed a bit weird to me as well.

And why is it weird, Johnny? It's not weird to me at all. In fact, it allows people who are pro-spanking to demonstrate that spanking is not the same thing as child abuse. A normal parent who spanks would never leave a child bruised or with broken bones, whereas someone who abuses a child could.
I think it's a good poll to examine what exactly is considered appropriate when it comes to punishing children physically.

[johnny]

Well, good for you Mel, i obviously do not.

[The Hierophant]

tsk tsk. Johnny, Mel, children please. Behave or I'll have to bust out 'ol' stinger' [img]tongue.gif[/img] I promise to leave no bruises though, and buttocks only.

Seriously though, I'd reserve the old butt-whack only for when the child themself commits a violent transgression. Teach that violence begets violence, and there will always be someone bigger that can hit harder, thus it's better to pursue different methods of getting what they want [img]smile.gif[/img] You could say it's hypocritical to punish violence with more violence, but it's not the violence itself that I find abhorrant, it's the impulse to be the first to resort to violence that would need to be stamped out. Now, maybe the child will merely take the lesson that 'I just need to make sure I'm the biggest when I use violence', but hey, that's up to them [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 08-12-2003, 07:59 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

[Skunk]

Originally posted by johnny: Well, you know my point of view. But if you don't mind, i didn't vote. You blow this thing way out of proportions, and the poll seemed a bit weird to me as well. All that fuss because some people slap their kids on the butt when they deserve it, sheesh.

Well Johnny, I deliberated attempted (as best as I could) to ensure that the questions were not 'trolling' - and I was genuinely trying to find exactly what people mean by a 'smack' and what they believe is appropriate, esp. for the more serious acts of misbehaviour.

For example, let's say that 8 year old junior is refusing to to tidy up his room. For the third time, Mama goes up to him, bends down and says: "That's it - you either do it now or you are really for it". Junior shouts "NO!" and punches mama square on the nose (in a fit of rage). Junior has certainly earned the most severe punishment on the parent's penal code - but what exactly can that be? These days, an awful lot of parents and carers have been convicted of common assault and labeled as "abusers" for disciplining their kids.

Now I do *not* consider someone who uses physical punishment as a disciplinary tool as an 'abuser'. I might disagree with the form of punishment but I *DO* recognise that those parents do it for love - they want to teach their kids what is right and what is wrong. A little bit of feedback from other folk might just help, esp. in today's world where the legal lines are becoming blurred.

Here's a couple of interesting from a study conducted by the Scottish Parliament while it was formulating a new law and is about to come into force. From what I know of the new legislation, it has taken general parental opinion as found in the study to qualify as non-abusive behaviour - and everything else outside it to be 'abusive'.

[i]"When respondents were asked how much they would say they knew or understood about the current law on smacking in Scotland, four out of five parents said that they knew either ‘not very much’ (62%) or ‘nothing at all’ (18%). Just 2% said they knew ‘a great deal’ and 17% ‘quite a lot’ about the current law."

..."There was strong support for the aspects of the legislation related to shaking, hitting around the face or head or use of an implement. Parents are not only much less likely to use such methods, they see them much more clearly as ‘abusive’."

The full study which does not draw conclusions on the rights and wrongs of the issue but instead details Scottish parental attitudes makes for a very interesting read:
DISCIPLINING CHILDREN:
RESEARCH WITH PARENTS IN SCOTLAND

[johnny]

I understand that Skunk, but with already two topics about this issue i didn't see the need of starting yet another one. Isn't just about anything said about this now ?

[Skunk]

It was just for the purpose of the poll - which could not be conducted from within the discussion. I was extremely curious about general international perceptions.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Melusine: And why is it weird, Johnny? It's not weird to me at all. In fact, it allows people who are pro-spanking to demonstrate that spanking is not the same thing as child abuse. A normal parent who spanks would never leave a child bruised or with broken bones, whereas someone who abuses a child could. I think it's a good poll to examine what exactly is considered appropriate when it comes to punishing children physically.

The poll is weird because it doesn't allow appropriate answers. For instance, I chose the belt/cane and I chose below the waist, but I feel in some egregious circumstances a smack on the cheek is appropriate (For instance: my mom could spank me on the butt all day long and I would never know it -- a smack on the cheek was her only way to get my attention).

As for the bruises, I think you can bruise kids. I've seen a kid get bruised by a belt/paddle to the buttocks. You should not be attempting this, but some kids do bruise easily, and a belt swing may miss and hit legs instead of buttocks.

I noticed I was the only one to choose an implement. Here is what an implement does -- it ceremonializes the spanking. Totems give things meaning. I still remember the paddle some crazy-eyed old man driving through the neighborhood gave my dad one day (BASTARD!!) An implement also forces a parent to step back and make sure they approach the corporal punishment properly. Smacking on the legs or face at the moment of wrongdoing is more likely to go awry or be done for the wrong reasons than a paddling/belting/switching done 10 minutes later. Plus, it allows the parent time to compose their reasoning to present it to the child before punishment is executed.

[edit] Finally, I did not limit the age. This is not because I think you should spank kids that young, but rather because I hate governmental intrusion into the home. While I agree these things should not be done, I'm not going to advocate any new laws/rules in society. We have plenty. I think spanking a kid that was too young could rightly come under parental neglect/abuse laws. In short, if you can break the kid, don't spank the kid.

[ 08-12-2003, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[pritchke]

I think the poll was very well done. Yes, as Timber pointed out there are a few flaws, but normally I will be spanking on the buttocks, and not usually the face with the exception of a last resort to swearing. As for bruising I think you should differentiate between a minor bruise and major bruises. No kid should have the bruise I have on my arm today were I fell and hit a 6"X6"X12' post in my backyard. As for limit spanking I was surprised that so many said "no limit". What does spanking a 1 year old do for you? It serves no purpose as they are not likely to know what they are receiving it for at that age.

[ 08-12-2003, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]