ForumGarden

mrsK wrote: I remember when I turned 18 & my mother told me I wasn't allowed to do such & such.I told her I pay rent now you can't tell me what to do,she went to slap me I grabbed her hand & said "That won't be happening ever again don't think you are "EVER" going to hit me in this lifetime.

I love her but I am still angry at her.


I understand your anger.

It must have felt good to say that to your mom when you were 18 years old. I'm proud of you for doing that. :-6

Katy1 wrote: Hi all,

I was just wondering how any of you felt about smacking (or other physical chastisement) children as part of their disciplining. Katy:)


I was beaten black and blue as a child and I can't think of one instance where I didn't deserve it. So far as I know, it did me no harm - or anyone else since sparing the rod and spoiling the child was universally applied when I was at school.

So far as I can see, the most neurotic individuals in today's society seem to be the ones who weren't given the occasional hiding.

RedGlitter

what you got wasn't a spanking or even being hit. You got abused. And that is wrong.

I don't remember being spanked and I was spoiled rotten. I probably spanked on the bum my kids too much. Now they never spank their children in any way. It is like it goes in cycles. Too much to nothing, too nothing to too much. I think a spank on the bum that is not too hard, along with consistency in it, is not a bad thing.

I spoke harshly to a child a few months ago, just spoke as as reprimand, no spank, no hit. The child screamed with indignation that anyone might not approve of her behavior. Sure cured me of disagreeing with children today.:-2

I'm probably gonna get flamed for this... but I say "spank". Not beat,

not abuse, but spank. Start out lightly always, and then ratchet up

what you need to do.



Those SuperNanny shows bug me, because there would be no NEED

for a nanny at all if the parents did it right to begin with. First of

all, there's too many kids usually, too close in age, and the parents

command no respect. I just recently saw one where the kids wouldn't

stay in bed, the parents kept putting them back, letting the kid have

a teddy bear, a glass of water, the dog... nuh-uh. You put 'em in bed,

you tell them to stay there, and you lock the door. The kid comes up

beating on the dooor, crying and screaming, and you leave them there.

It'll take you 2 nights, tops, before the kid goes to bed and stays there,

because the parents will stand firm and he knows it.



I got BEAT, many times. I even had a gym teacher see my bruising

on my butt and the backs of my legs and be totally horrified. She

asked me if I wanted her to call my parents about it, and I said no,

it would only make it worse. (And it would have!) I'm not talking

about that kind of thing. But parents have to get a backbone and

quit letting the rugrats ride roughshod over them. That plain and

simply doesn't work. I've seen it with my neice and her kids. "Do

you want a time out?" "You'd better stop that" and meanwhile, the

screaming and talking back is awful.



I would no sooner have talked back than try and fly to the freakin' moon.



Spanking should be available to a parent and RARE.



Light those flamethrowers everybody...

Not me Val

I'll go along with you. Flamethrowers are for those who beat, abuse their kids. You're not talking about that.

I can completely disagree with you Val without flaming.



There seems to be a notion that there's nothing between parents and their superfluous/useless time-outs and hitting a kid. Like it's one or the other. That isn't so. No, parents who hit kids show disrespect, they devalue their kids and teach the kid to devalue themself. It means "I'm older than you but still haven't learned any better."

No changing my stance on this.

Pinky wrote: Gee, thanks for that. I'm still neurotic, and it didn't do me any good.

In fact, I went completely bonkers at one point, and no-one could do anything with me.

From my own personal perspective, all violence does is instill a sense that you're unworthy and deserve anything bad that happens to you.

Good job some of us can stand up and be counted. Good job some of us aren't willing to see other poor little sods have their self-esteem whittled away to nothing because 'that's the way it was in our day'.

Anyone who hits their own kids are taking out their own frustrations IMO. Deal with them before you have kids. If you can't get a grip on your own emotions or deal with them in a way that befits an adult, should you even be raising another human being in the first place?




Good job, Pinky! :-6

I agree 110% percent with you Val.

There is a huge difference between spanking a child and beating a child. And that difference is anger and the control of it. Time-outs and groundings are great for some misbehaviour, but there are times when a spanking will drive the point home. It makes it clear that the action that was done is not acceptable.



valerie wrote: I'm probably gonna get flamed for this... but I say "spank". Not beat,

not abuse, but spank. Start out lightly always, and then ratchet up

what you need to do.



Those SuperNanny shows bug me, because there would be no NEED

for a nanny at all if the parents did it right to begin with. First of

all, there's too many kids usually, too close in age, and the parents

command no respect. I just recently saw one where the kids wouldn't

stay in bed, the parents kept putting them back, letting the kid have

a teddy bear, a glass of water, the dog... nuh-uh. You put 'em in bed,

you tell them to stay there, and you lock the door. The kid comes up

beating on the dooor, crying and screaming, and you leave them there.

It'll take you 2 nights, tops, before the kid goes to bed and stays there,

because the parents will stand firm and he knows it.



I got BEAT, many times. I even had a gym teacher see my bruising

on my butt and the backs of my legs and be totally horrified. She

asked me if I wanted her to call my parents about it, and I said no,

it would only make it worse. (And it would have!) I'm not talking

about that kind of thing. But parents have to get a backbone and

quit letting the rugrats ride roughshod over them. That plain and

simply doesn't work. I've seen it with my neice and her kids. "Do

you want a time out?" "You'd better stop that" and meanwhile, the

screaming and talking back is awful.



I would no sooner have talked back than try and fly to the freakin' moon.



Spanking should be available to a parent and RARE.



Light those flamethrowers everybody...

Pinky wrote: Gee, thanks for that. I'm still neurotic, and it didn't do me any good.

In fact, I went completely bonkers at one point, and no-one could do anything with me.

From my own personal perspective, all violence does is instill a sense that you're unworthy and deserve anything bad that happens to you.

Good job some of us can stand up and be counted. Good job some of us aren't willing to see other poor little sods have their self-esteem whittled away to nothing because 'that's the way it was in our day'.

Anyone who hits their own kids are taking out their own frustrations IMO. Deal with them before you have kids. If you can't get a grip on your own emotions or deal with them in a way that befits an adult, should you even be raising another human being in the first place?


I'd agree with that excepting that the human race would die out quite quickly because few people have a grip on their own emotions before they get married and have kids and some get married and lose their grip on their emotions. I agree that children shouldn't be beaten and abused but a spanking of not great proportion once in a while never hurts a child. A child that has never been spanked at all in any way can get an awful shock the first time they experience being hit by another kid. I think too much one way or the other is harmful.

Pinky wrote: Anyone who hits their own kids are taking out their own frustrations IMO. Deal with them before you have kids. If you can't get a grip on your own emotions or deal with them in a way that befits an adult, should you even be raising another human being in the first place?It's worth standing up to be counted, Pinky. I'm still trying to come to terms with this thread, having been in to read it a couple of times. I don't think I could look any of my children in the eye if they'd ever been physically punished while growing up. The accounts in here are painful.

When discussing corporal punishment, it is important to distinguish between brutality and discipline. I don't think that issue has yet been addressed.

William Ess wrote: When discussing corporal punishment, it is important to distinguish between brutality and discipline. I don't think that issue has yet been addressed.
By all means distinguish, William. I don't think it's of the least relevance whatever, but that's just me. I'm shaking at what I've read in here.

spot wrote: By all means distinguish, William. I don't think it's of the least relevance whatever, but that's just me. I'm shaking at what I've read in here.


What makes you say that the difference is irrelevant? I should have thought it makes all the difference in the world.

William Ess wrote: What makes you say that the difference is irrelevant? I should have thought it makes all the difference in the world.The question is surely whether corporal punishment has any place whatever in raising children. I thought I'd made that plain but apparently not. How anyone thinks that inflicting shock or pain on a child, as though they were conditioning an animal by Pavlovian association, is remotely acceptable in any circumstances whatever... enough. Carry on with your discussion. I think I'll join Pinky in her time-out.

I remember the one time my brother-in-law spanked his daughters. It only happened once in their entire lives. Three swats to the butt, each. He came out crying almost as much as they were. I was probably 14 years old. He gained alot of my respect that day.

Accountable wrote: I remember the one time my brother-in-law spanked his daughters. It only happened once in their entire lives. Three swats to the butt, each. He came out crying almost as much as they were. I was probably 14 years old. He gained alot of my respect that day.


In the traditional English way of things, corporal punishment was not applied to girls. Only boys.

William Ess wrote: In the traditional English way of things, corporal punishment was not applied to girls. Only boys.


Earlier:

William Ess wrote: So far as I can see, the most neurotic individuals in today's society seem to be the ones who weren't given the occasional hiding.So what're you saying about English women? :yh_giggle

Accountable wrote: I remember the one time my brother-in-law spanked his daughters. It only happened once in their entire lives. Three swats to the butt, each. He came out crying almost as much as they were. I was probably 14 years old. He gained alot of my respect that day.


I like that, Acc :-6

William Ess wrote: When discussing corporal punishment, it is important to distinguish between brutality and discipline. I don't think that issue has yet been addressed.


I think most of us have made that clear. There is no difference between. Hitting a kid is wrong. Period.

RedGlitter I know you were abused, but seriously tell me how would displine a child who is stubborn and doesn't care bout time outs, groundings ect? How would you get your point across that thier behaviour is wrong? I really want to know.

RedGlitter wrote: I think most of us have made that clear. There is no difference between. Hitting a kid is wrong. Period.


No. That is your opinion: just because you take one point of view, it does not follow that those with an opposing point of view are necessarily wrong. Speaking both as a parent and the recipient of many (deserved) hidings, I believe that the saying 'spare the rod and spoil the child' contains a great deal of truth.

Sheryl wrote: RedGlitter I know you were abused, but seriously tell me how would displine a child who is stubborn and doesn't care bout time outs, groundings ect? How would you get your point across that thier behaviour is wrong? I really want to know.


Four of the best! (and if that doesn't work, six)

Sheryl wrote: RedGlitter I know you were abused, but seriously tell me how would displine a child who is stubborn and doesn't care bout time outs, groundings ect? How would you get your point across that thier behaviour is wrong? I really want to know.


Sheryl, whether or not I was abused doesn't color my views as much as you might think. I would ask *you* how else you could get your point across- I mean, you are a parent, surely you can come up with something other than hitting them? I have no idea how you handle "time-outs" or groundings or what kind of parent you are, if you're "soft" or firm in your stance when you try these other things, so I'm at a disadvantage there.



I was disciplined by grandparents, friends and aunts and uncles and not a one laid a hand on me. They showed me how disappointed they were in my actions and because I respected them, that made a point with me that even lasts today.



In general, when I hear parents say "timeouts/groundings/privileges/etc" don't work I secretly wonder what they're doing wrong. What doesn't "work?" Why are they not outsmarting the kid? Is the kid relegated to his bedroom and crawls out the window? Then put him back in there and board up the window. Likes going to his room? Take out the tv and stereo and books and fun stuff.

Has a car? Siphon the gas. Be smarter. These things may require effort but that might be the crux right there- it's easier to "physically discipline" a child than it is to use your head.



Another thing you can do is revoke your admiration of them but to do this you have to give it to them first. When my grandparents or aunts would send me to "the room" or make me sit in a corner or revoke the fun stuff, they also let me know how disappointed they were in me. That hurt. All other times they told me and other people how wonderful I was, how well behaved, how smart, etc; and that built me up. Then when they would say "I am disappointed in you. You are smarter than that." Or something of the like, I would cringe and shrivel up in shame because their opinion of me was so important. They never had to resort to hitting me to make me behave. And they never tried either.



I'm getting the impression that everyone who hits their kid has nothing but "wild" children who "won't" respond any other way. That is the impression I am getting here. I can't believe that everyone here who "spanks" has juvenile delinquents for kids so it must have at least a little something to do with the parenting style.

William Ess wrote: No. That is your opinion: just because you take one point of view, it does not follow that those with an opposing point of view are necessarily wrong. Speaking both as a parent and the recipient of many (deserved) hidings, I believe that the saying 'spare the rod and spoil the child' contains a great deal of truth.


And that would be your opinion as well. I think it's BS.

RedGlitter wrote: Sheryl, whether or not I was abused doesn't color my views as much as you might think. I would ask *you* how else you could get your point across- I mean, you are a parent, surely you can come up with something other than hitting them? I have no idea how you handle "time-outs" or groundings or what kind of parent you are, if you're "soft" or firm in your stance when you try these other things, so I'm at a disadvantage there.



I was disciplined by grandparents, friends and aunts and uncles and not a one laid a hand on me. They showed me how disappointed they were in my actions and because I respected them, that made a point with me that even lasts today.



In general, when I hear parents say "timeouts/groundings/privileges/etc" don't work I secretly wonder what they're doing wrong. What doesn't "work?" Why are they not outsmarting the kid? Is the kid relegated to his bedroom and crawls out the window? Then put him back in there and board up the window. Likes going to his room? Take out the tv and stereo and books and fun stuff.

Has a car? Siphon the gas. Be smarter. These things may require effort but that might be the crux right there- it's easier to "physically discipline" a child than it is to use your head.



Another thing you can do is revoke your admiration of them but to do this you have to give it to them first. When my grandparents or aunts would send me to "the room" or make me sit in a corner or revoke the fun stuff, they also let me know how disappointed they were in me. That hurt. All other times they told me and other people how wonderful I was, how well behaved, how smart, etc; and that built me up. Then when they would say "I am disappointed in you. You are smarter than that." Or something of the like, I would cringe and shrivel up in shame because their opinion of me was so important. They never had to resort to hitting me to make me behave. And they never tried either.



I'm getting the impression that everyone who hits their kid has nothing but "wild" children who "won't" respond any other way. That is the impression I am getting here. I can't believe that everyone here who "spanks" has juvenile delinquents for kids so it must have at least a little something to do with the parenting style.




No my kids are no where near "wild" children. I actually get lots of compliments on how well behaved my children can be. However I need to run and do some shopping, so I'm gonna think bout your post while I'm out.

RedGlitter wrote: And that would be your opinion as well. I think it's BS.




Do you believe that the decision should be left to parents?

William Ess wrote: Do you believe that the decision should be left to parents?Should it be left to you and me whether I punch you in the face? I'm sure there are those who would argue either way.

This is not, I would note, remotely intended to sound like a threat of physical violence. I don't do physical violence.

spot wrote: Should it be left to you and me whether I punch you in the face? I'm sure there are those who would argue either way.

.


They are not the same for the simple reason to punch someone in the face is to commit a criminal act and risk prosedcution under the law. You would first of all have to argue a case for the criminal code to be amended to allow GBH, etc.

Corporal punishment of children is not regarded as a criminal offence.

What we are discussing is whether or not it should be. My view, for what it is worth, is that the decision should be left to the parents.

William Ess wrote: They are not the same for the simple reason to punch someone in the face is to commit a criminal act and risk prosedcution under the law. You would first of all have to argue a case for the criminal code to be amended to allow GBH, etc.

Corporal punishment of children is not regarded as a criminal offence.

What we are discussing is whether or not it should be. My view, for what it is worth, is that the decision should be left to the parents.
William, what's wrong with you this week? Your example isn't illegal at the moment (though I note that it definitely is in other countries) and we're discussing whether it should be. I instanced something that currently is illegal and related to physical violence, noted that some people would prefer it were legal still and asked, effectively, how they differed. I do think it's a fair question.

I'm so impressed with Red's arguments here - "Why are they not outsmarting the kid? [...] Another thing you can do is revoke your admiration of them but to do this you have to give it to them first". Perfect, both points.

As for Val's "First of all, there's too many kids usually, too close in age" I note that all four of mine were together under five years old at one point. Her consequence, "and the parents command no respect", would be a matter for them to describe, not me. I doubt whether they'd side with Val though.

spot wrote: William, what's wrong with you this week?

.


What's wrong with me this week? I will tell you. I have just bought my wife a brand new car for our wedding anniversary and then had to watch her put three years on the thing in as many minutes. I doubt if the gears have more than four teeth left and as for the transmission (continued page 98)

spot wrote: William, what's wrong with you this week? Your example isn't illegal at the moment (though I note that it definitely is in other countries) and we're discussing whether it should be. I instanced something that currently is illegal and related to physical violence, noted that some people would prefer it were legal still and asked, effectively, how they differed. I do think it's a fair question.

I'm so impressed with Red's arguments here - "Why are they not outsmarting the kid? [...] Another thing you can do is revoke your admiration of them but to do this you have to give it to them first". Perfect, both points.

As for Val's "First of all, there's too many kids usually, too close in age" I note that all four of mine were together under five years old at one point. Her consequence, "and the parents command no respect", would be a matter for them to describe, not me. I doubt whether they'd side with Val though.


To place a common assault and a hiding given to a child by its parent in the same category is not helpful. A child is a different species from the adult recipient of a punch. The latter is the unfortunate victim of a dispute that has got out of hand whereas six of the best (etc) is administered for purposes of correction.

The question of outsmarting children should not arise and if parents find themselves in a position where they are playing some sort of tactical warfare with their offspring, then there is something badly wrong. The most important of the several relationshiops that bind children to parents is, in my view and experience, a sense of authority because all the others follow in its train. If tyou have enough authority to stop a child in its tracks simply by raising an eyebrow, then mutual respect, love, etc will follow as sure as night follows day. If you lack that authority then bringing up children is likely to be difficult.



In the final analysis though, I believe the decision as to whether children should be beaten or not should lie solely with the parents.

Even God has his way of keeping His lambs/children in tow. Just cute

The Straying Lamb

The Shepherd loved His little lamb,

And gave it His tender care...

And followed it with His loving eyes

As it wandered here and there.

And as He sat by His grazing flock

Who so meekly His voice obeyed,

He pondered sadly His little lamb

As again and again it strayed.

The little lamb had a loving heart,

And adored His Shepherd, true,

But would turn aside and seek his own way

As lambs will so often do.

With His gentle voice the Shepherd called,

To His loved and straying lamb,

"Come back, little one, for you are not safe

Unless you are where I am."



But still the lamb would soon forget

And unthinkingly wander away,

And not really noticing what he did,

From the Shepherd's side would stray.

Until one day, the Shepherd kind

Took His rod in His gentle hand,

And what He then did seemed so cruel

That the lamb could not understand.



For with one sharp and well-aimed blow

Down the rod so swiftly came

That it broke the leg of the little lamb

And left it crippled, and lame.

Then the little lamb, with a cry of pain,

Fell down upon his knees...

And looked up at his Shepherd, as though to say,

"Won't you explain this, please?"

Then he saw the love in the Shepherd's eyes

As the tears ran down His face,

As He tenderly set the broken bone,

And bound it back in it's place.



Now he was utterly helpless,

He could not even stand!

He must trust himself completely

To his Shepherd's loving hand.

Then day by day, 'till the lamb was healed

From the flock he was kept apart...

And carried about in the Shepherd's arms,

And cradled near to His heart.

And the Shepherd would whisper gentle words

Into his now listening ear...

Thus he heard sweet words of love

That the other sheep could not hear.

He felt the warmth of the Shepherd's arms

And the beat of His faithful heart...

Until it came a blessing to seem,

By his weakness to be set apart.



Every need of the little lamb

By his Shepherd so fully was met

That through his brokenness he learned

What he never again would forget.

And as the broken bone was healed,

And once more became whole and strong...

Wherever the Shepherd's path would lead,

The lamb would follow along.

Thus at the Shepherd's side he walked

So closely, day by day,

For once a lamb has a broken leg

It will never again go astray.

For the cords of love had bound it so

In its hour of weakness and need...

That it had no desire to wander away,

When once again it was freed.



Could it be you are broken today,

And you cannot understand

The painful blow of the Shepherd's rod

Nor believe it came from His hand?

He only seeks, by this painful thing,

For a time to call you apart...

To cradle you close in His loving arms,

And draw you near to His heart.

So look up into your Shepherd's eyes,

And earnestly seek His face...

And prove in the hour of your weakness and need

The sufficiency of His grace.

For as you are borne in His loving arms,

And carried there, day by day...

He will bind you so close with the cords of His love

That never again will you stray!





Author Unknown.

William Ess wrote: To place a common assault and a hiding given to a child by its parent in the same category is not helpful. A child is a different species from the adult recipient of a punch. The latter is the unfortunate victim of a dispute that has got out of hand whereas six of the best (etc) is administered for purposes of correction.I hear your words, William, I disagree with you profoundly. The punch was legal at one time and now no longer is. The degree of severity of the action is balanced by the age of the person being punched and his potential ability to respond in kind. The inability of the child to respond in kind is a possible reason to outlaw corporal punishment, but I prefer the more simple concept of people being nice to each other. Children are people too.

The most important game I played with my children was when each of them was approaching seven years old. If they said "may I" I always answered "no". If they said "I'm going to..." I always answered "OK". It took each of them days to work out that there was a game involved at all, and then why I was being so unreasonably restrictive some of the time and so wildly silly at others. They employed trial and error, hyperbolic excess, and finally got the point. They were responsible for what they decided to do. I had no problem with them, honestly - they quite simply didn't behave with stupidity, despite my for ever egging them into pushing boundaries from then on.

OK ,look.I did not-read this whole thread,but having just banished my daughter too her room for a while i find it relevant.I don't care about the religion part or the moral part or the legal part.All I know is that was not beaten or abused but i got some butt whoopings i won't so forget.My dad was strict and he gave me kick in the butt and whatever else I need too make a man out of me.I did not talk back,too him or my mom or I would face his wrath.I grew up with respect and admiration for my peers.I respect ladys and I have manners.I say please and thank you and excuse me.

all this is missing from todays kids,just go too the mall and see.

I will raise my daughter in same manner as i was raised,but with less ass boots.

Punishment is not for fun it's too help inbed a life lesson.

Sounds good to me Schweetie:-6 :-4

William Ess wrote: Do you believe that the decision should be left to parents?


No.



Should whether or not you even feed your kids be a decision left to the parents? You're feeding a small human soul by what you put into it. When you put physical violence into it, you're messing up.

William Ess wrote:

The question of outsmarting children should not arise and if parents find themselves in a position where they are playing some sort of tactical warfare with their offspring, then there is something badly wrong.



.


I do not agree. Being a parent IS tactical warfare. I know as I was a kid once. I know because I've taken care of kids. Kids will try anything on you and you must be quicker. Not quick to hit because that's lazy and requires no brain power. YOU are the one who's been on the planet longer so it's up to YOU to be a smarter cookie and show them who's boss without handling them. If you are unable to do this then for God's sake, take a parenting class at the least. Don't just pop them out and raise them teh way you were raised because that isn't always such a good thing.



It took me until I was an adult and we had our problems worked out, to have any respect for my dad because he hit me and verbally abused me. Had he been smarter than me and disciplined me in a responsible, mature, effective and healthy way, then the respect would have been there. Authority's fine. But if the parent doesn't have the respect, he's going to fail both himself and his child.



What if I had had kids and "raised 'em the way I was raised." I'd be in the women's correctional department now. And that would be as it should be.



It disgusts me that some people are telling us there's a difference between "physical discipline" and abuse or beatings. We're not talking rapping hands here. We're talking hitting.



If you think a parent doesn't have to outwit the kid then you would be mistaken. Don't mistake fear for authority and respect.

Were any of you smacked/spanked as children and did it harm you or do you think it's OK?


to answer the original question...yes, i was smacked as a child.

i don't think it's ever right to hit a child of any age in the face...or to use anything other than your hand. a smack on the bum isn't going to hurt a kid...but when they get older if all you've ever relied on is giving them a paddling to keep them in line then you're in trouble.

i don't feel it's abusive in those terms, but there are far more advanced and effective ways of disciplining...

RedGlitter wrote: No.



Should whether or not you even feed your kids be a decision left to the parents? You're feeding a small human soul by what you put into it. When you put physical violence into it, you're messing up.


How often you feed your children and with what is a decision left to parents. Of course, there comes a point where the law may step in.

To refer to a child as a 'small human soul' suggests clouds of glory that don't exist. Most of the time children are noisy and messy pieces of raw material that have to be moulded into shape, and I don't exclude my own from this. Referring to corporal discipline as physical violence is sheer hyperbole.

I was smacked as a child, the last time was when i was 15 years old where my mum was repeatedly punching me in the head, i remember wanting to hit her back but i couldn't bring myself to do it. I must admit i had been pretty bad but did i derserve that i don't know- i think my mum was just tired from trying to discipline a wild child. Did that beating make me behave from then on -definately not, i think it was 2 days later i went out and stayed out all night!

I have smacked my children but i learnt it really doesn't work, it just shows them that it's okay to be violent and the kids tend to copy the behaviour towards other children. To discipline my children i take away the things they enjoy doing - football training - playstations etc, once i'd cleared all my sons favourite items and put them in my bedroom- by the end of the week i'd stubbed my toes countless times!

The problem is people tend to smack when they've reached the end of their tether so they tend to be frustrated and have no control of the situation.

My partner was badly beaten and abused as a child and it still effects him every day, when i found out the abuse he suffered i couldn't bring myself to talk to his father and still wouldn't to this day.

My friend works at a local hospital in the mental health department running anger management courses, one day she was very upset and distressed i asked her if she wanted to talk, it turned out that this particular session had a woman in the group who openly admitted to beating her 2 year old and 4 month old baby, the father was now looking after the kids but this woman had applied for over night stays at weekends, the judge had said if she attended the 6 week course she could have the visits approved!!!!!!!! My friend said the worst part was she sat there trying to justify her behaviour, apparantly the other 5 women in the group went for her and security had to be called.

So although i have smacked my children when they was younger i realised very quickly that it just doesn't work.

William Ess wrote: How often you feed your children and with what is a decision left to parents. Of course, there comes a point where the law may step in.

To refer to a child as a 'small human soul' suggests clouds of glory that don't exist. Most of the time children are noisy and messy pieces of raw material that have to be moulded into shape, and I don't exclude my own from this. Referring to corporal discipline as physical violence is sheer hyperbole.


Wow William. I am astounded. If you hold this view of children and fail to see the divine spark within them, then why the heck are you a parent?!



So mold them into shape. This doesn't mean hitting them. It means doing it in a loving way. Hitting is NEVER loving.



Hyberbole? Not even close.



The day you think a child is not a "human soul" is the day you better shelve your parent license. That is a deeply disgusting thing to say.

RedGlitter wrote: Wow William. I am astounded. If you hold this view of children and fail to see the divine spark within them, then why the heck are you a parent?!



So mold them into shape. This doesn't mean hitting them. It means doing it in a loving way. Hitting is NEVER loving.



Hyberbole? Not even close.



The day you think a child is not a "human soul" is the day you better shelve your parent license. That is a deeply disgusting thing to say.


Couldn't of put it better myself Red

I personally think either extreme is not healthy for a child. Extremes are never healthy for anyone.

I think what we're seeing here is a difference in attitudes which indicate change in thinking about parenting, over time. William Ess's attitude is very much that of my mother and probably the parents who were physically punishing toward their children.

These attitudes aren't in "fashion" in this country, nor, from the sound of it, in many of the countries represented here on the board.

I'm reminded of "Jane Eyre" and Mr. Brocklehurst. It was believed that children should be physically forced into submission and obedience.

SuzyB wrote: Couldn't of put it better myself Red


I cannot help remarking in defence of my policies that they didn't stop the children from turning out rather well. One has a chair at a Cambridge College and the other a Doctor.

But I never could see children in terms of mawkish sentiment. They were embryo adults who had to be be moulded into responsible and useful members of society. It might also be mentioned that for every caning given, much more energy was spent enlarging upon their studies: pleasant evenings explaining why the concerto is the optimum form of expression for the piano (etc), pondering the mysteries of pi and so forth. In fact since they were at boarding school, they probably received more beatings from their housemasters than they did from me.