Smacking kids?

[Lissa]

Another thing that concerns me about this bill is the talk I hear about how, say, removing a child from the lounge and placing them in timeout against their will, would now constitute an assault against the child.

So faced with a two-year-old who will not comply with orders and is doing what they do best, namely throw tantrums and break things, would it be technically illegal to undertake any force of discipline against their will which has any physical nature?

I have a just turned two year old. Shes is way to young to know that most things she is doing is wrong... and I have smacked her once on the hand.. never again, because the look on her face was terrible. Time out doesnt work for them either... because two year old's have no concept of time. I dont really have a problem with her, she knows that 'ouchy' means dont touch. If she gets into my makeup and makes a hell of a mess on her or everything else around her.. which happens alot... its my fault for having it where she can get her hands on it.

What I am trying to say is... there are many ways of discipline.. and different situations and degree of discipline. But its up to the parent to decide what is right, not someone else.... lets face it some kids can be down right naughty and uncontrol -able sometimes... mine included.

[SPman]

What I am trying to say is... there are many ways of discipline.. and different situations and degree of discipline. But its up to the parent to decide what is right, not someone else.... lets face it some kids can be down right naughty and uncontrollable sometimes... mine included.

- and lots of parents handle it in entirely satisfactory ways, but enough don't and resort to violence often enough, that in NZ it is a major problem.
If it takes a wake up call in the form of legislation to wake peoples ideas up, then thats what it takes.

A corrective smack is one thing
A whipping with a belt or rod that leaves someone black and blue is not and , unfortunately, there are too many parents out there who think that it is OK!
Maybe the furore which is ensuing, will make everybody stand back and take a good look at how they and others, treat their kids.
I wouldn't bet on it though!

[jrandom]

the talk I hear about how, say, removing a child from the lounge and placing them in timeout against their will, would now constitute an assault against the child.

No no. Technically speaking, that constitutes kidnapping, not assault, and the 'reasonable force' defence has never been applicable to it.

Some people, attempting to introduce a moderating voice of reason, have used that example to point out that not every crime is likely to be prosecuted when committed in family situations, even if a specific defence in such situations is not legislated.

Why, only this morning, I kidnapped my son when he wouldn't stop throwing things at his sister, and I got away with it even though I had no defence, legally speaking, for doing so.

[Motoracer]

So just like Sue Bradford you're taking an admission of child smacking as a method of discipline as being the only method that a particular parent uses because they're obviously too stupid to use any other method.

You don;t have kids and your memories of being one are distorted beyond belief, by time, developmental changes in your brain and social interaction skills and expectations.

I can achieve more with three minutes time out for a three year old than I can with a tap, I said tap too, not a bashing with a cut down barrel stave or a jug cord, or a cinder block, a tap. A tap that you wouldn't feel through the back of your bike jacket. But the punishment needs to fit the crime, needs to be of consequence or it is pointless. Most of all it needs to fit the personality of the child and its developmental stage. A three year old is devastated by being removed from a social situation. They're wired to interact at a furious rate to learn the rules.

But a 6 year old will get a book off the shelf and read (once they have calmed down), again depending on the personality.

But sometimes that tap is EXACTLY what is need to break a cycle of behaviour that is spiralling out of control. Diversion doesn't work because it doesn't address the problem. You need to know what you did wrong so you can learn not to do it again. Under 5 children have no reason. The Dawn of reason is around four years old and it is limited by the child's experience.

What am I trying to say? That you and Sue Bradford and Helen Clark and every other fucker who thinks he can do it better than me can just shut the hell up.

It's none of your business, unless I invite you to help me raise my kids.

You've pigeon holed me me into a violent child basher. I'm fucking not.

I read child development books, parenting books, books specifically about raising boys, but most of all I look at people who raise successful children who are confident and engaging and ask questions and advice from those parents. Plus I'm not perfect. I get sick, my kids get sick, I get tired, I get emotional, and every other bloody human experience. Parents aren't machines who can be expected to replicate behaviours to a "T" every time, to get it right every time. But as long as the methodology is consistent, the child is addressed and respected as a person and included in the parent/child relationship, you will get great results.

Even before I saw your post, all I've been hearing on the radio is talk about this very popular and heated topic. From hearing it all, I had already agreed on that, it should be left up to the parent to choose how to raise their child. I do agree that it has been blown out of proportion and the problem is being targeted with a destined to fail meathod. Like shooting a crowd of people in a random order to get a terorist in the midst. Even then, I personally don't think the law is an effective way to cut down on true family violence... This is not me changing my opinion because I feel cornered by your argument.

My opinion still stands but what I should have made clear in my post above is that, I do know the difference between smacking and bashing. I have a standard level of respect for any other person unless they provoke me to raise or lower that respect with their actions. Out of that respect, I trust their best judgement to raise their own off-spring the way they belive is best. I think criminal charges should only be layed for true criminals and obviously a mother or father smacking (not bashing) their own child shouldn't be classed as criminals. I know that and you obviously know that.

From the above, I sence that you are obviously proud of your children and proud of the way you have raised them. Good on you. You obviously are taking this topic very personally because it has a direct effect on your daily life. Me, I am just voicing my opinion on just another topic. So I understand your anger.

I will still raise my kids the way I think is best. Everyone should have that right. That's called democracy.

[jrandom]

I will still raise my kids the way I think is best. Everyone should have that right. That's called democracy.

Democracy is where the citizenry makes laws based on a majority consensus. That structure itself has no direct relationship to personal freedoms.

It would be perfectly valid for a democratic society to prescribe strict non-violent guidelines for child-rearing. It would also be possible for an authoritarian dictatorship to allow parents to do whatever the hell they liked behind closed doors.

Do try not to confuse separate sociopolitical issues, Murkn-style... you might provoke me to raise or lower my respect with your actions.

[Toaster]

Some days... NOTHING seems to work. All I can say is, if you threaten them with some sort of punishment... carry through with it, or they might run rings around you.... (from personal experience)

I completely agree (from observing other people kids). Lissa you made many good points through this thread

[doc]

It's typical of a Labour (lead by feminists because we have no male leadership at all) Government dabbling in social engineering. Makes me want to puke. If you look back in history it all started when they stopped, Hang Drawing and Quartering now that was real entertainment on your day off. What will they stop next maybe the Westpac ride... ya never know.

[McJim]

Despite coming from Glasgow I was never smacked that much...well maybe just a couple of grams to help me sleep....

[Motoracer]

Democracy is where the citizenry makes laws based on a majority consensus. That structure itself has no direct relationship to personal freedoms.

It would be perfectly valid for a democratic society to prescribe strict non-violent guidelines for child-rearing. It would also be possible for an authoritarian dictatorship to allow parents to do whatever the hell they liked behind closed doors.

Do try not to confuse separate sociopolitical issues, Murkn-style... you might provoke me to raise or lower my respect with your actions.

True.

However you are mearly commenting on my last sentence consisting of 3 words. I know you are a smart man. Can you really tell me that you don't know where I am coming from (the rest of what I said)? Or in a game of arguments, are you just creating some opposing ammo?

Like you, I too feel that this compelsary ban of smacking which is a compelsary law against a fundamental tool of parenthood for most, is ridiculos. I must admit, I wasn't aware of what Sue Bradford was doing when I initially made my post in this thread. I have always disscussed it with people in the past and I was just doing so looking at the thread title. I DID NOT, make a post to support her. Especially now, after doing some research.

For your sake I will just explain why I wrote the last 3 words in that sentence. To me it is dictatorship, like you said. In my head, the words opposing dictatorship were freedom and then pretty much democracy. Maybe my choise of words weren't appropriate in this instance, but I know that you know what I mean.

[Ixion]

Hm

Mum and dad and Junior have gone to the beach for a nice day out. Mum and dad agree its time to head home . Junior (lets assume maybe 5 years old) doesn't agree. He's having a good time, no way is he going to get in the car.

Now, in Bradfordland, wot y' going to do?

Y'cna't grap Junior and sling him in the car. Cos that's assault (no, not kidnapping - the assault is when you forcibly grab him). Y' can't just drive off home and leave him - CYPS would have a fit.

Wot y'going to do?

People may a big deal out of "You wouldn't be allowed to hit an adult, why should you be allowed to hit a child". They forget that when dealing with adults you have other choices that are not available when dealing with a child.

If you had a boarder who disrupted the household, caused all sorts of trouble, and refused to behave when spoken to, you have the option of telling him to sling his hook. "You're not welcome here, clear out". You can't do that with a kid. You're stuck with him, and kids don't take much notice of social conventions , unless they're made to.

As for "Even though it's illegal, the police will ignore it" - poppycock.

Even if the police were inclined to turn a blind eye, CYPS will not. Nosey Mrs Grundy reports "child abuse" to CYPS. CYPS take action - "Did you strike the child ?" "I only smacked him, on the wrist". " That's enough, that's assault, pack your bags sonny while we call the cops".

[McJim]

In the long run it's alright though - I waited until I was 21 and then beat the shit out of my dad for all the smacks when I was a kid.

Job done.

[APPLE]

smack them up man?kick dey little asses,dey gotta b disiplined,and while your at it?kick sue bradfords ass to.....

[Skyryder]

Smacking is the inability of parents to 'effectivley' communicate to their children. It is justified by the religouse right as sanctioned by God. That should tell those of you who support the 'hitting' of children, for whatever reason, something about yourselves.

[SPman]

An occasional light smack can be very effective when all else fails.

It's effectiveness, however, generally diminishes with constant use.

[bikemike]

I am agreeing with SPman mostly.

Someone posted that we need education, not a new law. I can see the point of the comment, but I see that in the grand scheme of things, a law IS education. It's getting everyone here wound up in knots thinking about what is right and wrong, and I can't think of any other 'education' that would be as effective in that regard.
The law sends the general signal that violence is not ok, and we need to find other ways of managing our kids. I'm happy with that in principle, but for me that's because I would not hit my child at all.

Some have commented that proponents don't see or don't make the distinction between a smack and a bashing. I think the reality is that they are all on the continuum, of violence. As another poster said, kids can be terrified when smacked even lightly. Smacking breaks an attachment, a bond of trust betwixt child and parent that exists before the 'Dawn of Reason'. Kids may not even know what their errors are, especially in the case of those so young as to have no defence or escape, and who have died. But they DO know that you have broken that bond. The more often you break that bond, the less respect you will be accorded, no matter how much you love them. So much is done in the name of love that it is a useless argument here. Circumcision, child betrothal and wedlock, and more. If there is love in your heart it will be shown in your actions, not your words.

I certainly remember 'do as I say, not as I do' too many times as a child. I was whacked a few times but it only taught me to subvert my father. I was smarter than him from a young age, so that was not hard. With my brother they collided head on until he left home, and thereafter. From that, lifelong disrespect and disgust was a mutual outcome. I am now estranged from my father because I do not do as he wishes. I'm 40 for heaven sake, and he is the child.

Anyway, I would like to mention a book that has helped me to see different patterns of behaviour than the manipulative, threatening ones I grew up under.

It's called Parenting for a Peaceful world and it is both the most shocking and positive 'child rearing' book I have read. It is academic up to a point, but easy to read.
In summary the author, Robin Grille, takes us through his 6 modes of parenting. These are the historical shifts in what society at large generally conceives child bearing and child rearing to be about. Those stages are:

1. Infaticidal
2. Abandoning
3. Ambivalent
4. Intrusive
5. Socialising
6. Helping

Most of us have been raised in the socialising mode, where we are taught to behave, do as I do - not as I do, dress smartly, say yes sir no sir and so on. With that typically comes continued bribery, emotional blackmail and physical punishment.

What Grille says, if I remember it well, is that moving from the Socialising to the Helping modes, we are learning (as a society) to teach our kids how to behave by example. That is, not by Authoritarian methods, but by Authoritative methods. We show the kids the behaviour that is acceptable, we show them the life skills that work for us, and they emulate them. They develop respect.

I like this piece...

"When we deny the violence of a smack, this simply means that we have become personally de-sensitised to violence at that threshold. Since a smack does not feel violent to the smacker, this seems sufficient justification to carry on smacking. There appears to be an endlessly shifting imaginary line separating 'normative' smacking - a completely arbitrary and subjective definition - from definitive violence. Simply put, we think of something as 'normative' because that's what we grew up with. The hitting we experienced as children has made us insensitive to the pain and humiliation suffered by our own children as we swat them in the name of 'discipline'. So we don't see our blows as 'violent', but our children - who are much more vulnerable and sensitive than ourselves - certainly experience them as violent. (page 183, paperback 2005, ISBN 1 921004 14 2)

I would challenge anyone here to read that book and still say it's OK to smack kids.
I may be pushing treacle uphill considering much of what has been spat out here, but I for one absolutely support the principle that it is not OK to smack your kids.
I also support the principle that society does have a say in that, in what is right and wrong. This is what society is. Otherwise we are all islands of selfish individuals adrift in the breeze.
In the context of helping us to get from Socialising mode to Helping mode (explained in much detail in the book) I support the case for a law, to send the message and to enforce where possible and necessary against violence towards our most vulnerable citizens.

So flame me, what will it achieve?