RE: SPANKING: Appropriate or Abuse
I think that the reason it got outlawed was to protect those children that were very much being abused by adults who couldn't differentiate their emotions and frustrations from the actual act of discipline. And could hide being the rationale that it was their child and they would very much discipline them how they saw fit. This left very little room for government to step in for the benefit of the child. But this is very much a minority situation.
I think for the most part parents used an appropriate amount of "smacking". I for one was a really bold child, and to some extents a little shit, and I am glade I did get smacked from time to time. Because the way I was raised overall, inclusive of all discipline has culminated in me being a very socially aware individual.
You could argue that verbal and psychological abuse is far worse than a smack, so yeah I think this is a black and white (binary) approach by the government for something that isn't that simple.
In much the same way that our social welfare system gets abused by a small number of the population. But is ultimately a good thing. I think a more flexible approach should have been taken to what constitutes physical abuse.
But then the child welfare courts would probably be full of endless cases and appeals. So unfortunately we take a one size fits all approach.
Though I do believe you can still bring up a productive child without smacking. It just requires you to engage with them differently.
No harm in smacking from my view. But def not tantamount to children running amock if a parent cant smack them. Using that is just an excuse for weak parenting.
If you 'can still bring up a productive child without smacking' then why is there no harm in smacking? If it's just as effective to parent your child without use of physical violence, surely using physical violence is an objectively worse method and is needlessly cruel.
I wouldn't necessarily term all smacking as physical violence. That's going right for the extreme end of the spectrum. I've seen plenty of parents use language that is just plain sadistic and far more cruel than a slight slap to the bottom as it were.
I'm just saying both can be done right. One should not be demonised over the other, when clearly both can have lasting negative impacts on a child. Look at Moonlight for example, the mother never once smacks her child in that.
There is also context to look at this in terms of the animal kingdom. Wolf's nip their pups behind the ear when they break certain pack rules. The mother isn't being cruel or vindictive. And they have the verbal capacity to communicate such concepts as right and wrong, so it's not that they have an inferior method of conveying their basic rules of society.
Anyways don't take that out of context it's just an example.
Sometimes a physical action is required to reinforce the notion that something is not to be done.
You engage verbally with adults because your brain has developed to handle complex reasoning. This isn't the case in small children. The naughty step just doesn't quite have the same effect as a smack out of fear to let your kid know don't run out in front of traffic because you will get killed.
I wouldn't call that parent cruel for wanting to ensure their kid never did something like that, because they are worried that the child doesn't grasp the concept of death as a permanent state of nothing.
As a child grows you then reason more.
Look both can work, saying one is superior is like saying their is a best way to teach kids in school. Which is exactly why dyslexic kids were made to feel like idiots in previous decades because they were not being taught in a way that suited how their brains worked.
In short the word is complex, and I keepy mind open to all methods based on the outcome. As I said I got smacked as a child, and I certainly would not use the terms physical violence or cruel to describe how my mother brought me up. Just saying.
The act of slapping literally is physical violence though.
So you have to either physically or emotionally abuse your child? There's no option for not doing either, and avoiding the lasting negative impacts? I don't think the existence of emotional abuse justifies hitting children. I think it is just lazy, irresponsible, or vengeful parenting. I was smacked occasionally and I don't think it did any good and, though it was rare, probably did some amount of bad.
An interesting perspective to see only what you want to in my comments. Nowhere are my points advocating that you have to do one or the other in an abusive way, merely that just because a parent doesn't smack there child doesn't mean they are good parents. Nor did I at any point draw any conclusions between prior mental abuse and any sort of vengeful parenting.
Personally, I would find drawing inferences between a slap behind the knees as literally violence to be insulting to those that actually are subject to it.
As I mentioned, verbal or physical abuse is, and always will be, about the motive and the intent behind it.
I wouldn't smack my own children. But if I saw someone else do it under a certain context or conditions, I wouldn't automatically lump them in with the real scumbags in the this world.
I've witnessed situations involving true abuse and exploitation (not all of it physical violence), and every time I return home from my rotations I was thankful I live in a country progressive enough to debate the legalities of what constitutes moral parenting and ethics. But as I mentioned, we take a hard stance to protect the few, and that's ultimately a good thing, as it leaves no room for misinterpretation in the courts, or someone getting away with something on a technicality. But do I believe every person who ever smacked a child was wrong to do so. No.
Anyways, its against the law. So there is no debate as to whether it should or should not form part of good parenting (in this country anyway). I was merely advocating that not all things are as simple as they first appear.
Consider this, its against the law to drive over the limit. However, are you more or less guilty if you get pulled over the following day, having gone to bed, eaten a breakfast and then left a friends house to drive home, than someone who drives that night with reckless disregard. As I said intent/motive has a lot to answer for in life.
That's ultimately how I judge anyone, not against a set of laws that can be contested and picked apart by solicitors and barristers. They define the society we live in, and give it meaning and context. But living within them by no means determines you to be a good person. Bankers destroyed peoples lives in 2008 and they did it within a legal framework. Their motives were anything but pure.
But I get off topic. Listen I'm not saying that smacking is right, but nor am I saying it is wrong 100% of the time. Just that it is law, and therefore I for one follow it.
I'm not really sure what you're rambling about. Striking someone literally is physical violence, that isn't debatable unless you start arguing about your own personal definitions of words. Wolves don't have spoken language about moral concepts.
Again, worse things existing isn't an argument for something being okay. The argument is purely if disciplining children through physical/emotional pain is morally wrong when it is perfectly possible to raise them effectively without causing pain. Sure, some parents who don't smack etc. can still be shitty people, but that has nothing to do with the argument. Two wrongs don't make a right etc etc
I think the fact that the WHO, various governments and health authorities such as the NHS all having slightly differing views on the subject would make it anything but literal. My own definitions being somewhat of a mute point here, but to twist the primary meaning of a word to give the perception of greater justification to your arguement just smacks of the kind of lazy half assed debating style the likes of Donal trump employs. The word violence has a very defined meaning when used in its fullest sense. Using it out of context simply to dramatise your stance is just poor form.
It has also been proven that morality and a sense of right and wrong has evolved in other animals besides humans, elephants, primates, wolves, even mice. There are plenty of books and peer reviewed papers to that effect. Naturally it is not as developed as our own, what with the higher intelligence and all. Which is why I did say not to take it out of context. But that hasn't stopped you so far. Either way the point there is that both verbal and physical discipline has evolved in nature in numerous species. This wasn't an arguement for or against smacking. Just that it is an evolutionary trait necessary for animals in large complex heirarchies to exist peacefully, by establishing rules and ensuring it's members are aware of their place within it. You seem to be painting smacking as some barbaric act of aggression with no sense or meaning, reducing it to the same level as actual acts of violence that are motivated by emotions stemming from jealousy, rage, anger. Or indeed a pathological lack of empathy.
There are studies that show kids who have been smacked are more likely to grow up to become drug addicts. Very compelling arguement until you read that the studies weren't undertaken as true double blind studies, and that the kids most likely to to smacked grew up in troubled neighbourhoods. So the lead author just completely disregards all socio-economic factors.
There is however some compelling and properly carried out experiments that show that use of pain killers and suppression of small amounts of pain in adolescents can lead to them growing up with a narrower range of emotions and higher likelihood of suffering from clinical depression.
I'm not trying to lead the discussion one way or the other here. I'm simply saying you can find statistics or research to back any arguement up. To a point.
Anyways I could go on but suffice it to say we obviously have differing outlooks on this.
Your very much entitled to have strong opinions on the matter, much like I do. And mine is there isn't one right way to do anything in life. Again to a point, so once more, not to be taken out of context. Well you can if you like it's a free country.