I don’t think education programs are required for everyone, and I refer to another article.

“Stansbury says another surprising finding was that male caregivers touched the children more during discipline settings than female caregivers—and the majority of the time it was in a positive manner. Positive touch included hugging, tickling, and patting.”
http://www.futurity.org/society-culture/nearly-1-in-4-kids-gets-physical-rebuke-in-public/

The positive touch was carried out by the majority of fathers, and it seems instinctive, or they instinctively knew the best way to teach and manage children. This is of course directly opposite to how fathers have been portrayed in the past, to demonise fathers and alienate them from families and children.

So it may require education programs for some people only, and mostly the mothers.

Susan, I hate to point out the obvious.
Children do not come with instruction manuals.
Baristas that make your next cappuccino often have more formal training than parents.
To discuss banning any form of smacking ignores the fact that the bigger problem for most children is smack .. and coke and heroin and crystal meth.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-02-14/methadone-death-mum-walks-free/1042564
http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/kts/guidelines/roles/health.htm
The whole smacking issue is largely an ideological and third level issue for most children at risk.

I'd like to know more about the relationships between the mothers and children and the fathers and children.

It's not a study, for sure, but the observations of my peers - mostly mothers out of the workforce while raising pre-school children, with the father in full time work. The children tend to be much better behaved overall for their father than their mother, and I suspect it is related to the children always being with mum and so when dad is with them it is more special. This was really obvious in my older son: he was usually well behaved for me, but even better behaved for Dad. But when Dad was overtired whilst writing report cards, and when Dad was home for a few weeks on school holidays, our sons behaviour with his father went downhill and he was punished a lot - including smacks - not from me, but from his father. Now that he is at school, his behaviour is much the same for both of us.

I wonder how this dynamic would be different if it was my husband home with the children all day and me at work all day.

See, my husband rarely has to carry the toddler kicking and screaming across the carpark, which is also a form of negative physical discipline which I carry out. The toddler is usually thrilled to see Daddy and will do whatever Daddy wants him to do.

Maybe you would like to provide me with a more suitable manner in which to deal with a child who wants to walk by himself across a carpark?

Susan, that's quite a good point, but it begs the question. Whatever the reason for such a discrepancy across parental gender, it seemingly is real.

Maybe you would care to read my response before criticising me so harshly.

" in much the same way that people nowadays don't consider it reasonable behaviour for a husband to discipline his wife if she's "out of line".

But, Jonti, a parent IS responsible for disciplining their children - not for disciplining their spouse. An integral part of parenting is teaching values and choices.

Discipline doesn;t have to be physical - but it does have to involve consequences for one's action. So, if a child requires a lesson that they are resisting , their should be consequences - whether it is "grounding", withdrawal of other priveleges, etc etc.

OTOH, one does noe behave in this way towards a spouse, partner or adult peer - because it is not a protective relationship where one is teaching and protecting the other.

If your partner did something you felt was unwise or wrong, would you refuse to lend them your car? Limit their computer time? Withhold their allowance? Some very destructive partners DO do this - we call it abuse.

This is the element that is missing in this debate - a healthy parent-child relationship is fundamentally different to a marriage or partnership between adults.

You'll do just fine Jonti.

Good points from all I think.

Physical violence is never okay. But neither is abuse of any kind, including psychological.

As Parents we want (or at least I think most of us do) to help our children grow up to be happy, healthy, fulfilled adults who can maximise their opportunities as well as make a useful contribution to society.

The trouble is, it aint easy! We are imperfect vessels and sometimes out failures lead to imperfections developing in our children too - and it worries us.

I hope you do experience the joy of parenthood Jonti - it is absolutely the part of my life that is the most rewarding. It teaches you what unconditional love really means. But because you care so much it means it is very hard to always get the balance right between support, guidance and limit setting.

I support the idea that smacking is to be avoided. I support the idea that psychological abuse of any form is to be avoided. But I also am empathetic to the role of the parent, recognising that parents are not perfect and sill sometimes do things that they shouldn't. I would prefer to avoid legalistic proscription with consequences except as a last resort - rather focusing on support and education.

Maybe this thread can help those who access it a little bit in that direction.

Appreciate the various contributions :)

I agree, Mark, that we are all imperfect - so we need to talk about what is desirable rather than what is compulsory.

To do this, however, we also need a realistic understanding of risk and harm. The law and compulsion should only be invoked when there is significant risk of significant harm.

What we're all skirting around here is that there ARE gradations of risk and harm. I am not the only example of a child who was brought up in a loving and secure home but who was occasionally hit for discipline (perhaps out of anger - but always for a reason - not random). And yet, I am an adulta nd parent who does not discipline by physical violence.

Should my parents' parenting style now be seen as outside the law - or merely coming from a different time and culture?

The subtlety is in both the degree of violence and the context/motivation.

The world is full of adults like me who were hit occasionally, and not very hard, in the context of discipline, and yet felt secure and loved.

It's easy to say "violence is always wrong", but we could also say the same about humiliation, shouting, lying, falling short in so many ways. If the law regulated all our imperfections, the police, DOCS and courts would be even more overwhelmed than they already are.

I agree Dan - it is a little tedious listening to those reeking in moral vanity and superiority that emanates from this forum quite regularly.
Parents need to have authority (which is different than power) and there are times when non-verbal expressions are the only thing that ensures that.
I am of course talking about appropriate force in use of a light smack.
Children need boundaries and whilst I rarely smacked my children there were occasional times when it was the last resort to reinforce those boundaries.

No Judith, none of those are acceptable. Kids are a blessing to me, no matter what. When they act out it's in a way a reflection on the whole family as I think of it. To blame it on a small kid solely is to put a adult stamp on it, and also presume a reasoning it's not capable of. We're all 'kids' a fair way into the twenties according to brain studies in where they've found that the brain paths etc still are evolving at that time. I agree that psychological abuse is just as destroying, and in some ways even worse for a growing individual, especially if constant, but it's dangerous suggesting that one is more 'acceptable' than the other.

But it happens, in Sweden too, although very seldom in public as it's not socially acceptable. Kids only rights are the rights the parents give them, and their immediate protection is also their parents concern. We have what's called BRIS here (Childrens right in society) though. It's manned by volunteers answering kids phone calls as I understands it and it's anonymous, the kids get a chance to talk about what they find unbearable getting educated response by people that cares. To my eyes it's not the kid alone, it's society, education, money and the family situation that may bring it to act in certain ways, although kids are individuals too :)

Interesting point, Judith. I don't recall the times when I was hit as a child, but I certainly remember times that I felt humiliated (all within a loving and caring family, I might add).

I can't help thinking that a lot of what we are now seeing as moral absolutes are actually culturally-determined and relative.

I subscribe to the current view that hitting children is both wrong and ineffective in their development. I don't, however, agree that it is universally harmful. I use myself and most of my peers as examples - very few of us now condone hitting children, and yet nearly all of us were hit as children.

In my family of origin, hitting of children was an accepted form of discipline. Hitting of adults never occurred, and we grew up to feel loved and protected. I did not get the message that violence was acceptable, and I certainly don't have that idea now. I don't think I am alone - far from it.

There are various organisations in Australia also, that give kids the ability to tell others of their problems, these did not exist when I, and my friends were growing up and children need to be aware of their existence to access them.

There is also the problem of what is seen as psychological abuse, such as the indoctrination of children into religion. This indoctrination is not seen as abuse by many, including the government, so this form of abuse goes on unscrutinised.

As for smacking, (I'm not talking about beatings here or any physical abuse that damages a child physically), these days it is far more acceptable socially, to psychologically abuse a child, as long as you don't lay a finger on them. Even threats of violence are more acceptable than an actual smack on the bum.

The hypocrisy surrounding this debate is revolting.

" she feels free to slap me when I make a bad joke for example. "

But surely it is a fundamental role of fatherhood to make Dad jokes?

I certainly think so and I suspect my daughter does as well. Where we differ is in our understanding of a daughter's appropriate response to them.

I once threatened my daughter to come and get her from a party, wearing a proud viking helmet. She became very sweet and reasonable after that, understanding all my points.

I've made similar threats involving shorts, sandals and bared abdomens...

with very similar results.

And you're serious too I presume? Reminds me a little of that English/American nanny program :) although she won't 'correct' by hitting. And to suggest that bullying is acceptable, as you actually do renaming it social ¨school pecking', if I get you right? Sorry, I also have kids and I never needed to hit them to make them behave?

Yoron

I'm sorry you failed to understand what I wrote.

I neither wrote, nor inferred bullying is acceptable.

And, I also wrote in relation to exerting power " One consequence may be a smack. But, this is really only effective for pre-school aged children. It is NOT the only remedy."

Must be something I ate this morning - seems to have seriously affected how my writing is read (by some).

Cheers

Hmm, and there I was, thinking I got you just right :)
I do not support physical or psychological abuse of kids. Neither by adults, nor by bullies.

Yep.
And so agreed. To expect the best of them is the way I did it too, and it worked very well for me. It doesn't have to do with how educated one is, or what money one make. It has to do with trust, and those 'positive expectations' you write about, not forcing them into fulfilling some parental wish but just try to give them some safety and some positive hopes for their future. And school, always tell them that education is like a flashlight, the more you know the better and further you can see, doesn't really matter what the studies is about as long as they find a joy in them.

I like your 'flashlight' simile. If it's not subject to a patent I will use it to illustrate the point.

Thnx.

heh, I'm a Swede, not American.. We don't do that kind of patenting here.
Well, not yet, at least :)

And yeah, I like it too, one of the best and simplest ways I ever found to explain 'education' to my kids. And I love the Internet, it's like the best school one can find when one get a interest, or just want to discuss. As long as it is free.

Kenneth and Yoron - were either of you ever slapped by a parent? Even once?

Firstly, being myself was not an act of bribery. Secondly, when I was small my mother would turn around a slap my face hard seemingly without any reason that I could understand. It happened quite often. I would have to scramble around the room trying to find my glasses. Perhaps I was just a naughty little boy and didn't realise it.

I found bribery, (positive re-enforcement) to be the best way to train a dog, and the best way to train a very young child, in the behaviours that you desire them to exhibit. Neither understand complex reasoning, or the concept of empathy for others.

That being said, my daughter, when she was very young, (2 years old), was a biter. She could inflict serious damage on other children, so when she was caught biting, I would give her a quick tap on the bum, to stop her biting and inflicting pain and damage to others. She was not old enough to understand that her biting caused pain to others, so trying to explain this to a 2 year old was pointless. There also needed to be a consequence to her action of biting, which involved removing her from the company of other children immediately after the biting incident. After several biting incidents, with the consistent discipline, my daughter eventually stopped biting.

With an older child a verbal explanation can be given.

With a pet, they do not reach a stage where you can give them a verbal explanation, and they do not learn ethics and reasoning.

I appreciate your comment.

With animals, there will never be a time where we will be able to engage in reasoned conversations. Although, no matter what the age of the animal, I have always been able to house-train without resorting to any kind of physical reinforcement. Have rarely used a "sin-bin" either - reward works quite well for animals. Concentrate on the good behaviour, minimise the response to bad behaviour.

I feel for you having had a little daughter who bit others - you must've wondered "who is this child and where is my real daughter". I know from my own experience, that I would use instant removal of the child in my care often to a "sin-bin" for a short while (too long and it becomes psychological abuse).

All in all it is a fraught field especially if a child is ADHD for example. However, I have never found the use of even the mildest of physical discipline necessary. The most physical I have ever become is to pick up the child and remove him/her from the situation.

As for older children - then we have to use more sophisticated methods - again hitting or smacking does not fit into any definition of a mature response to bad behaviour. Caring for those dependent on us is never easy - it is, in fact a great opportunity to train ourselves in self control as well as the child or animal.

Who disciplines the discipliner? The responsibility is with us - we can learn more patience or console ourselves "it was just a little tap".

In my daughters case, it was "just a little tap", and it served to immediately cause her to stop biting the other child. It did not harm her in any way. Trying to remove her, while she was in the act of biting, would have led to her simply biting harder to prevent being removed.

I have never liked using physical discipline, (actually I know of no parent who does), but there were circumstances where it was the most expedient way to effect a result. I am not talking about beating a child either, I am talking about the tap on the bum that my daughter received to distract her from biting.

There are downfalls to using reward for good behaviour too, particularly when this method is over used, and children should be behaving in an acceptable manner because they know the difference between right and wrong, and have been taught empathy for others, not because they will get a reward. When rewards are over used, children become selfish, greedy, and grow up with an exaggerated sense of entitlement IMO.

With animals, I have never had to house train them, as I don't believe that animals should be living in a house at all.

Sounds like your daughter was suffering from pitbull-itis.

Joking of course.

As for your personal views on animals - you don't believe they should be in the house - that is not what the topic is about. I used the house training of animals to illustrate a point that hitting is not necessary for anyone or anything.

Also children learn empathy from sharing their home with animals - however I have a feeling you will state something along the lines of children learning empathy from animals as long as the animals are kept outside and I don't really want to start a debate (argument?) about that.

As for rewards, they are distinctly different from overindulging children - properly used rewards for good behaviour do not result in children becoming "selfish, greedy, and grow up with an exaggerated sense of entitlement".

Therefore, will agree to disagree with you.

lol pitbull-itis, did seem like that sometimes. It is a pretty common childhood phase, but that doesn't make it any easier to deal with, particularly when your child is the biter :)

I agree with you that children learn empathy for other living beings by having animals around, (although not necessarily living in the same house), but whether you personally like having animals living in your house or not, doesn't take away from the benefit they provide. My daughter benefited greatly from having cats, dogs, horses and birds in her life, from a very young age. Having animals to care for also gives children a sense of responsibility, but that's a subject for a different discussion :)

I wasn't talking about over indulging children, I was simply making the point that rewards should not always be the result of good behaviour. It teaches children to expect a reward for what they should be doing anyway, behaving well towards others. I'm happy to agree to disagree though.