RoR: Forum

Jennifer,

My parents' experience, and my own experience as a parent, is that there just isn't, EVER, ANY good reason for an adult to hit ("smack") a child. Human children are human, and among humans, including between parents and children, reason ought to be the first resort and force the last. Once parents decide on that principle, the empirical evidence of the facts of reality is, that in practice there is NEVER a need for force between parent and child. I suggest you read the evidence in, e.g., the works of Haim Ginott.
(Edited by Adam Reed on 1/15, 12:02am)

Post 1

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 12:19am

Adam, I don't disagree with you. I disagree, however, that it is the business of the government to dictate the dynamics of a family. That is getting way too invasive.

Of course, that then begs the question of children's rights, which is a whole other quagmire. (In other words, is it the law's place to step in on behalf of a child?)

Also, if it is illegal for a man to hit his wife, should it then also be illegal for him to hit his child?

Post 2

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 1:21am

Jennifer,

Physical abuse is a crime against another�s person. That it occurs within the dynamics of a family or a personal relationship changes nothing.

Children�s rights are individual rights, and they are not �a whole other quagmire�, they are the very issue here.

You ask: �is it the law's place to step in on behalf of a child?�
Of Course it is! The child has the right not to be beaten.

As the stay-at-home father of two girls: a two, almost three year old and a four month old, I can tell you that Adam is totally correct. I cannot hit my two year old because she is out of control�She�s two, she doesn�t possess control. I�m not two, so I don�t have the excuse. Hitting is, at best, the destructive recourse of parents who lack the creativity to correct errant behavior with diversions and appeal to the reason and little control the child does have.

(My mother-in-law arrived tonight, I have tomorrow completely off�that�s why this dad of two is still up.)

Jon

Post 3

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 1:43am

Jon, I understand what you and Adam are saying. I am not advocating the beating of children, much as I dislike most of the ones I encounter. :)

My problem is that this kind of law enables the furthering of a nanny state, where the law will now dictate how we live every aspect of our lives. Some parents don't put reason first, and if they smack their child on the butt, or the hand, and someone sees it, at some point this will become just cause to arrest them.

A similar case in point: My nephew had to go to the emergency room to get stitches because he fell off his bike. He had another bruise from some other fall (he is a rough-and-tumble kind of boy, like most of them). The nurse pulled my brother aside to say she was required to call social services because he had multiple wounds, and there was reason to believe the child was being abused. Are you kidding me?? Where is reason in THAT equation?

THIS is the kind of culture we are now breeding. Sorry, but I'm not buying in.

Post 4

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 1:54am

Jennifer, I understand what you are saying. I am not advocating the beating of women, much as I dislike most of the ones I encounter. :)

My problem is that this kind of law enables the furthering of a nanny state, where the law will now dictate how we live every aspect of our lives. Some men don't put reason first, and if they smack a woman on the butt, or the hand, and someone sees it, at some point this will become just cause to arrest them.

A similar case in point: My wife had to go to the emergency room to get stitches because she fell off her bike. She had another bruise from some other fall (she is a rough-and-tumble kind of girl, like most of them). The nurse pulled her aside to ask if she was being abused. Are you kidding me?? Where is reason in THAT equation?

THIS is the kind of culture we are now breeding. Sorry, but I'm not buying in.

Jon

Post 5

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 3:04am

It seems that the parents here do not like fulfilling their obligation as parents.

I suppose because your children have full rights when they hit or beat up their younger brother or sister you will just say "I must refer you to the courts now. You are a complete individual with full rights and therefore responsibilities. You have broken the law and now you must be held fully accountable"

What a load of liberal bullshit!!!!

When will you guys get into you heads that children DO not have the same full rights as adults do? As the guardian of your child you have the responsibility to raise your child as you see fit. Not to threaten or endanger their lives, but to act as some sort of guidance and protection.

Jennifer, you are quite right. It is these guys that are talking out their orifices.

Post 6

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 3:32am

Marcus & Jennifer - bravo! Or, bravi! We have the same agenda going on here in NZ, with the government citing *real* child abuse, such as murder - perpetrated by sub-humans who have been *paid* by this same government to breed - as an excuse to outlaw smacking: i.e. to dictate to parents how they should raise their children. What utter twaddle. Simply a cover for further erosion of the prerogatives of parents & the nationalisation of children.

My hero Ingersoll maintained that it was possible & desirable to raise kids without hitting them; frankly, I'm sceptical, given what revolting little snots kids can be. In any event, being hit, within reason, as a corrective measure, is not going to damage any child who knows *why* he's being hit, except in the eyes of the advocates of this pathetic Age of the Sissy. Funny thing - the "cuff" is a widespread corrective in the animal kingdom, & the cubs mature undamaged & strong. Those animals are way wiser than the advocates of letting kids run amok. I know one parent who won't even *verbally* remonstrate with her kids, no matter what the provocation, including physical assault on each other. Spoiled prats, who will grow up as spoiled prats.

Galt preserve us from this bubble-wrapped PC culture!

Linz

Post 7

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 3:45am

Though not a parent myself, my sympathies are with Adam and Jon. Sure most children aren't as mature as most adults, but that's not a reason to deny them the same rights as others.

As for "beating up a brother or sister", up to a point parents ought to be able to deal with those situations within the family (of course children will sometimes engage in, for want of a better term, "consensual" rough play and within reason that isn't a problem at all), but the fact remains that there does come a point where a beating becomes so serious that it has to become a matter for the courts.

Marcus, Jennifer and Lindsay, I'd be interested to know whether any of you think children should have any rights at all?

MH

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 1/15, 3:48am)

Post 8

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 6:29am

MH,

From your post above you appear to have not read or understood anything that we have written.

You would realise that your question has already been answered if you would just employ some of that grey matter between your ears. I am not going to play mother for you now.

I can't help you if you insist on living in "cloud cuckoo land" concerning this issue.

Post 9

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 7:06am

Marcus I'm sorry you think such a petty, immature post is appropriate in this discussion.

I read your posts, whether I understand them's a different question: As best I can make out you think children have some rights but not the same rights as adults. And them not having the same rights as adults means parents should be free to assault them. Right?

Assuming that's correct, that position raises far more questions than it answers - what rights do you think children have? At what point do they come to have full rights? Who decides this and on what basis? Can parents hit kids whenever they feel it approrpriate, or would there be some criterion for when the kids are misbehaving to the point of justifying being hit? What safeguards (if any) would be in place to make sure kids weren't hit for no reason? (Seems to me if it was entirely at the discretion of the parents some kids probably would be hit for no good reason.) Most importantly, why does an Objectivist think children should be hit into submitting to a higher authority rather than bought up to think for themselves?

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 1/15, 7:12am)

Post 10

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 7:25am

MH,

"Most importantly, why does an Objectivist think children should be hit into submitting to a higher authority rather than bought up to think for themselves?"

For exactly the same reason that I think a policeman has the right to restrain or chastise a criminal. Or do you think criminals have the same rights as a law-abiding citizen to not be apprehended and restrained by force either? Does this mean the criminal can no longer think for himself because he must submit to a higher authority?

Rights and responsibilities are linked don't you realise. You seem to want to negate the Childs responsibilities while giving them full rights at the same time. Just as committing a criminal act negates my right to be free from force of legal authorities that enforce the law. I still have rights once arrested and then found guilty. But I don't have the same rights as most other law-abiding individuals.

A child is not a criminal. But neither is he or she judged by the same standards required of an adult that has full rights.

Post 11

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 7:29am

But any punishment which causes visible bruising, grazes, scratches, minor swellings or cuts can face action.

I think it's worth noting the exact provisions of this law. While I'm willing to consider the notion that physical discipline is necessary with kids of a certain age and mentality, I do think that when it starts causing visible wounds, it has gone beyond discipline and is treading the edge of an infringement on the child's rights.

Of course, as Jennifer points out, it can be difficult to distinguish between injuries as a result of abuse and injuries as a result of normal kid behavior, and thus it is probably difficult if not impossible to reasonably enforce such a law. But leaving the law and its enforcement aside, is the “visible wounds” principle a reasonable one to follow in distinguishing between discipline and abuse?

Post 12

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 7:45am

The Ethics of Liberty contains a chapter on (14) Children and Rights. Maybe it will clarify some thing and/or give you more ammunition to talk about ;)

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp

Regards,

Jeremy

Post 13

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 8:57am

Marcus,

You wrote: �It seems that the parents here do not like fulfilling their obligation as parents.�
So, if only I cared more about fulfilling my obligations, I would be hitting my kids? Thanks for that high-level intellectual response.

And: �I suppose because your children have full rights when they hit or beat up their younger brother or sister you will just say "I must refer you to the courts now��
Who said Full Rights? And why are you offering such a silly supposition? Adults are expected to be in control and are responsible for their actions, not children.

Jon

Post 14

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 9:28am

Peter Breggen wrote a book years ago - 'The Psychology of Freedom' in which this very issue was raised....... and he pointed out that restraining is not abuse - that is, it is fine, when necessary, to restrain the child, without having to resort to abusing the child, and without having to violate the rights of the child... further - in line with an earlier issue on another matter raised, the fact that the child is not the owner of the house/home, and is therefore under the restrictions imposed by the one who is in charged: hence the validity of restraint. There is more, of course, but I refer y'all to the book : ) ......

Post 15

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 9:45am

Linz,

You wrote: ��with the government citing *real* child abuse, such as murder��
Do you recognize abuse less than murder?

And: �My hero Ingersoll maintained that it was possible & desirable to raise kids without hitting them; frankly, I'm sceptical, given what revolting little snots kids can be.�
This attitude is at the heart of abuse, actually. One�s personal distaste for the child�s current state of development convinces them that such a little snot is unworthy of reason and respect, only beating.

And: �In any event, being hit, within reason, as a corrective measure, is not going to damage any child who knows *why* he's being hit�
First, by your opposition to this law, I take it that you consider causing bruises and other damage to the skin and musculature to be �within reason�. Second, how will knowing what they did to prompt the abuse prevent psychological damage? Wife abusers say the same thing: �When she brought up my drinking, yet again, she knew what come to her.� It�s nonsense.

And: �Funny thing - the "cuff" is a widespread corrective in the animal kingdom, & the cubs mature undamaged & strong. Those animals are way wiser than the advocates of letting kids run amok.�
Some mothers in the animal world eat the weaker individuals, and the surviving young mature undamaged & strong. What possible wisdom can come from bringing into the discussion the behavior of beasts? Although this does help me to see how you approach this issue.

�I know one parent who won't even *verbally* remonstrate with her kids, no matter what the provocation, including physical assault on each other.�
So you see this as a choice between doing absolutely nothing, and beating?

Jon

Post 16

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 9:48am

Robert,

That�s correct. Restraint until the tantrum ends works very well. So does a diversion. The point is to not respond strongly to misbehavior as this will teach them that they can get you to fly off the handle with such. The point is to be more creative and in control than the child. Imagine that.

Jon

Post 17

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 10:46am

Jennifer,

Thank you for posting this link. I had to do a Google search to learn that NSPCC abbreviates "National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children." That search also revealed that Microsoft has offered its official sanction of the NSPCC "Full Stop" movement. Whereas the law your article cites says that "reasonable chastisement" remains legal, NSPCC wants a ban on all smacking even if it leaves no marks, hence the "Full Stop" name of their movement.

I would certainly question how such a law against all smacking would get enforced. Would a child simply be taken at his word? Would snoopy busybodies be allowed to phone anonymous tips to law enforcement officials? The "Full Stop" movement begs many questions even if you accept the premise that corporal punishment violates the rights of children.

I think SOLO needs to start its own Parenting Special Interest Club page. I disqualify myself since I have no children, but perhaps someone else has interest.

Here are two sites as references:

http://www.rationalparent.com/

http://www.principledparenting.org/pages/827880/index.htm

Michelle Cohen, a regular SOLO forum participant, runs a Yahoo! Group discussing Objectivist parenting. Contact her for information.

Luke Setzer

Post 18

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 10:54am

Has anyone noticed that all the actual parents here are on just one of the two "sides" of this "controversy?" What happened to Ayn Rand's recognition that all knowledge must be grounded in facts of reality?

Our brains may be born without content, but we humans evolved to learn by many means. Human children learn most by seeing what works for the grownups around them. Usually, when children "hit or beat up their younger brother or sister" it is because they are imitating behaviors they have seen - or experienced - at home.

Whether or not governments ought to be involved is a question that must be decided from the principles of politics. Parents who beat their children are creating a menace to the rest of us. I don't want to live near a family whose ten-year-old bully thinks it's fine to hit my 95-year-old mother, because he learned at home that this is how people deal with those smaller or weaker than they. The only question is whether that 10-year-old's parents should be fingered only after the kid vandalizes the neighborhood, or when the evidence of their deeds is still on his skin.

As for Linz's bears: Linz, you need a refresher course in Objectivist ethics. Have you forgotten that different species of animals have different means of survival? Human parents who teach their children to live by force are just as unnatural as bears who would teach their young to survive by trade. But we humans are a relatively young species, and unlike bears, who already have evolved far enough to avoid random attempts at the second scenario, we humans still at times experience the results of the first.

Post 19

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 11:34am