RoR: Forum

Thanks to all of you for your comments, and for making this a most interesting discussion.

Again, I am not saying that beating a child is the way to raise him/her, and I give a great deal of credit to parents who put in the time and effort to raise them otherwise if it leads to well-behaved children. (I, too, have seen the "restraint" method in action, so I know that it works.)

Where I think the gray area lies is when it is appropriate for the courts to come into play.

...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?

My concern is that once this law is on the books, the arena then becomes wide open for accusations and misunderstandings. There are already laws against child abuse, so why was this one necessary?

Post 21

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 11:57am

What ever happened to context? Why does the child discipline debate always merge hitting and beating with the smack?
And why do you have to be a parent before having a valid opinion on the matter? We all come from families.
If I have kids, I'd be far happier with "Uncle" Marcus and "Auntie" Jennifer looking after them than some liberal discipline-ditherer.
There's a saying I recall: "Soft Doctors make smelly wounds".Same goes for parents.(Give the current state of some posters' comprehension, I bet this is parsed as me supporting maiming and post-natal abortions!)
Tim

Post 22

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 12:10pm

Adam,

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?

Yes, I had noticed that :-) My own views on the topic developed in part from reading the thoughts of other Objectivist/libertarian parents.

Marcus,

I think your analogy between a child and a criminal is nonsense. A criminal understands that what he is doing is wrong and is punished accordingly - in a civilised society this is generally done by incarceration or some other deprivation of liberty, not by physical chastisement. If a child commits a crime it is for the courts to decide whether the child is criminally responsible i.e. knew right from wrong.Under the law of England & Wales there is a general presumption that anyone age 10 (I think) or over is criminally responsible (other countries probably differ on the specifics but I'm sure there are similar laws), and depending on the seriousness of the crime are tried either at youth courts or in the more serious cases, "adult" courts (this is why the teenage Bulger murderers were, rightly, put on trial in the way that they were - cue liberal bitch party). Granted child convicts are sent to young offender institutions rather than "real" prisons, but the punishment remains deprivation of liberty and not physical chastisement.

Just in case I'm being misunderstood, of course when dealing with the very young some form of restraint may be appropriate in certain situations, but that's not the same as spanking children as punishment.

Edited to add: just in case Tim's "comprehension" dig was aimed at me, I should probably clarify that my question in post # 7 about whether the corporal punishment advocates think children have any rights was at least in part rhetorical - I was aiming to flesh out their position rather than generate petty insults.

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 1/15, 12:45pm)

Post 23

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 12:49pm

Jennifer: “My concern is that once this law is on the books, the arena then becomes wide open for accusations and misunderstandings. There are already laws against child abuse, so why was this one necessary?”
There are already laws against wife beating. If some husbands are getting away with it because those laws are not specific in their definition, then a new law is needed that more specifically says that bruising her meets the definition. This does not open the arena for accusations and misunderstandings, as it still has to be proven that the husband did in fact hit—it just defines the difference between love taps (no bruising) and abuse (bruising.) I for one am not in the least concerned about being harassed by the law for any protections for individuals that have a clear right to not be physically damaged by my tantrums.

Tim,
I don’t believe I have merged hitting/beating with smacking. If the smacking causes no injury, this law hasn’t been violated. If there is injury, then I don’t call it smacking, for it must have been more like hitting. You are free to call it smack, hit, or beating, and you will be safe from this law—so long as there is no injury.

Jon

Post 24

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 1:59pm

Interesting thread.

I have a 3 and a half year old son and I have thought a lot about whether it is right to smack a child.

My opinion is as follows:

My child is a human being, but not yet an individual capable of completely independent rational thought. Hurting him in any way is not something I or anyone else should do without a carefully considered reason to do so.

But until he is capable of operating as a fully fledged rational man (which is, as a parent, my most heartfelt desire for him), he needs guidance and boundaries. I cannot and should not drop context and leave him free, without discipline, to do as he pleases as his mind is not yet capable of serving him rationally even most of the time. I ensure he gets a balanced diet, enough sleep, enough exercise, enough stimulation from his toys and play, because if I relied on his freewill, I do not believe I would be guiding him towards achieving his potential (which ultimately will be his doing). I am also not going to allow him to inflict violence on others without a proportionate punishment.

So I have decided that I must guide him and set boundaries, whilst striving to keep the fence as distant as possible so that he has as much freedom as possible him to develop his own thought, independence and personality. I use reason to the extent that it is possible and outright authority to the extent that it is not. I will try and explain why he must eat vegetables (don't worry Joe and Linz, he gets enough red meat...), but if he doesn't accept my reasoning, he will be disciplined to the extent that I judge it is necessary.

Now 99% of the time, what is necessary is carrot and the threat of stick. But too much carrot spoils the rabbit, and at some point the threat of stick is useless if not occasionally stuck. So I stick. Once again, 99% of the time with non-violent punishment such as the withdrawal of some carrot, or time by himself to think about his bad behaviour (very effective). But very occasionally, I find a smack necessary.

When is a smack "necessary"? When all else fails. When the UN inspectors have given carrots and threats for days, but the little despot still refuses to stop throwing toys at other kids in the playground. Or when the little freethinking libertine thinks it fun to suspend reason and dash out on to a road in front of death-inducing trucks and buses. I have probably smacked him (very gently, the rarity of the act makes real pain absolutely unnecessary) perhaps 3 or 4 times in total.

So my careful, deliberated opinion is that smacking is a legitimate option for parents. Morally, it should used as a last resort, in a controlled fashion. But under no circumstances should the government be entitled to take away this right from parents.

I'd love to be challenged on this as I do still waver at times towards what I would see as the ideal- a relationship with my son that is completely absent of fear. Unfortunately though, I usually come to the conclusion that this as an unpractical utopia akin to the pacifists desire for a world free of all weapons.

Post 25

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 2:22pm

OK, smack-banners - please answer this question: should Mr Bertelsen have been arrested & charged (jailed?) for the above? (And no, I don't mean the vegetables!) If not, why not? Exactly how would you see your law being applied?

Linz

Post 26

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 2:38pm

Adam said

Has anyone noticed that all the actual parents here are on just one of the two "sides" of this "controversy?"

Adam, I think I am, um, a parent on "the other side". I still believe that there is a lot of truth in the old Chinese saying "smacking means care, and chiding means love". I think the most important thing is the "care and love" the parents have toward their children.

I understand Jon's position perfectly. For very young children, there is no point for discipline. Before my son was older than 3, he literally was the center of the universe. Because the whole livelihood of young children are completely depend on their parents, it is parents duty to satisfy all their needs otherwise they have absolutely no other means to survive. But when children are getting older, and start to develope their own system of values, they will try to test all possible options. And some kids may be more "innovative" than the others. We as parents should be very clear on what what is good and what is bad. There is nothing more effective than a clear reward and punishment system. The psychological effect of the punishment is not the damage to the children, but exactly what is needed to shape their value system and character. Of course, I don't mean smacking as the only form of punishment. There are numerous other ways that should be better and effective. What should be obvious is that punishment, as the counter part of reward and praise, is necessary to raise moral kids. Hey, it's the same way with adults too.

The smacking or beating in child abuse is a completely different issue. It often dose not have much to do with what the child actually has done. We must distinguish "discipline" and "abuse".

Finally, yes, child abuse is the business of law and government, but child discipline is not.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 1/15, 2:55pm)

Post 27

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 2:54pm

Lindsay asked:

OK, smack-banners - please answer this question: should Mr Bertelsen have been arrested & charged (jailed?) for the above? (And no, I don't mean the vegetables!) If not, why not? Exactly how would you see your law being applied?

Ok, I'll bite (nothing personal David :-)).

Given that at the present time smacking children is (I assume) not illegal in whatever country David lives in, no he shouldn't have been arrested, charged etc for smacking his kid. In a context where smacking children was illegal, then he would've been breaking the law and his child would be within his rights to complain to the police who would then investigate, interview the relevant persons and decide on the appropriate course of action. (I have a suspicion that in this case David's child wouldn't have complained.)

MH

Post 28

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 2:59pm

Interesting. So far two SOLO parents with daughters are on one side of the debate, and two with sons are on the other side... Hmm, I don't think this is accidental! It may indeed have something to do with "facts of reality"!

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 1/15, 3:01pm)

Post 29

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 3:19pm

“Should Mr Bertelsen have been arrested & charged (jailed?) for the above?”
As I read him, he’s certain there was no pain, meaning his 3 or 4 smacks were NOT smacks, but more threats. He says a smack is necessary when all else fails. He is guilty, at most, of lack of creativity.

“If not, why not?”
He could not be imprisoned under this law, if his description of those smacks is accurate, as they could not have caused damage to the child’s body, which this law requires.

“Exactly how would you see your law being applied?”
As above. Whereas, when a child’s body is covered with welts and bruises (rough-and-tumble doesn’t cause this,) then someone is beating him. They should be found and prosecuted. “But he keeps running into the street, what am I to do, let him get hit?” would be, I hope, understood by all here as utter nonsense.

Jon

Post 30

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 4:12pm

Well, it wasn’t until I was in Middle School that I realized there were parents who didn’t spank their children. It shocked the hell out of me. But by then I didn’t need spanking anymore, my parents were still creative though.

I was raised by parents would sent me out into the yard to rip a switch off of a tree to spank me with. And where I’m from, it a neighbor seen me doing it, they would probably call my parents to tell them I was getting a small one. Now I would never say I was abused, and I deserved it all (and don’t give me that victimhood crap), my parents would usually use a belt though but never their fist. They never held me down, I obeyed them when they told me to stay put. The point is, to a kid, a belt is a lot more persuasive then a ‘don’t’ and a lot more rememberable. They did this my other brothers and we all went to college and are doing well.

Now I’m only 22 (surprise) graduating in May but being from Southern Louisiana, even when I was in elementary school the principle was still using a leather strap on the children. Naturally he didn’t use it on me but lets just say we didn’t have any discipline problems at school.

I have never, ever heard of someone who has problems from spanking and most all people I know realized its benefits and accepted its use on them even if they don’t use it themselves. Personally I had to spank a little cousin of mine once and she behaved great every time I babysitted her from then on. Of course I’m against abuse and that should be discouraged but the line isn’t as fine as most of you think. Use a open, not closed fist; don’t hit hard enough to leave a bruise, stick to the legs or butt, and stop when they’ve learned their lesson. It isn’t hard but its very effective and 9 times out of 10 they will thank you for it. It also better then making them kneel down on a brick fireplace for 20 minutes like my parents tried for a while.

Post 31

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 4:19pm

Hong,

Besides being my own daughter's father, I am step-father to Ron Merrill's children, so I have also parented a boy. And I was a boy once, and was raised without ever a "smack." My father's parenting methods, including "discipline," were at least as effective - and they never went beyond the natural consequences of my actions.

I remember resenting my younger brother, born when I was two, and once I hit his crib and broke a latch. My father fixed it, and I asked him how it worked. He said, "Explanations are for men of the mind. Wait until you've decided to be one." He later told me that it took me half a day to decide, but I stuck by my decision since then.

Post 32

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 5:35pm

SInce no one is deriving their statements from the Law of Identity, I will just take this opportunity to vote:

1. Allowing the existence of the state in the first place, just for the sake of argument, the state has a compelling interest in the protection of all the rights of all of its people. Therefore, I support laws against child abuse.

2. I am opposed to hitting children as a means of disciple. It only teaches violence. It does nothing for their rational processes.

3. I was raised pretty much like Clarence Hardy and pretty much accepted it -- at home and at school. As a parent, myself, however, I made a conscious decision to break the cycle of abuse.

Post 33

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 5:58pm

David,

It appears that if MH had his way, your kid could have made sure you were doing 1 to 5 because after hitting another kid in the head with a toy he got 3 smacks on the butt. Now MH was addressing you and not me, but had he been addressing me I would have resorted to repeating a line Lindsay once used on him.

Oh, and David remember, while you are doing that year in the slammer under MH's hypothetical government, it was "nothing personal" - just a philosophical exercise and the governments way to break the Bertelsen "cycle of abuse".

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 1/15, 6:04pm)

Post 34

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 6:06pm

As a parent, myself, however, I made a conscious decision to break the cycle of abuse.

But let me tell you about this one time...

Our daughter was about 14 or 15. My wife had had more than her fill of dealing with the kid, so she moved out and got a place of her own.

Selene had already been arrested for driving the car when she was 12. She had been on a juvenile probation detention prevention program. ("We work with children to raise their self-esteem," the social worker said. I burst out laughing. "You think her problem is a lack of self-esteem? Fine, she's yours for the weekend. Have a good time." Of course, a rational person might have suspected that she experimented with marijuana, but when the cops came to inspect her room, they took one look at the Martha Stewart Dream Castle and decided that our child was on the straight and narrow path. They only knew about devil worshipping headbangers and gangsta wannabes. What they were dealing with was right out of Heathers, so they did not see it. That was fine with me. I didn't need the police in my house. I'm a writer and a libertarian. In fact, when she was pulled over in our car at age 12, the cop inspected the vehicle and saw the LIBERTARIAN bumpersticker. "What is a Libertarian?" the cop asked. "An anarchist Republican," Selene replied. That went back to Star Wars, of course. When I always told the story, Princess Leia was the Republican Senator from Alderaan before she joined the Rebellion.)

Well, enough background....

So, Selene is 14 or 15 and a problem child. Laurel has moved out for her own peace of mind to let me deal with the consequences of my libertarian ideas and my anarchist Republican daughter. But Laurel has always had a deviated septum and finally, she got her healthcare plan to cover getting it fixed. She got a nose job. But she had no one to wait on her, so she moved back in for a few days for convalescence.

Selene decides she wants to go to a football game in another town. No... Yes... No... Drive me... No.... I'll take the car... No... Yes.... So she takes the keys and goes for the door. I caught her in the doorway and bodychecked her into the wall, just stepped right into her side to side, ooof!. She dropped the keys. I picked them up. She ran upstairs, grabbed the phone and hit 911. "My Dad is beating me," she said. Before she hung up, the cops were there.

They separate us to get our stories and I hear Selene spinning a pretty good yarn from the facts while avoiding the logical landmines. I just told it like it was. "Is your wife here, sir? Are you separated?" (Cops know everything in a small town; who doesn't?) So, Laurel comes into the kitchen from the living room and of course, she has two black eyes.

(to be continued)

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 1/15, 6:08pm)

Post 35

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 6:42pm

More! More!

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 6:47pm

George - I was tempted to repeat the line myself, only I figured MH must be joking.

Linz

Post 37

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 8:24pm

Cordero,

WTF is your problem?

As I think (hope?) most posters here realise, there was a certain degree of flippancy in my response to Lindsay (and it was really a reply to Lindsay, not David). Do I think David should do "1 to 5" because of the incident he outlined? No of course not. David, like probably the vast majority of other parents who've smacked their kids, genuinely believes it's the right thing to do. Like so many other issues this is as much a matter of cultural context as it is black letter law.

In a context where any smacking of children was basically illegal, one would hope that most parents, being aware of the laws and understanding the principle behind them, would refrain from doing so. Would it be completely enforceable? In all honesty I actually doubt it - and in some cases that'll probably be a good thing (cases where an otherwise good parent lashes out in anger in a single instance would probably be better resolved without recourse to the courts, in the same way that on occasion de facto instances of adult assault are actually resolved without recourse to the law).

But the core point (in effect the necessary context) is that the individual rights of the child would be fully recognised in law - that's an immensely radical change in the context, after all it's something that's never happened in any historical civilisation that I'm aware of. And before everyone jumps down my throat, no that wouldn't mean infants being able to do anything they damn well please - though it might come close ;-) But certain things that an adult is able to do would be quite simply beyond the wherewithal of a young child, and simply as a matter of practicality it would be necessary for a parent to effectively exercise certain of the child's rights on the child's behalf and (hopefully) in the child's interest.

It's now 4:23am UK time, and I'm going to try and get to sleep.

MH

Post 38

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 8:28pm

Read these lyrics from K.D. Langs' "Nowhere to Stand":

http://www.poplyrics.net/waiguo/kdlang/069.htm

My father spanked me hard when I was five or six. Not angry, just to teach me to behave. I was afraid of him, but only when I had misbehaved. I know he meant well. I contrast that to the three years I lived in an orphanage and foster homes in Ohio before my father managed to get us sent to his brother in California. They treat dogs in a kennel better than "wards of the state" in Ohio. At least in the mid 50's. I don't recommend spanking like my father spanked me. [Leather on bare ass], but he had a hard life, was a very tough but honest man. I would have taken being raised by my father a thousand times over spending time as a ward of the state. Adam Reed, your father is a very superior man.

Post 39

Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 10:33pm