Hi all, and welcome to my blog, T.J.'s Sad Truths. I am personally sick and tired of the most logical and sensible ideas and solutions being either over-thought or over-looked. The point of this blog is to make as many people as I can aware of common sense thinking and ideals. There are so many topics that I plan to go into, ranging from marriage, religion, and politics, to the everyday things like driving, and parenting, (oh so much on parenting!). So, each week I am going to discuss the problems with certain things that are happening today, and how common sense can fix it. I will even make you guys a deal. You can leave a suggestion for next week's topic, and if enough people want me to discuss that, I will.
The topic for week 1 is the headline that was on the morning news today. "Should smacking your children be made illegal?"
This suggestion both upsets and infuriates me. I am a proud parent of four children, all under the age of five. They are all very intellegent children, both mentally and emotionally. I can and do take them everywhere with me, and am not afraid that they may cause me trouble or make a scene, (with the exception of the two month old who cannot help but to cry). They know the difference between right and wrong, and have a healthy understanding of consequences for their actions. If I was to ask an adult, "What would happen to you if you put a live electrical appliance in the bath with you?" Every adult would answer along the lines of "you would get electricuted". This is a simple matter of knowing the outcome, or the consequences of your actions. This concept is not understood by children, unless you teach them. Now I would not recommend teaching them consequences by putting them in a bath with electrical items. It is much safer to give them a smack. This way they associate doing something bad, with the pain of the smack. Yes, once they reach a certain age, you can reason with them, but it takes time to reach this age. There are so many children nowadays who have NO respect for authority or rules. We are having ten year olds holding up convenience stores, and twelve year olds beating up security officers. Their parents have failed them by not teaching them respect, and consequences. All of our parents were probably smacked as children, and most of them grew up with respect for their elders, and a healthy understanding of the rules. But somewhere along the way, society has gotten it into their heads that smacking is evil, and that we need to pander to whatever our children want. Smacking is the easiest and most effective way of diciplining your child, and the only thing I am against is when people turn smacking into beating. That is NEVER acceptable. So many people think that smacking is child abuse, but the sad truth is that not disciplining your child is child abuse. You are setting them up for failure and problems.
So, the key to proper discipline is:
1. Choose a method of discipline that works for you, whether it be smacking, the 'naughty corner', etc
2. Be consistant! This is the MOST important thing. What kind of message are you giving your child if one day you let them stand on the couch, and the next day you are screaming at them for standing on the couch.
3. Never smack out of anger, only smack to teach them.
4. Always explain why you smacked them (or what discipline they received)
5. Make sure you balance punishing the bad things with rewarding the good.
Thank you for listening to my rant on the sad truth about children's discipline (or lack thereof). I look forward to your feedback, and I understand that some hippies out there are going to disagree with me, and that is their perogative.
*I would also like to add an amendment to the original post. The fact of the matter is, is that most people lack the required patience, stamina and time to discipline without the appropriate smack, but society is telling them that smacking is wrong and cruel. So what is happening is a downwards spiral of bad behaviour due to no real appropriate discipline being used.
-T.J.
to be fair, I will copy my comments from facebook to here before I address my beliefs on whether smacking should or should not be banned.
ReplyDeletebefore i do, i would like to point out that I am a mother of four children, ranging in ages from sixteen years old all the way down to two years old, and non-violent parenting is something i discovered when my second child was born (she is now eleven years old) and is something i have read much information on and am very passionate about.
" Let me just point out that my children have never been at risk of death because I don't smack them. My 4 year old reminds me to put his seatbelt on, to hold his hand as we cross the road, to look for cars and he has never been smacked.
Reading up in the opposing side is always a good idea when entering a debate. I suggest reading the work of Robin Grille, and Pinky McKay.
Robin Grille has an excellent book that takes an in depth look into the history of violence against children. It's eye opening. The title of the book is "parenting for a peaceful world"
It's quite difficult to read, very confronting and sad, but if you can read it, and still stand by your opinions on corporal punishment of children, well at least it's not a completely uninformed opinion.
Also he does talk about scientific research, and the evidence that has been found to show that corporal punishment of children, and authoritarian parenting hinders your child's brain development in the early years. It's a hard fact to swallow, but it is a fact.
Also opting to not use an authoritarian style of parenting (strict, controlling use of corporal punishment) does not automatically mean you choose permissive style parenting (no boundaries, no discipline or boundaries, no examples set for appropriate behaviour, parents non-attentive).
Authoritative parenting is where it's at, with raising well adjusted kids who learn how to make choices using an internal frame of reference (conscience) with respect for themselves and others, rather than from fear.
Authoritative parents are by no means permissive. But they set boundaries with respect, and relies on inspiration rather than coercion.
Authoritative parents give their children responsibilities, and expect considerate behaviour, they don't just let them run wild."
I believe that smacking should be banned, because of the fact that smacking is violent. Even smacking that is in a loving and controlled environment is violent.
ReplyDeleteIt may not feel violent to the parent, because they have a purpose in mind, its how they were brought up, and they are desensitised to it, but it certainly fEELS violent to the child.
I was recently involved in another debate on this exact topic, and while others were saying they never felt bad after a smack (then whats the point? because isn't it supposed to teach the child that if they do wrong, they will feel pain?), i was open and honest about how I felt about being smacked by my dad, who did so with the best of intentions, and never in a manner that could be misconstrued as child abuse by those who advocate smacking as a form of discipline's standards.
This was my response:
"I remember lining up for a "smack" or a "tap" on the hand. I felt sad, I felt scared, I felt anger and resentment, and at times I wished I never lived with my family. Now, to be clear, I was not abused to the point of a single bruise. But not once, after being smacked, did I ever sit in my room and think how I shouldnt have spat my Brussels sprouts down the toilet, or how I shouldn't have snuck my dads torch to bed to read at night, or how I shouldn't have wanted to see what something was like and accidentally broken it. All I ever thought were thoughts of pain, hurt, bitterness and wishing my dad wouldnt smack me. It sure felt violent to me, even though a mark was never left, and my dad was not an angry man by any stretch of the imagination. He's one of the kindest, most loving people I know.
It isn't hard to remember the real feelings you felt when being smacked, as opposed to what you were led to believe, that it was for your own "good". I never felt good after being smacked. And I never felt good about not doing what I was smacked for.. It wasn't a choice I made to please my parents, it was a choice to avoid feeling the shame of being smacked. I'd rather my kids make choices from a good place in their soul, then from a place of fear."
Also in 1998, in the uK, the national childrens bureau asked a large number of 5 to 7 year olds how it FELT to be smacked.
http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/research/children/uk.html
It certainly sounds like violence when it comes from the mouths of those being smacked. If it's illegal to be violent towards another persons child, towards your spouse, towards your colleagues, or towards the elderly, then what exactly makes it either nonviolent to smack your own child, or within reason to use violence as a method of punishment?
i don't believe that it teaches respect. i have seen too many adults, who were smacked as children, behave in a rude and obnoxious manner towards others. I spent a year living with a non-smacking family when I was 17, and their children have grown up to do amazing, compassionate things, going on missions to help others throughtheir church, working in other countries with orphans, building schools and homes. I have never witnessed these friends of mine be so judgemental towards others as friends who have come from homes with corporal punishment.
one family we know has 7 kids, all homeschooled, all never smacked. These children are among the most well behaved, most respectful, most considerate and most well-adjusted children we have met.
However, having said all that, while I agree that smacking should be banned, I don't believe that parents should be punished for doing so. It's yet another quick fix, band-aid solution that achieves nothing but resentment. I think the best possible scenario is that they will be required to attend counselling and classes to teach them less violent ways to teach their children, and how to set a proper example for their children to follow.
and this brings me to the Swedish. Sweden, in 1979, introduced a 'children's code", which stated that children "shall be treated with respect for their person and their distinctive character and may not be subjected to corporal punishment or any other humiliating treatment"> - in 1979!
ReplyDeleteSweden was the first country to make hitting children, no matter how controlled or loving, illegal.
However, parents are not criminalised if they break this law, they are counselled and educated.
Since 1979, in sweden, there has been a steady DECLINE in youth crime, youth alcohol abuse, youth drug abuse etc.
clearly this legislation has been very successful for sweden, and other countries have followed suit. this is why I believe smacking should be banned, because it has worked, Sweden has demonstrated that it works, and 12 other countries have had the common sense to follow their lead.
The key is educating parents, not punishing them, and I believe it would do ourcountry's youth a word of good to take a leaf out of their book.
I will also copy my comments over from facebook:
ReplyDeleteI think a major problem with peoples parenting methods come from their world view. I, as a Christian, believe that we a born sinful and we have a tendancy to do the wrong thing. Therefore, children - who naturally want to do the wrong thing... - need to be corrected / disciplined when they do the wrong thing and praised / rewarded when they do good. Other parents have an evolutionary / materialist wordview and believe that chilren and adults are 'inherently good' and so if we just ignore that bad and reward the good the bad will go away. Unfortunetly it doesn't work that way!
The other issue with the whole smacking issue is the use of clever rhetoric and imagery to indoctrinate you into their secular left way of thinking! They never show a parent lovingly and calmly discipling their child with a smack. Instead t...hey show an irate mother screaming and hitting her child in anger. They say that smacking teaches children that hitting is an acceptable way of venting anger. But the former method involves no anger at all so how can it be teaching a child that hitting is acceptable when they are angry!
After Joanne's first comment I replied:
I too like to be well informed so I conducted some cursory research on your two recommendations. Robin Grille's constant emphasise on 'human rights' immediately turned me off. On the other hand, Pinky Mckay's ideas were so airy fairy it was... impossible for me to get a picture of her parenting style. Tracy never said children are at risk of death from not being smacked! I agree that smacking is not nor should not be the be all and end all of parenting. That perception is a straw man argument which tries to portray us 'pro smackers' as thinking that smacking is the answer to everything. I try to only smack my children in cases of clear defiance! Don't believe the conclusion of a study just because someone quoted it. Science is not neutral! I'd like to know a few things about the study before I put any faith in it. 1. What bias do the ones conduct the study have, ie. are they smackers or non smackers. 2. How many people did they study. 3. What type of people did they study. The third is most important. Did they study loving parents who occasionally used the smack whilst remaining in control or did they fly into fits of rage and belt the living hell out of the kids. If it's the latter than that's the cause of their issues and it has no relevance at all to the loving parents who occasionally use the smack.
Luke: "Robin Grille's constant emphasise on 'human rights' immediately turned me off. "
DeleteI'm really not quite sure how to take this statement? Are you implying that children are not worthy of people advocating for their rights as a human?
Sorry I forgot about this question!
DeleteWell, yes ... and no!
My comment was really based on my general distrust for humnan rights organisations for a start. They're really not organisations advocating human rights at all but quasi religious organisations intent on indoctrinating children and adults into their humanistic worldview. For example, they promote human rights yet most if not all are quite happy to put their support behind the murder of millions of the unborn in the interests of 'women's choice'.
But the other reason is that the focus should not be on the 'rights' but the well being of the child and the family as a whole. This whole child centred view is a big part of the problem. If you put the child first it means they're the head of the family and will seek to dominate you. Wife's should put their husbands first and husbands should put the wife's first, that is the way a family should work.
Well.. i can see that any further discussion would be beating my head against a brick wall.
DeleteYou have a very narrow view of the world.
You sound like a conspiracy theorist with your view of HRO's, or is it just that if you chose to support Human Rights, it would mean admitting that you are wrong with some of your extremist christian views?
Childrens rights is not about putting the child first and promoting to the head of the family, it's about treating children fairly and with respect.
For example, without childrens rights, wouldn't we still be sending them down chimneys and mines to do the work that we find distasteful? Can you not see the progress that has come from human rights? are you really that blinded by your religious beliefs to have such a negative view of our world?
How about Women's Rights.. the right to vote would not have been given to us without advocates for womens rights. The right to work in careers traditionally only men could work in? the right to equal pay?
wow. I am really amazed at some of your opinions. I didn't realise that there were people who thought this way outside of the US, to be honest.
What branch of christianity is it that you follow exactly? I will be sure to avoid it, because to me it sounds exactly like a cult.
It is great to see so much passion about our children, whatever side you believe in. However, for all of the information on the Sweden experiment, please visit http://cocoamommas.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/fuller_spanking.pdf
ReplyDeleteWhen asked ‘who knows what a smack is’, one child responded:
ReplyDelete'it's when someone is cross with you they hit you and it hurts' (7 year old girl)
Smacking should never be done in anger.
When asked ‘why do you think children get smacked?’, one child responded:
'maybe [you] do painting on the carpet [or] drawing on the settee [or] not tidying your room up — if you play with paint and get it on something. And if you knock your mum's favourite glass over and it smashes' (5 year-old girl)
Smacking should only be done in clear acts of defiance. Children should not be smacked for doing what kids do like painting and drawing on things or breaking things. More creative forms of discipline such as making the kids clean up the mess might be in order here. Breaking mum’s glass probably does not need to be punished at all unless they broke it through being defiant or angry. If it was clearly an accident they should just be told to be more careful in future and to help clean up.
When asked ‘where do children usually get smacked’, some responses were:
'on my bum, on my face, on my head and on my arm and on the belly and on the legs' (5 year old girl)
'I think children usually get smacked on the side of their face or on their tummy. Sometimes it depends how they were. If they were really naughty, it would be on their bottom but sometimes it's usually on their hands' (7 year old)
‘[they] hit you on the head where they're not supposed to hit you' (7 year old boy)
Children should never be smacked on the face, head or torso. Bums, legs and hands are sufficient.
When asked ‘what does it feel like to be smacked’, one child responded:
'it feels like someone banged you with a hammer' (5 year old girl)
How hard is this child being smacked!!!??? Smacks should only be stinging, temporary pain not pain through bruising or perhaps bludgeoning in this case.
When asked ‘why don’t children smack adults’, one child responded:
'That's simple! Because it's very rude to smack your parents because they're bigger and older and they might hurt you back and they might be silly when they're drunk and they might hit you' (7 year old boy)
The question we need to ask is what this boy’s home life is like. It sounds like this boy has a drunken abusive father (or mother) rather than a loving caring parent who wishes to teach their children right from wrong.
When asked ‘why don’t adults smack each other’, one child responded:
'My mum and dad have smacked each other because daddy was doing hard things to mum. And I kicked him, and I smacked him and kicked him' (5 year old boy)
Sounds more like a family full of domestic violence rather than a loving home.
My point in giving these examples is to show that a lot of parents are using smacking the wrong way. Smacking is not the issue, the attitudes towards their children are.
I think you have missed the point of this study.
DeleteI believe that they interviewed children from all types of homes, and that the point is, across the board, children feel bad when they are hit. They feel hurt. It feels violent to the,.
It is not a study to teach parents the 'correct way to hit their children", it's a study to show how being hit makes children FEEL.
PLease note this is the first of a few posts. The above should be followed after my next post. Thankyou
ReplyDeleteNow a reply to your latest comment Joanne.
You said, ‘I believe that smacking should be banned, because of the fact that smacking is violent.’ [Emphasis added] However, the definition of violence (per wikipedia) is ‘… the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.’ This does not sound like the sort of loving discipline that a parent gives a child.
Excuse me for psycho-analysing you Joanne but it seems like your next comment about how you felt as a child being smacked comes more from your passionate views about smacking as you have them now rather than how you actually felt as a child. Of course kids don’t like being smacked, that’s the point. There’s no point giving them a punishment they enjoy after doing the wrong thing, logic tells you where that will lead. I can also guarantee the child feels exactly the same after having their DS taken away from them or whatever nasty punishment you decide to give them. Your example also highlights some of the reasons for which you were smacked which in my next paragraph about the study you cited I will discuss why I think these are not ideal.
"psychological harm"
DeleteI would suggest that feeling hurt and betrayed by your caregivers, no matter how "lovingly" they hit you would result in some form of psychological harm, even if temporary.
I would prefer that you do not presume to know how I felt as a child. you have very little insight into what my family life was like. I remember clearly just how it felt to be disciplined by my father. i remember clearly my brother and I both doing our utmost to avoid being disciplined by him. And he smacked us "lovingly" as you put it.
I can guarantee you that I am under no illusions that he meant well, and was just trying to put us on the correct path,, as his parents did for him, but I can also guarantee that I felt more loved by him during discussions than I did during a smack.
This is post number 2,
ReplyDeleteAgain, your indiscriminant use of studies is misleading. My first impression on visiting the website you posted is the logo in the top right hand corner. ‘Global initiative to end all corporate punishment of children’, they are obviously not hiding their bias on the issue. Although they state they did the outmost not to disclose their bias to the children it is almost impossible not to let it leak out in some way by the way the questions are asked. For a blatant example see the last question where the children were asked ‘how can we stop children being smacked?’ Obviously this question is leading and assumes that smacking is wrong to start with so the children will respond as if it is wrong. Another issue with the study is the very low number of children (76) being studied. No study of 76 children can lead to accurate results. Also, the demographic, socio-economic conditions etc. of these children were glossed over apart from a cursory mention of where a lot of the children came from. Not being English, I don’t know enough about these areas to comment. For each question there is also an average of six or seven comments (or around 10%) on the question. What about the other 90%? This shows clear censorship pointing towards their bias. For all we know, the other 90% could think smacking is warranted. The age group which were studied also says a lot about the responses given. Of course 5-7 year olds are going to say they don’t agree with being smacked. Ask a bunch of 10-12 year olds and you’ll find they don’t like being smacked but will understand the reasons for why they are smacked and can understand it helps to correct their behaviour in the future. Some of the children’s comments are very telling. Consider my selected responses below (emphasis added):
FOLLOW WITH POST BEGINNING WITH:
When asked ‘who knows what a smack is’, one child responded:
This is post number 4
ReplyDeleteYou mention that it’s illegal to be violent towards spouses, colleagues, and the elderly. Good, it should be illegal to be violent full stop. Smacking is not violence and you’re setting up a straw man against pro smackers by saying that we are using violence on our children. I emphatically object to that! The difference is, it is not my, nor your, nor anyone’s job to discipline another adult, that’s the states job. However, it is my job to discipline my children so I can correct their bad behaviour.
You don’t believe that smacking teaches respect. It is a simple observation that our generation and those older than us show a great deal more respect for others than those younger than us. Most people our age and older were subject to corporal punishment, many people younger than us were / are not.
I don't believe that you have done your research on this one.
DeleteDo you not recall our grandparents talking about how disrespectful our generation was?
I am only guessing here, but i wouldn't be surprised if their grandparents felt the same way about the,.
Also, if you look at the statistics of those who are in gaol, of which I don't have a link here at the moment for your perusal, but I am sure you would be able to find it yourself, the percentage of smacked vs non-smacked inmates weighs in heavily on the smacked side.
I have a teenage son. I observe the way his friends and peers are, and I can tell you that in my experience, teens are no more disrespectful today from not being smacked, then we were as teens .
My son and his group of friends all come from non-smacking homes. all the boys are high achievers at school, all boys have life goals, all the boys are mature, sensible kids that can be trusted to organise a night out at the movies, and not be found drinking and taking drugs.
all the boys are polite and respectful to each others parents, and other adults in their lives.
you say that our generation show a great deal more respect, but I think it would be very interesting to actually put that to the test, and get some figures on teenage violence and delinquency from our generation and compare it to ours. I think you might be shockingly surprised.
*compare it to theirs*
Deletehaving thought about this some more, and assuming that i am wrong and that todays youth are more disrespectful, I would also like to add to the mix, that how can you be sure that this is due to non-smacking?
DeleteThere are so many other differences between our generations, and I believe that it is far more likely that any growing disrespect would be brought about by things such as:
1. both parents being forced back into the workplace when the children are still only young. Please note that i don't believe that both parents should not go back to work, but I do believe that it should be a choice available to the family, because different families have different needs.
2. The increasing use of daycare centres due to the above. again I am not saying this causes delinquency, or even that I personally believe it does, but again, it is a fact that there are more children in daycare from an early age now than when our generation were children.
3. Parents that are too busy with work and/or other things to be properly attentive to their children (who may or may not smack, it's the attentiveness I am talking about, not the discipline of choice)
4. the increased use of violent video games, and viewing of violent tv shows and movies
5. The increased amount of stress placed on the youth of today throughout school
6. the use of mobile phones, either the effects of the signal on the brains of your young people, or the fact that they basically have 24/7 access the internet on these devices, and everything available on it, both good and bad
7. the amount of processed foods and junk, GM modified foods, chemicals and pesticides in foods, compared to the food we would have eaten
This is all I can think of at the moment, but I am sure you get my point.
I find it interesting that when arguing against the case for non-violent discipline, you quote the many other factors that could have a bearing on it's result, but when quoting the case for spanking, it seems so cut and dry to you?
This is post number 6
ReplyDeleteWhat needs to be noted about your reference to Sweden’s Anti-smacking laws is the clear biases that are behind such laws. Often these initiatives come about from a humanistic world view which also incorporates ‘pro-abortion’, ‘pro-homosexuality’, the welfare state, and the emphasis on human rights rather than God’s Law. EPOCH (End Physical Punishment of Children) often quote statistics that promote their ideas of humanistic and state controlled rearing of children. Compare this with the views of NCHR (Nordic Committee for Human Rights):
Written by Ruby Harrold-Claesson, attorney-at-law, president of The NCHR
http://www.nkmr.org/english/anti_smacking_law_consultation_paper.htm
http://www.nkmr.org/english/smacking_and_the_law_a_european_perspective.htm
i don't have time to read the links right now, but I would just like to point out that you are straying from the topic at hand.
Deletebeing pro-abortion or pro-gay rights has no bearing on whether or not smacking is beneficial and should or should not be banned.
Neither does gods law.
This is smacking vs anti-smacking, not smacking vs anti-smacking and anything else you believe to be sinful.
This is post number 5
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned the non smacking family you lived with when you were 17. This probably has a lot more to do with their being Christian and they taught their children good morals rather than the fact that they didn’t smack.
You mentioned the family you know with 7 kids who are homeschooled. I knew a family with three girls who were homeschooled too. They were the most respectful, kind, well behaved children I have ever met. And guess what, their parents did use corporal punishment! Perhaps the common denominator here is the homeschooling, not the smacking?
You think parents that smack should be made to go to counseling? How patronising!!! Do you think our secular humanistic state knows more about my children and how to effectively discipline them then me? To see an example of what secular humanistic views on parenting are, maybe you should read up on J.B. Watson, Sigmund Freud, Dr Benjamin Spock, A.S. Neil, Dr Tom Gordon and Dr Ruth Westheimer. Then tell me that the state should decide on how we should discipline our kids.
So let me get this straight. In the case of the homeschooling families it is the homeshooling that is the key to lovely behaviour from the children, but in the case of the family I lived with it was their christian values?
DeleteIn the case of the 2 families I talked about, the common denominator was the non-smacking, as one family was christian, and one was not, but to quote that common-denominator would not support your argument now would it?
Also, if the children of the family I lived with turned out to be horrible juveniile deliquents, I do believe you would bot be crediting that to the parents christian values, but to their lack of corporal punishment, no?
DeleteAs for counselling for parents, yes, I do believe this is preferable to punishment of parents, as you know, children to not come with a users manual, and if grown adults can sometimes have to resort to counselling to help them have a good marriage, then why is it not appropriate for some adults to require counselling and education to help them to be better parents?
This is post number 7
ReplyDeleteSome quotes from her article shed some light into the realities faced by Swedish parents, their children and the surrounding countries:
‘Many Swedish parents are afraid of their children and dare not chastise them because they know that they can be reported to the police, indicted and fined or sentenced to prison.’
‘Swedish youths born during and after the 1970s are often provocative, loud and rowdy, uncontrolled and uncontrollable. The Swedish Embassy in Austria and other European countries send letters to secondary school headmasters every February, urging them either to discourage the youngsters from travelling to the ski-resorts, or to encourage them to behave responsibly if they do go. In fact, there have been instances where Swedish youths have been banned in Austria and in the French Alps and not even the Danes, our nearest neighbours, appreciate their company.’
It is always prudent to look into both sides and make an informed decision as to the way you choose to conduct yourself. “… as for as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD” Joshua 24:15b.
We apologise for the length of these posts.
Luke and Sara Bělík
This I will have to come back to later, as I need to get myself more informed about the what it is you are quoting.
ReplyDeleteI don't have time to do this at the moment.
Yes it is always prudent to look into both sides, which is something I always pride myself on doing. By quoting that, you seem to be implying that I make decisions regarding my children lightly. You couldn't be farther from the truth if you tried.
Not to start a religious debate, but seeing as you brought it up, with the history of christianty, in particular the ones that hold extreme views and judgements of the diverse nature of the human race, as you seem to hold, I know what i would prefer to teach my family, and following a LORD is not it.
treating others with love, kindness, compassion and respect is far more favourable in my eyes, no matter which religion you choose to follow.
I have been reluctant to join this argument ( or debate - if that feels better ) but I feel that I can no longer keep quiet. I am the mother of 3 adult children ( 25, 33 & 37) so I do have some experience in child rearing. I am also a Registered Nurse & I have seen the results of abuse on children & can definitely state that this is NOT normal discipline in any decent society.
ReplyDeleteWhen each of my children were starting to explore their world & learning what their limits were it was sometimes necessary to smack them in order to show them that some activities were inappropriate, wrong or dangerous. We NEVER smacked them in anger or out of rage & we found that they very quickly learned that actions had consequences. My children were not smacked very often as they quickly learned that their mother & father meant what they said & that not everything was appropriate for a small child to do .
When my elder son was about 20 he said to me :" mum, I didn't like getting a smack when I was little but I now thank you for teaching me rules & for keeping me safe."
My children have not been traumatized by being smacked as children as a matter of fact they are healthy, happy , well-adjusted adults who are respected by their employers, friends, family & all who meet them.
Abusive parents, on the other hand, are not trying to help & protect their children. They are only trying to hurt & humiliate them for their own gratification!! It is these people who have caused all of the problems for loving parents who occasionally smack their children. Please do not confuse these two types of people.
This world is not made up of black & white but is created with a HUGE variety of differing types of people & methods of child rearing. Each method ( EXCEPT FOR ABUSE & BRUTALITY) has its own merits & it's own flaws. This is what makes the world so wonderful. It is the diversity of different cultures & idealogies that makes this planet so special. Lets agree to disagree on some things & work toward a world where ALL children &, in fact, all people can live in peace & safety.
I was very impressed with the degree of interest in this topic. My point of this blog was to open people's eyes to the sad truths that have been hidden from us. However, I am going to request that no more comments be placed on this weeks topic, as some people are taking this away from the healthy debate it should be, and are becoming emotional and personal. We are not here to discuss if one individual is a good parent or not. We are not here to fight or be hurtful. We are here to act like mature adults and discuss the topics swept under the rug. Those who cannot be mature about these concepts and conversations are requested not to participate. In saying that, I look forward to people's opinions on next week's blog. Anyone who still would like more information on this contravertial topic I would SERIOUSLY recommend that you check this site. It is very long, and very informative. All parents should read. http://cocoamommas.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/fuller_spanking.pdf
ReplyDeleteThank you sharing your views with me.
-T.J.
I read your last post TJ before going back and reading the replies to my posts. For a minute I was worried I had got a little personal although I was sure I hadn't. That was until I read the barrage of cannons against me up top! If I might say it though, this highlights how the secular left argues. They don't have solid arguments based on facts so they turn to personal attacks. I'm a little dissapointed that I didn't get to defend myself but as Margaret Thatcher once said 'I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left'.
ReplyDeletelol, no, you're attacks didn't get personal here Luke. You saved that for facebook.
ReplyDeleteIt's intersting that you feel that you can claim to have 'logical insight" into my motives of being for children's rights, but yet at the same time claim that 'spanking doesn't do any harm', by your own assumption that i have issues with my dad, presuming this is correct, then you have just discredited your own argument by suggesting that the only reason that i find spanking so objectional is because i was spanked. if being spanked in a loving, edcational, calm manner has no effect on the child, then yes, perhaps I would have just followed in his footsteps?
And yet, you claim that 'the crux of the issue" is that i am against any form of punishment, and that this stems from issues best discussed with my father. (for anyone reading this, these claims were made on facebook0
Wouldn't this be classed as psychological harm then? bringing us back to the point that spanking/smacking/hitting is a form of violence?
For the record, if this is to do with the religious comments, I wasn't the one who brought up religion in a non-religious debate.
If you can't handle criticism about your choice of religion, then perhaps it would be wise to keep it out of non-religious debate.
I also find it interesting that as soon as I have questions that you either can't answer, or do not wish to answer, or points that make more sense than you would care to admit to, the debate gets shut down, and myself painted as being irrational. But these are the usual underhanded, manipulative tactics of the extreme faatical right.
Also, for the record - "Secular means of or relating to the doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations." - I don't reject all religion or religious considerations, just some that i find to be extreme. :) once again, making assumptions, which based on logical insight, i feel is your own insecurity of how others view your particular denomination.
Right! Now I am cranky! I shut down the debate to protect you (Jo) from the onslaught that you were about to receive, and because I was sick of the pointless arguing. Any and all arguments that can be brought up, I have an answer for on the link I have mentioned several times, so therefore I feel no need to argue the point further. As I said in the beginning, all opinions are welcomed, but criticism is not. The problem here is that the debate has turned into 'should smacking be mandatory?' which is very different to my original question. If you are capable of raising healthy, well-adjusted, good children without the use of smacking, that is excellent. However, many (myself included) are not capable of acheiving such results without it. It is for this reason that it would be detrimental to ban it. However, I will agree with one thing. This debate was never one of religion and it should be kept that way. The point is made well enough without going into religion.
ReplyDeleteI would also like everyone to understand that it may seem like a good idea to use yourself and your situations as examples, but you must realise then that this gives people the right to make comment on yourself and your situation. If you are not okay with this, keep it anonymous.
I am now going to put a halt to all comments until Friday, when the new topic will be released.
-T.J.