I'm happy I live in a civilized country

[frualeydis]

I just wrote a long response to a person in a discussion in a friend's journal, and LJ ate it. This person was criticizing/ridiculing a couple who believed "that only verbal reprimands should be used on their children" and I wrote that quite a few people believe that hitting children is wrong. That even if it doesn't give lasting physical damage the fact that the one person the child trusts utterly willfully hurts it will cause emotional damage. Children can't rationalize why mum and dad, who they love and who they believed loved them, suddenly would want to hurt them. It is a breeding ground for low self esteem, insecurity and issues with trust. Also, children who are abused very easily pass this pattern on to their own kids.
I wonder how people can think it's wrong if a man beats his wife, but okay if a parent beats his child.

I'm happy I live in a civilized country where the beating of children is forbidden by law. It doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, but there is much less general acceptance of violence against children and statistics indicate that it is more rare since the law was made in the 70s.

ETA clothsprogs' comment made me realise one thing. I, the extremely scared of conflicts person, actually feel secure enough among my friends on LJ to write something that I know is controversial. Yay!

Comments

[sarahbellem.livejournal.com]

I was spanked as a child, and I didn't like it, but I also think I needed it. It did make me think twice before misbehaving...

I don't think that spanking abuse any more than being raised by a single working mother was abuse (another issue that gets dragged out every so often by the Religious Right in this country). I think it was a means to an end. And I don't think my mother WANTED to use spanking as a tool for discipline. In fact, I know she didn't want to. But she did resort to it when nothing else would get across to us, and by golly, we shaped up pretty quick.

So, to me, spanking is NOT abuse because there is no intent to physically harm the child (and I can attest to the fact that the threat of spanking was far worse than the actual act, which often didn't hurt at all). Hitting is something entirely different, which to me denotes an intention to harm physically.

My mother was raised by a physically abusive father, and that was a legacy she did her best not to pass on to us. That said, there was a handful of times where I provoked her into actual abuse (and believe me, I did provoke her), where she would use force against me with intent to harm. And those instances were lightyears away from the kind of "harm" spanking caused. So having experienced the two things, I can say comfortably that there's a BIG difference between spanking and abuse.

[ciorstan.livejournal.com]

*nods*

My parents' tool of last resort was a steel cork-backed artist's ruler that lived on the top of the refrigerator. There was never more than one light swat-- and it was used only after a reasoned, well-considered decision. Punishment was never deferred.

I knew I deserved it, and so did my brothers. It stung.

I own one of those rulers now, because I bought one to use as a calligraphy rule. I haven't found it necessary in the raising of my own children, but-- different personalities will test authority differently.

[amber-laine.livejournal.com]

I was going to write something very, very similar.

While I do think my mom sometimes went overboard with spanking, I definitely deserved to get spanked. I was an asshole of a child.

Now, I don't spank my kids. But it isn't that I would *never* do it; my kids just don't *need* it. I manage to put the fear of God into them without touching them :)

Generally, I am of the opinion that when we place our hands on our loved ones, it should be a positive touch, not a negative touch. And I teach my kids that. But I also believe that this doesn't always work, and that some kids really don't respond to anything but spanking. I think, when it comes to child rearing, you do what you *have* to do.