children leads to worse violence against them.
Following the same logic one would have to conclude that kissing a child
would lead to sexual abuse. (Perhaps the child-centred ‘experts’
would like the kissing of children also to be made illegal because, in
some cases, kissing is, indeed, the precursor to sexual abuse.)
anything is likely to lead to violence against children, it is allowing
them to behave in a manner that is too anti-social and too undisciplined
for people, parents and other children to tolerate.
are the only members of society still not protected by the law when it
comes to being smacked.
If my wife was to smack me for some gross misdemeanour there is no policeman or court in the land that would do
anything about it. Furthermore, people
within families should not always be expected to behave in the same way
toward each other as strangers passing each other in the street.
has shown that children can never remember what they were smacked
even rats remember and learn not to do something if
they are smacked.
This politically-correct twaddle from the supposed 'child-expert' Dr Penelope Leach (Baby and Child,
Penguin Books 1982) deserves no further comment since it is patently
nonsense. The truth is that there are literally millions of research
papers in the psychological literature attesting to the fact that even
rats remember and learn not to do something if they are smacked.
automatically leads to long-term resentment.
Smacking only leads to resentment because child-centred ‘experts’
keep demonising parents who have smacked their children. If the media
and the ‘experts’ were saying that smacking was a good and
reasonable method of disciplining children, there would be no resentment
against parents who have smacked, for they would be seen by their
children as having done an acceptable thing.
It is the child-centred ‘experts’
themselves who are causing any resentment and, hence, further alienating children
from their parents by constantly promulgating their false propaganda and
their phony 'research' on smacking; e.g. see
who never smack their children don’t seem to have any particular
Some families are, indeed, just wonderful. Some parents have the money, the
time, the character, the patience, the resources and/or the kind of children
who are relatively easy to control. If we were all so lucky,
what a wonderful world it would be.
most parents would have
enormous problems with their children if they did not take very firm
actions on occasion
reality, however, is that most parents would have enormous problems with
their children if they did not take very firm actions on occasion. Those
who don't, often bring up spoiled, self-centred little darlings who end
up with terrible social problems when they are older
and/or their children rapidly lose respect for their authority and they
become more difficult to handle.
itself has enormous problems with the children of such parents.
is not effective.
Smacking is extremely effective. There is no society on this planet that
does not smack its children. (Even in countries where smacking is
illegal, most parents will tell you, in confidence, that they have found
it necessary to smack their children on occasion.) However, because
research with delinquent children, for example, shows that many of them have been
smacked, the foolish child-centred ‘experts’ conclude that smacking
does not work for any child. Their simplistic analysis fails on numerous
If they bothered to research non-delinquent children, child-centred ‘experts’
would find that the occasional smack does indeed work; and it works for
most children, for most parents, most of the time. Just because
something does not work 100% of the time does not mean that it is of no
value. It could be of tremendous value.
Could one also perhaps conclude
that there is no point in having law courts and prisons because crime
example, could one really conclude that there is no point in having
speed limits on our roads because many thousands of us break the speed
limits every day? Could one also perhaps conclude that there is no point
in having law courts and prisons because crime still occurs? If one was
to visit a garage would one conclude that there was no point in having
car engines, because they clearly do not work all of the time?
if the child-centred ‘experts’ were to become undertakers they would
conclude that there was no point in having hearts!
presence of speed limits, law courts and prisons does affect the
behaviour of most of us, most of the time. These things are of great
value to our society, as are engines and hearts. To conclude that they
are not effective and should therefore be discarded on the basis of the
fact that they do not work 100% of the time would be ridiculous; but
this is precisely the type of simplistic thinking that characterises the
child-centred ‘experts’ when they conclude from the ‘research’
on delinquent children that smacking does not work.
does work, for most children, for most parents, most of the time.
It is obvious that those children who have behavioural problems are the
ones most likely to be smacked by their parents - because they are
usually attempting to civilise them.
Where the parents are successful,
the children do not end up having ’therapy’ with the child-centred
‘experts’. It is only where the parents have failed that these
children end up in therapy units. The child-centred experts therefore
only deal with the ‘failures’.
the ‘research’ on such children alone is therefore equivalent, for
example, to studying just those children who have failed an exam at
school and concluding from their failure that there is no point in
teaching any children.
the ‘statistical’ type of child-centred research almost always leads
to correlational data, and this can be interpreted in many ways.
example, the finding that aggressive, poorly-behaved children are more
likely to be smacked is not very surprising. But the child-centred ‘experts’
will tell you that it is the smacking that is causing the poor behaviour
and the aggression.
The real reason that such
parents smack is because they know, from their own experiences, that,
not only is a smack harmless, ...
the finding that parents who, as children, were themselves smacked, are
more likely to smack their own children, does not imply that
these parents are somehow now deranged and predisposed to do harm toward
their children - which is what the child-centred ‘experts’ will tell
you. The real reason that such parents smack is because they know, from
their own experiences, that, not only is a smack harmless, it is actually
beneficial on occasion; and it saves them from having to dish out those cold,
nasty, drawn-out ‘psychological’ types of punishments that are so
destructive to relationships.
course, there is likely to be a strong genetic component that causes the
personalities of children to resemble somewhat those of their parents.
Child-centred ‘experts’ claim that explanations and verbal
admonitions are sufficient for younger children to learn how to behave
themselves and that a smack is always unnecessary. This is not
often do not listen, though they might appear to be listening. They do
not always understand the explanations given to them by adults and, even
if they do, at a later date, they might well choose not to heed them.
They sometimes react impulsively - caught up in the excitement of the
moment or perhaps engulfed with rage and anger. They do not always think
logically. They sometimes wish to be defiant, and so on and so on.
Further, children are extremely forgetful. Explanations, on their own,
therefore, do not always work. An accompanying smack can make the world
of difference - quite simply, because it causes pain! And here, the
medical evidence would appear to be conclusive with regard to the
beneficial effects of a smack in the right circumstances.
Without pain, humans, and other
animals, get themselves into all kinds of trouble.
pain, humans, and other animals, get themselves into all kinds of
trouble. There have been many instances where human beings have been
born without the neurological processes required to experience pain - a
condition know as ‘congenital analgesia’ - though their sense of
touch is not impaired.
usually do not live very long. Despite normal or high intelligence, they
happily put their limbs into fires and boiling water. They break bones,
tear skin, walk into solid objects, crack open their skulls and, on the
whole, lead a thoroughly harrowing existence. Explanations, constant
general counselling and verbal admonitions and warnings do not succeed
with them. These individuals end up damaged and dead. They do not
usually live beyond the age of twenty.
damage they do to their physical bodies, despite the fact that they can
feel it, and even though they can see it with their own eyes.
from a non-damaging event (e.g. a smack) is nature's answer to how to
teach a child about the world. Believe it or not, it is one of nature's
most precious gifts. It teaches us in areas where our 'intelligence'
and constant 'education' do not protect those with congenital
analgesia from an early death. Pain is what is needed. And the same is true
for humans without this condition in situations where 'intelligence' and
constant 'education' keep failing.
Without pain, human beings
simply do not learn sufficiently well about important boundaries
Without pain, human beings simply do not learn sufficiently well about important
boundaries that will protect them. Indeed, in terms of evolution, the very fact that pain can be caused by a
smack suggests very strongly that the smack itself might well be a fundamental
social conditioning mechanism.
example, a smack on the legs when a young child dashes toward a road or
sticks its finger into an electricity socket will result in a strong
conditioning process automatically associating the pain of the smack
with the behaviour. This will reduce the likelihood of the child
repeating its dangerous exploits; and this conditioning will continue to
reduce this likelihood, at a later date, whether or not the child
consciously recalls the experience of the smack, or, indeed, recalls
consciously any of the earlier incident at all.
accompanying explanation at the time will, of course, add to the child's
learning of the dangers involved, but it is the smack that produces the
strong conditioning (which those with congenital analgesia unfortunately
fail to develop). It is the pain of the smack that, in the future, might
save the child from damage, not the explanations.
smack emphasises the importance of the situation. It helps define the
boundaries in a way that an explanation cannot, and it strengthens the
child's memory with regard to the boundaries that it must recognise.
it is the duty of parents to ensure that this happens.
A smack is also often
nothing more than a succinct social message
smack is also often nothing more than a succinct social message from the
parent who gives it.
IT IS THE RED
It is a message that is easily
understood and that says a great deal. It says that the parent will not
permit some behaviour to occur (again). It says that the parent expects
the child to remember this. It says that the parent considers this a
very important matter indeed. It says that the parent can, in the final
analysis, exercise power over the child. And it sometimes says that the
parent is unable to cope any longer and might well be about to explode and
do far more harm unless the child does what it is told. These are the kinds
of message that parents convey when they smack; and they are all
extremely important ones.
parents are prevented from disciplining their children properly and
preparing them for the society in which they have to live, all of
society will have to bear the consequences.
will be more disrupted, affecting the education of all the children in them; month after month, year after year. More children will
end up unfit for work and without the skills (social and otherwise) that
are necessary to get on in
life, which will lead thousands to turn to crime or delinquent
behaviour. This affects everybody, and more and more youngsters will be
drawn into the same web. More will end up turning to drink and drugs.
More will end up in prison.
And they will also badly influence the younger ones
evolution has led to humans who
experience pain when smacked,
It is worth pondering the question of why it is that evolution has led to humans who experience pain when smacked, as opposed to humans who
And the answer would seem
to be very straightforward.
gave rise to groups or individuals who did not experience pain when
smacked, those groups and individuals failed. They have gone. They do not exist any
should humans have evolved to experience pain when smacked, even though a smack does not cause
any bodily damage?
answer to this is surely a social one.
is simply a way of sending very important social messages.
And no group or
individual is likely to survive for very long if important social messages are
is a smack?
nothing more than the delivering of a strong important message. It is the same as putting
up a red traffic light which must be obeyed.
A few children
will not stop when the traffic light is red, that's true. And many of these
children will end up
crashing their cars because
they continually fail to stop. They fail to learn. They are always in
A smack may not work
all the time, for all children, but, for most parents, for most of the
time, it probably does a wonderful job.
is almost certainly what it was designed for.
However, those working in the abuse industry make much of their money out of
disrupting normal family relationships, and so it is not surprising to
find that they continually try to undermine families by demonising - and
hence trying to thwart - behaviours that help to keep families together.