If you expected something naughty, too bad, you can look elsewhere! Behind this catchy title lays the eternal debate of: should parents be allowed to spank their children?

 

The European Council, after the demand of a british non-governmental organization looking over childhood protection, should symbolically condemn France, because there wouldn't be enough protection regarding the law about punishment towards children. The british NGO is blaming french laws to not banish completely physical punishments on our children. And according to the newspaper Le Monde, which was able to consult the decision that will be publicly released in two days, France is about to get slapped on the wrist.

 

Everything started with the association for children protection called Approach, which is saying France breaks an article of the European Social Convention regarding the "lack of explicit and effective interdiction of all physical punishments towards children". This complaint was judged receivable in July by the European Commitee of social rights of the European Council, paneuropean organization intended for promoting dialogue on democracy and human rights. However, according to the revealed decision by Le Monde, Approach association has been succesful: French laws "do not provide enough defined, specified, binding interdiction about physical punishments".

 

The European Council encourages all the States members to banish physical punishments towards children since a couple years. As of now, 27 of the 47 countries members of the organization adopted a legislation towards this, the first being Sweden, model student since 1979 and cantor of the "positive parenting", which promotes an education without physical punishments of any kind. But other european countries, including France, only banished partially those punishments, like in school or in prison. Children abuses are obviously condemned, but as of now, nothing stops french parents to use the spank as a way to discipline their children.

 

 

 

 

As a french and european citizen, I have several problems with such things. First, I consider spanking as a natural way to educate a child. It's harmless, and it allows parents to keep the threat of a real punishment to keep the kids calm and force them to behave correctly, as well as allowing parents to teach them what is wrong from what is good when they do something bad. In a few words, it's just parenting. Second, I start to get sick of how Europe is getting into everyone's personal affairs, telling everyone how to act and how to think. And third, I don't understand how some people can really bother themselves about spanking, when kids are starving and dying all over the world. What's the most important, a kid getting a spank now and then when they are acting like little devils, or a kid starving to death, molested or abused?

 

The more we go forward in time and the more I feel like the world is losing the sense of priorities.

Totally agree. This is why all the kids today are so defiant to even authority figures. I knew I done fucked up when my father pulled out the belt. 

God damn clickbait title >:(

 

 

I'm against hitting a child. Or anyone for that matter. If you can't control your kid to the point you have to hit them you're a shit parent. No two ways about it. Get better at parenting and maybe you wont ever need to hit them.

God damn clickbait title >:(

 

I'm not sure.. Why.. Okay.

My mom would slap the shit out of me when I did something wrong. That didn't stop me from shooting hockey pucks through the living room window, but it sure did make me think twice about it.

 

I'm against hitting a child. Or anyone for that matter. If you can't control your kid to the point you have to hit them you're a shit parent. No two ways about it. Get better at parenting and maybe you wont ever need to hit them.

 

The thing is, IMO kids need to have the threat of being punished, even if they eventually never are. As far as I can remember, in my childhood I've been spanked twice and slapped once, so it wasn't a recurrent thing, yet since I was scared to be punished, I behaved correctly. As Pavelow stated, I think that's why newest generations are so decadent and defiant, they don't have the fear of being punished (saying "It's bad, don't do that" won't be as efficient as "It's bad don't do that or you'll get spanked"). It's the same for laws. People respect them because they have the fear of being punished. If laws were just "Don't do that because it's bad", everyone would break them.

Edited March 2, 201511 yr by Hystery

The thing is, IMO kids need to have the threat of being punish, even if they eventually never are. As far as I can remember, in my childhood I've been spanked twice and slapped once, so it wasn't a recurrent thing, yet since I was scared to be punished, I behaved correctly. As Pavelow stated, I think that's why newest generations are so decadent and defiant, they don't have the fear of being punished (saying "It's bad, don't do that" won't be as efficient as "It's bad don't do that or you'll get spanked"). It's the same for laws. People respect them because they have the fear of being punished. If laws were just "Don't do that because it's bad", everyone would break them.

 

But it's still a completely backwards viewpoint with no real evidence to back it up.

I was never hit as a child, I'm 21 now. By Pavelow's logic I should hate the police, be downright abusive and have a criminal record, but I don't?

 

The majority of children that are (as my dad calls them) tomorrows criminals are that way because of bad parenting. If you raise your child poorly, to the extent where the only things they really learn are that abuse and violence is ok, then all they are going to know is exactly that, and then they end up on the arm of a police officer being dragged to a police car in hand cuffs.

 

If you teach your child correctly at the right age instead of abusing them, they learn correct morals and behavior as a result.

 

Example: Child throws a tantrum because mum said "no you can't have that". Do you slap it in the face and tell it to shut the fuck up? No, you calm them down explain why they can't have something (for example you can't afford it) the child instead learns that money is not infinite and that screaming wont get them what they want. They then grow up to better control their finances and respect their parents when they try everything they can to treat their son/daughter despite not being very well off.

 

Shouting, threats and abuse are all signs you've lost control of the situation. And I will never agree with the "need" to abuse someone. Ever.

 

Oh, and on the subject of "punishment" I agree, but abuse isn't a punishment it's abuse.

"Punishment" might be 2 hours without your toys tonight for throwing a tantrum. Or a prison sentence because you broke the law.

LukeD is right, most children/teens who behave poorly do so because they were educated poorly. And it's not like spanking is the only way to punish a child. There are many other (harmless) ways to teach a child that what they've done is wrong and that they should not do it again.

.

Edited June 23, 20242 yr by tobeymaguire

Some family member of mine got arrested few years back after somebody called cops on him for slapping his own son, who was misbehaving, in public. It was absurd, it's not like he was beating him or something; just a little corrective that wouldn't harm him at all.

I would rather my child do right because they KNOW it's right, not because they're afraid that I'll beat them. If you need to hit your child, you're a shit parent. I was never hit as a child, and I'd never hit my child. I know right from wrong because I was raised to know right from wrong, not because my mother would beat my ass.

Edited March 2, 201511 yr by CriminalKillaz

I got spankings as a child, I honestly don't see anything wrong with it. As long as the spanking goes to a point were it doesn't hurt the child (eg. bruises, cuts, etc), I think it's totally fine, however I don't think it should be used every time, only when necessary . 

It depends on what the kid did. If they did something like cry, then no. If they, say, went on an angry rampage knocking down item in a convenience store, then hell yeah I'd slap the s**t out of them. But, yes, I agree it should be allowed to teach kids what to do and NOT to do. 

I don't think hitting is a good method of discipline. It uses fear instead of education. "Don't do something because you'll get hit" is nowhere near as effective to me as the child learning why what they did is wrong, while being punished in some other way. If done frequently and/or severely enough it can lead to future psychological issues. If an adult needs to use physical violence to discipline a child, the parent is the problem. 

 

 

I agree 100% with what LukeD said. 

Ya, I agree with a lot of you. Honestly, it shouldn't be used ever, but to counter that, there are some acceptable times. Like if the kid cracks a bottle over their siblings head, yup, a spanking may be in order. But honestly, is hitting a CHILD really nessacary?

As I see a lot talking about hitting a child and all that, I'd like to remind what  really is a spank.

 

It's a simple slap on the butt. Not a kick, not a punch, not a blow where you put your full strength, just a light slap on the cheek. It's harmless. And OBVIOUSLY it has to be used as a last resort, not automatically.

Yes, people are taking it way too far. I'm not talking about beating a kid. I'm talking about spankings, or whips on the butt with a belt. There's nothing wrong with that. There's a reason it was used for centuries.

Yes, people are taking it way too far. I'm not talking about beating a kid. I'm talking about spankings, or whips on the butt with a belt. There's nothing wrong with that. There's a reason it was used for centuries.

Correlation, not causation. And just because people have been physically disciplining children for centuries doesn't mean it is effective. If anything, this argument works against you. It can be used to argue for so many things we now condemn (slavery, racism, sexism, etc).

I know I'm making a rather small matter into a much larger one, I just have some serious doubts about the practice.

Edited March 3, 201511 yr by SIR_Sergeant

Correlation, not causation. And just because people have been physically disciplining children for centuries doesn't mean it is effective. If anything, this argument works against you. It can be used to argue for so many things we now condemn (slavery, racism, sexism, etc).

I know I'm making a rather small matter into a much larger one, I just have some serious doubts about the practice.

 

What?! Because you're spanked, you're saying there's a correlation between being sexist, and racist? I think even Freud would disagree with you on that one.

What?! Because you're spanked, you're saying there's a correlation between being sexist, and racist? I think even Freud would disagree with you on that one.

Sorry, I can see how that was confusing, those were supposed to be two separate points. My point in regards to "correlation not causation" is that just because the practice has been around forever doesn't necessarily make it effective or in the moral right.