DO WE SMACK, OR NOT?

DO WE SMACK, OR NOT?

By Frances Harris

I’ve never met a parent who did not want the best for their children. And I’ve rarely met a parent who has the skills to meet their own lofty standards always. Smacking and sometimes beating children has been in existence as far back as I can remember, and further. It is a big subject being discussed in Australia today. Sections of the government want to legislate to stop smacking.

I have been passionately on both sides of the argument at some time, first not to smack, then as a more experienced parent to give a short sharp smack on the least sensitive part of the body when the child is out of control and can’t be coaxed. Now, after years of thought, I can’t decide. There are problems on each side. Maybe they are both right in differing ways. You see, smacking might be a bad thing, but if it’s taken away, there needs to be something better to take its place. So far I’ve not seen the magic system that universally works on all children.

To examine the history of my own family, beginning around the turn of the 19^th Century, numbers of children in an average family would range between five and twelve. Many families, including my own earned a living through hard manual labour, and particularly on rural properties. If a child was not able, or didn’t want to follow instructions, the situation could easily end badly for the child. Child mortality due to accident and injury was high and medical intervention was practically non-existent. There were no second chances to get it right.  It was almost impossible for mothers to keep track all of the children at any one time, there were too many of them and too little available time to pay full attention. If a child was engaging in dangerous behaviour, there needed to be a short sharp reminder, and there were no other viable alternatives to the smack.

The enduring system in my Grandma’s time was that the unprepared older siblings were assigned a younger child to take care of and that person and was a stand-in mother and father until the child reached adulthood. With their immaturity and lack of experience, the only tool siblings had in the arsenal was the smack.  In serious cases of defiance a parent would step in and rectify the problem. While mother was putting most of her labour into managing the heavy domestic chores, father would often be away either employed or attending farm duties. Parents had to be stern, because the success of the whole family structure rested on obedience and teamwork. There were many stories of how a child lapsed for a moment, only to be lost in a river, fallen off a horse or come to grief. Child mortality rates were very high.

There were fire, unregulated vehicles, anxious mules, angry bulls, pigs, goats, water holes, water tanks, animal traps, guns, silos, crocodiles, becoming lost in the bush, lethal substances and endless other possibilities to snare children. And if the older child taking care of the infant was irresponsible, there could be a double tragedy. My grandparents, out of love,  were unyielding with the corporal punishment and discipline of their children, but none of them died and no one wandered off. But still there was an accidental shooting, a snake bite due to a child bending the rules, one was run over by a truck through not paying attention, another one hit in the eye with a full bucket of milk, my mother slipped into the bull pen for a challenge, and had a close shave with an angry Jersey bull, using a plank to ward it off. Another child sat on an ants nest when told not to. Imagine what they could have done without supervision? They learned very early in life to cope in times of adversity, and as adults successfully navigated through life in varying degrees.

Now many of us feel our modern society is much safer than it used to be, so there should be no need to be harsh. Perhaps we don’t need to be so protective of our children. However if we examine modern life with a steady magnifying glass, we might think again. Nine year old children are being lured by drug traffickers. Child sexual abuse is rife. Traffic accidents, poisonings, swallowing objects, accidental chokings, abductions and a string of dangers are still out there. Young unsupervised children and teens are too often being lured from their homes through the internet. Parents are working outside the home more than ever in this last half century. Children are being left in the care of grand parents and others, and it is often that while the parents are away, innocent and unprepared children are left to roam freely.

In most cases there is little time left over at home for tired parents to do the conditioning necessary to develop their children, which once again parallels earlier times. So in desperation, when children  break or loose expensive things, and won’t eat their breakfast, pick up their toys, got to bed on time, take a shower and get in the car when it’s time to go:- these same stresses effect parents who will in desperation, let out a perpetual stream of verbal abusive. You idiot, you are so lazy, I wish you were never born, I hate you, you are so ungrateful, no one could love you, nobody likes you, I’ll give you away if…, and so one. I’ve heard it all. But on the other hand, it is also true some parents go too far with physical punishment. So is which worse, the one above, or a responsibly snacked child who knows he or she is loved, but may be emotionally damaged? For the children who have been seriously assaulted in the name of discipline – we already have laws to deal with that. True, there will always be people who become parents who are just not equipped for the job. So if we legislate on the smack, should we also outlaw verbal abuse? What then is the future of the perpetually disobedient child? We all know one, surely. Will foster care numbers balloon? There are lots of questions and few answers available. It could mean later in life some parents will give up all together if parenting gets too hard, and depending on their circumstances, leave the child to his or her own devices. I think of the difficulties of being a sole unsupported parent. That’s when the child’s story could ramp up a notch to be the adult who is heading for the criminal justice system.

So the questions are - is it the child who is not smacked, but left feeling worthless and unloved and very uncertain about his or her personal value in the world better off than the one who is smacked, and possibly emotionally and physically injured? Does the smacked child become the wary adult? And are does the insecure not smacked, sometimes pampered child more vulnerable to be lured by stronger personalities into harmful pursuits. Who is better off? Available evidence reveals that the encouraged, highly pampered overly rewarded and overly praised child could develop into the needy over sensitive adult. So where is the balance, and where are the tipping points? We can only guess.

I’ve raised my children but still don’t come down firmly on any side. Maybe it should still be left to the judgement of the parent, without government intervention. It’s true, non-smacking is a very successful strategy in some Nordic countries, but they have generous subsidies to allow parents to spend more time with their children. If the Australian government was prepared to take this on, I think it would probably drift toward their side. I can’t see that is likely.

So what if we stop smacking? I will let you be the judge.

 

 



THE VALUE OF WEALTH

 

THE VALUE OF WEALTH

By Frances Harris

Money and wealth are likely the most talked about subjects in the world, always seeming to be delicately balanced on moving tectonic plates. So in a nutshell, the world’s success at handling money is up there with managing war strategy and global warming.

In every prosperous country there will be a core of middle class workers who toil hard to earn every dollar they make, and should be able to make a comfortable living.  Without these armies of workers, there would be little chance of a viable economy to fall back on. They pay the bulk of taxes that keep the wheels of society and government turning. The middle class provides much of the money for infrastructure, social services and the running of government and the military.

Above them are the people with money who establish the companies that produce the jobs and openings for the middle class to earn a living. These highly cashed up enterprises hire the lobbyists who influence governments to exert downward pressure on their expenses, taxes and workers’ wages, keeping entrenched the tax responsibilities of the middleclass.

Next there are the underprivileged and working poor whose wages are often at subsistence level, and some will need to do more than one job to support their family. They have little capacity to contribute additional tax. And at the bottom of the pyramid are those who require ongoing social services to survive. They are the most vulnerable and usually dependent on governments and charities. They are also most likely to become homeless.

Then, somewhere in the middle are groaning central governments trying successfully; or unsuccessfully to balance the competing needs and interests of their citizens.

Looking in from the outside, there are people from poorer nations who are understandably hoping for an opportunity to get a foothold in a more prosperous country than their own. Some enter through porous borders and others come in legally. In a functioning democracy where everything is in balance, they should be smoothly taken in and cared for until their claims for residency are established. But at this time, social and economic forces are in conflict, leading to a critical shortage of resources.

And so now we have to deal with it:  – Fallout from The Global Economic Meltdown.

Over time, in many of the successful economies, and notably the United States and to a degree various European countries, mega-companies and their offshoots have found ways to split and hide the bulk of their substantial wealth overseas, thus reducing the tax base for their home country. Add to that, middle and lower class jobs are being moved overseas to countries where workers are prepared to take lower wages, and the social, government and financial structures of the home country are becoming seriously tilted.

With a swelling pool of unemployed middle class workers, and shrinking job markets, the question is – where is the money to run the home country going to come from? Wages are too low to increase tax from low paid workers. The wealthy have rejected the suggestion that they should pay more, and those on social services can’t pay extra or survive without help. The remnants of the middle class are stressed to breaking point.

Suggestions that benefits should be timed out for the disadvantaged and unemployed means that charities, jails and hospitals will be overwhelmed by the weight of more need. Court’s will be tied up with litigation against more criminal behaviour and it stands to reason stress related illness will skyrocket tying up medical services.  Deprived people will find a way to get what they want, and resources of charities will be stretched beyond capacity. This surely means there will be more drain on government budgets to come.

If welfare is cut to the extent that huge swathes of populations are forced to live miserable lives; serious social upheaval can be expected. When citizens feel they have nothing more to lose, they will tie up society with demonstrations and often become violent.  More police and security personnel need to be hired, again stressing out government budgets. It has followed in the last few years that financial black holes have appeared in state and federal budgets of previously wealthy countries, and then defaults have followed. Just like dominos, with this mechanism one thing crashes into the other, until there is an ever decreasing downward spiral. That is what we can expect for some time, if something doesn’t change soon.

If welfare is cut to the extent that huge swathes of populations are forced to live miserable lives; serious social upheaval can be expected. When citizens feel they have nothing more to lose, they will tie up society with demonstrations and often become violent.  More police and security personnel need to be hired, again stressing out government budgets. It has followed in the last few years that financial black holes have appeared in state and federal budgets of previously wealthy countries, and then defaults have followed. Just like dominos, with this mechanism one thing crashes into the other, until there is an ever decreasing downward spiral. That is what we can expect for some time, if something doesn’t change soon.

The end result is that the growing tax burden on the ever dwindling middle class is causing resentment by citizens. There is less tax being paid at the top, less tax being paid in the middle and more dependent people needing government services at the bottom, many of them having once been in the middle class.

Adding to the mix we are seeing more and more poverty stricken refugees pouring in through borders, coming from war torn or financially struggling countries. They bring little material wealth with them and many require immediate government assistance. Medical and social services are overwhelmed, increasing the ire of the dwindling numbers of struggling taxpayers.

 In prosperous countries, elected governments tend to be conservative when countries are doing well and collectively wealth and influence is positioned at the top. Conservative governments are less inclined to support the disadvantaged. But when there are a majority of citizens, including immigrants struggling or unable to progress financially, they often vote for the government that is likely to ensure their survival, and that is generally democrat. So until something significant changes, we are likely to see more and more countries turning to democratic-style principles.  Conservative contenders are now feeling the pressure to change if they are to remain relevant.  It should be interesting to see where these transformations lead.

Countries that are unable or unwilling to tackle the loopholes created by tax havens and the shortage of jobs for their people will be the most disadvantaged in the long run. There have been tentative steps by some to tackle tax loopholes, but whether they can resist the substantial pressure from lobbyists remains to be seen. This could be a bad thing, because it is the equal push and tug of competing forces that ensures social and economic cohesion. Governments that have turned a blind eye to immigration in the past will be forced to face the huge problem that has slowly evolved.

What if we see the re-emergence of unions as happened in the past? Who knows?

- We are clearly heading for interesting times.