It seems to me that the world had never been able to make up its mind as to the appropriate target for CP - hands, bum, or all of the above?

The Americans are the more single-minded, with the focus of the disciplinary eye being squarely fixed on the nether regions. Not once in living memory have they deviated from this view of life, their policy being almost as inflexible as their bat-like paddles.

The UK and its former colonies everywhere, on the other hand, long suffered a crisis of target, being quite unable to decide whether the hands or the bum form the most suitable receptor. Their policies, in contrast with those of their American cousins, were almost as flexible as their canes and straps.

Enter now the Africans of Dutch-British descent who decided there was no need to make any such choice. Why do only one, when you can just as easily do both? And so came the technique called "topping and tailing" that punishes both of the primary receptors in the same session....."six on the hands and six on the bum and thankyou sir!" Problem solved.

With that light hearted look at targets we have known, I'd be interested in contributions on the relative merits of CP on the hands versus the bum. Does one hurt more than the other, is one more convenient than the other and is one less sexual than the other? Is caning on the hands too plebian for some elite private schools OR is caning on the hands cruelly painful and more prone to causing damage?

What do you think and what were your experiences?

RYAN

The hand would automatically hurt more-much less flesh across 99.99% of people's hands than bottoms-and of course show more.

Unfortunately, it also means difficulty in writing in class, and given that left-handed people were still being forced into writing right at least up to WW2, how do you deal with more than 3 strokes without crippling someone?

I'd say from personal observation, it tended to be hands in primary and bottoms in secondary, with a caveat that some secondarys caned girls on the hands, and a further caveat that Scotland and its' tawsing tended to use hands all the way.

Steve M

Steve being a reasonable chap you probably would find it difficult to believe but some teachers would not give a toss wether you were crippled from a caning/tawsing or not.
Being unable to write only ensured further punishment later for not keeping up.
It was mean't to hurt as much as possible and deter.

hi, at my secondary in the 60s they only caned hands wether boy or girl. i would have thought being caned on the bottom was much worse.there would be more flesh to hurt and bruises would last much longer. in contrast being caned on the hands does not hurt at all at the time, it is only afterwards that it hurts. so it would be possible to smile or laugh while it is being given, which did happen. there is also less damage afterwards it hurts for a few hours but the following day you would be fine. if you had say 6 you might still feel them a bit the next day 2 at the most.bottom canings by all accounts have welts and bruises that last for a week or even 2 weeks. i saw lots of very hard canings given but i never heard anyone say they had any damage done. but this myth still continues.

Davenall I agree with you that no damage was done, a testament to the resilience of the human hands. But if you're telling me it didn't hurt I can only imagine you were not caned hard enough.

I have the impression that CP got so light-on in the run down to abolition in government schools as to be treated as a joke. In fact a lady teacher I knew in the late seventies assured me that CP didn't work because the hardened cases were emerging from the office with a smile on their faces.

Let me tell you, we didn't smile for a long time after getting the cuts delivered hard from the shoulder and in fairly quick succession. Typical reactions were to do a "wardance", hug your hands under the armpits, and/or wave them about in pain.

Hi Ryan

It ALWAYS hurt here in Liverpool in the 80's-usually on the bum. None of us girls wos laughin after!

And back we came for more a few weeks later! Deterence-not here!

Soooze


PS-the lady caners hit harder, too! Unless it wos ME with the Head-git!

>>>>I'd say from personal observation, it tended to be hands in primary and bottoms in secondary, with a caveat that some secondarys caned girls on the hands, and a further caveat that Scotland and its' tawsing tended to use hands all the way. >>>>

You'd be referring to the private school scene, I take it Steve? I have been led to believe your garden variety government schools mostly caned on the hands, similar to Australia - at least in the second half of the 20th Century.

Interestingly it seems the pre 20th Century British navy used to cane their young recruits (midshipmen?)on the hands, until it was decided they could get more work out of them if they utilised their posteriors. So the practice goes back further than one might have thought.

It does seem strange that teachers would choose the hands, given their students pressing need for them and I've never seen an explanation as to why this practice was adopted. Would be interested to find out if members have such gems of information at their dispoal.

ryan1, despite two slightly critical posts in sucession I am definitely not wishing you'd go away, you'll be left in absolutely no doubt of my feelings in the very unlikely event that ever happens!

However, when you say:

I have been led to believe your garden variety government schools mostly caned on the hands, similar to Australia - at least in the second half of the 20th Century.

I have to ask where on earth you got that information from, and haven't you been paying any attention to the ongoing 'Girl caned at Bacons by the infamous Mr Ing' thread', to name but one of the many threads in this estimable Forum which should give you a more accurate take on the situation?

In the second half of the 20th century, before the abolition of school CP, a fair amount of caning took place in UK state schools. Some of it was indeed on the hands, for both boys and girls, but a great deal of it was on the bottom, and not just for boys.

It's actually a common belief in Australia - at least among those of us who take an interest in such matters. I believed it myself until I started travelling to the UK for conferences and meeting British teachers.

In my case, the belief developed primarily from reading two books fairly early in my teaching career - one of which was given to me by Sir James Darling (he was still Doctor Darling then) who was rather dismayed at my unthinking use of corporal punishment early in my career. It was called Secondary Modern Discipline by Richard Farley and it remains just about the best book on school discipline I've ever read - most specifically on the discipline of boys. Farley's descriptions of corporal punishment in British government schools (especially secondary moderns) left the definite impression that he was talking about caning on the hands. Just a couple of years later I read John Partridge's Life in a Secondary Modern and again he gave the definite impression that caning on the hands was the routine method of corporal punishment in England's government run schools.

Doctor Dominum, I conclude from your remark above

It's actually a common belief in Australia - at least among those of us who take an interest in such matters. I believed it myself until I started travelling to the UK for conferences and meeting British teachers.

that the British teachers you mention indicated that at least some caning in British state schools was delivered to the student's bottom. Did you form any impressions as to how much and in what period as a result of their comments?

ryan1, you've missed one target area I think, albeit a fairly unusual one, at least as regards the cane. After my recent posting in your 'The embarrassment factor' thread I'd hate anyone to think I have a thigh complex, I certainly don't, you should see me savaging the thigh spanking fun posters! However it appears that in South Korea, either now, or at least in the recent past, the official dictats require boys to be caned on the bottom and girls to be caned on the backs of the thighs, possibly because of the perceived undesirable implications of caning on the bottom in their case.

Personally I'd have thought that caning on the thighs was a pretty horrific punishment. In the event the regulations seem to be honoured more in the breach than in the observance, with both boys and girls being caned on the bottom, the backs of the thighs and any other handy portion of the anatomy that takes a teacher's fancy. There's quite a lot about this on the Corpun site, the press quote here being typical. There's also a snippet on two unfortunate lads who apparently somehow got mistaken for girls about a third of the way down this page. The accompanying picture will expand to a larger version if clicked on.

I seem to recall that girls were shown being caned on the thighs by nuns in the controversial film 'The Magdalene Sisters' though this this wouldn't really count as school CP and I've no idea if it was authentic. It also seem to me from the angle of the cane strokes that the girl in the film 'The Leaving of Liverpool' who was shown being caned in a standing position in an Australian children's home was supposedly being caned on the backs of the thighs. If this was the case again I've no idea if it was authentic. There's also a rather strange entry on Yahoo Answers where someone claims to have been reading about the caning of thighs that took place at a Welsh boarding school. The school is named but I won't name it here. One of the longstanding contributors to this estimable Forum might possibly be able to comment on this.

>>>However it appears that in South Korea, either now, or at least in the recent past, the official dictats require boys to be caned on the bottom and girls to be caned on the backs of the thighs, possibly because of the perceived undesirable implications of caning on the bottom in their case. >>>

Oh yes, the thighs! On the rare occasion that a girl was caned in my primary school in WA it was on the thighs with a lady teacher present. And evidently other primary schools, because my first girlfriend (yes, I can still remember her) reported having been caned on the thighs for lateness.

I witnessed one such caning through the Deputy's open classroom door during a recreation break. Do you know, I don't think I've ever lost the mental images of a single caning. One's memory is quite amazing when it comes to things that impress us and CP always impressed me - whether I got it or someone else.

like handcaning, thigh caning would not have been especially pleasant...but then I guess it wasn't meant to be, was it?

Not sure if I can mention any non-school CP matters here (someone email me please), but a very naughty lady recently asked me to cane her thighs - but on the fronts thereof! One girl's punishment is another woman's reward, it seems.

The single best source of reliable information on all matters relating to CP is http://www.corpun.com

The target of UK school canings is discussed here: http://www.corpun.com/faq.htm#12
The buttocks were by far the most common target, contrary to myth.

hi ryan1, i did not say it didnot hurt! i said it didnot hurt at the time a few minutes later it was agony. my hand would go numb on impact and we certainly got it very hard. the head used a thin cane which whistled through the air. but most of the other teachers used quite thick canes. smoking was an automatic 6.

Thanks for the clarification, Davinhall and for the Corpun article KK. Seems I was labouring under a misapprehension.

that the British teachers you mention indicated that at least some caning in British state schools was delivered to the student's bottom. Did you form any impressions as to how much and in what period as a result of their comments?

Not really. I first went over for a conference in 1977 and it came up there - actually it came up at the pub we used to repair to during the conference (we may have spent more time there than anywhere else) and I suppose I got the impression they were talking about common practice, but I couldn't really say more than that. Besides the people I was talking to may not have been teaching at typical schools - for all I know they might have come from Bacons. The odds are against it - lots of schools in England - but my point is that with a couple of exceptions I can't remember where they taught.

I do remember a couple of them being quite stunned at the revelation I'd caned boys on the bare bottom only a few years before - definite impression that they felt such practices had died out long ago in the mother country.

>>>>I do remember a couple of them being quite stunned at the revelation I'd caned boys on the bare bottom only a few years before - definite impression that they felt such practices had died out long ago in the mother country.

I'm equally stunned, Doctor. I had assumed the seat of the pants was always the limit. In what circumstances was that practised and what prompted the change?

Incidentally, since we were largely caned on bare hands with a minimum layer of flesh over bone, there is probably every reason to cane the much better padded backside bare. However, I expected there would be some sensitivities that precluded it.

I'm equally stunned, Doctor. I had assumed the seat of the pants was always the limit. In what circumstances was that practised and what prompted the change?

In a sense, this was the 'nuclear deterrent'. At least it was in any school I've been involved with although I've just read an account describing, of all people, Malcolm Fraser, handing out such a caning when he was a Prefect - first time I've ever heard of it happening at that level.

In my schooling as a boy, and in the early period of my teaching career, at some schools at least, such canings could be inflicted by senior staff for exceptional misbehaviour. In situations where the use of the cane was commonplace for even relatively minor offences, I believe it was felt you needed to have something in reserve for special occasions.

In 1966, I was appointed as Assistant Boarding House Master at my school. This wasn't itself, a particularly senior position (well, it was, and it wasn't - on paper it was considered quite senior, but I was still rather wet behind the years when I took it on so I wasn't considered all that senior to begin with), but whenever the Boarding House Master was absent, I became the Acting, and that was considered senior. In that role, on a handful of occasions, I carried out such canings. The circumstances were generally quite exceptional - for example, the first time I administered such a caning, it was to a boy who had framed another boy for an offence that had got him six of the best, which meant I felt I had to go further in punishing the first boy.

I disliked doing it - especially because the first time I did it, I came very close to going too far - and felt it wasn't particularly appropriate, but I did it because it was considered part of the duties of the position I held and I wanted to continue up the career ladder - I'd been given a fairly senior position quite early and I didn't want to rock the boat too much.

What changed? Well, for a start, I got more senior into a position where I had much more of a say in policy, rather than just being expected to follow it, and once that happened I started expressing my misgivings about this policy, and others, and other people were doing the same, and together we changed things. It was probably helped by the fact that there were more and more women coming into the school as teachers and they wanted to eventually be eligible for senior roles, and they supported changing any policy that might impede their progress.

Incidentally, since we were largely caned on bare hands with a minimum layer of flesh over bone, there is probably every reason to cane the much better padded backside bare. However, I expected there would be some sensitivities that precluded it.

In some schools, I'm sure - but these schools were (at least partly) boarding schools, and also schools where nudity was fairly commonplace - still is, even today, though not to quite the same extent. Showering after sport, changing in the boarding house. It was quite normal for a teacher to see you undressed, particularly if you were a boarder, so objecting to something on those grounds would have seemed a bit silly. Even when I did start agitating for change, my arguments were based on the risk of physical injury, and on reducing the amount of caning for trivial matters so we no longer needed as extreme measures for serious ones - not on any concern about other matters. Perhaps somewhat strangely, if I'd said I was at all worried about seeing boys backsides back in 1975, people would have wondered if I was gay (they might wonder the same thing even today, they just wouldn't care).

*In a sense, this was the 'nuclear deterrent'. At least it was in any school I've been involved with ....*

I can well imagine that bare caning might be seen as more severe than a clothed caning but was this in fact the case? Normal clothing would have offered relatively little protection while hiding the welts from the caners eyes. Baring makes the boy appear much more vulnerable and seeing the welts appear with further soften the heart of most caners.

A_L

There's also a rather strange entry on Yahoo Answers where someone claims to have been reading about the caning of thighs that took place at a Welsh boarding school. The school is named but I won't name it here. One of the longstanding contributors to this estimable Forum might possibly be able to comment on this.


I take this reference to be directed at me, so my apologies for not responding earlier, Im afraid catch up time for me, (and you all seem to have been posting like mad), my husbands ill health takes much of my spare time at present not allowing the time to browse or post as often as I would like.

However, not being a poster to any yahoo groups, google, seek, and ye will find as they say. you being familiar with the post, if you look at Heather's questions, last post, you will see she has picked up a link to this estimable forum, whether Heather visits here under another nic or a luker, (no disrespect to your choice of name ) it would seem likely one of my posts on this forum has been embellished along the way, along with a few similarities to other threads/posts found on this forum

To clarify teachers were permitted to cane on the hand, however a few choose for whatever reason, an alternative, the larger 19 ruler applied across the back of the upper legs. The Head and Head of House were the only ones to to cane on the bottom. I would go as far to say caning on thighs never happened at the school in question.

Ketta

Hi Ketta. First let me say that I'm very sorry to hear of your Husband's ill-health, and I hope very much that things will improve for both of you. I have happy memories of the fact that you were one of the first people I had any interaction with here, when you topped my puny HTML generated smiley with your giant graphic and I had to post the white flag!

Yes, indeed I was hoping that you might comment on the strange Yahoo entry, and thank you for taking the time to respond. Sorry I didn't provide a link to it, but I knew you were adept at finding stuff, and didn't want to make my query too specific. I'm not a Yahoo person myself, I came across it by chance and I'm glad to hear that exceptionally cruel and unusual punishment was not a practise, although I don't much like the sound of that ruler!

Things do seem to have gone a bit crazy posting wise - I blame all these Australians myself!

At the schools I attended, in th UK, in the 60s and early 70s, there was caning on the bottom and hands. At junior school it was always on the bottom, normally in front of the class, and only for boys . A few girls were slippered as well as boys but this was obviously on the bottom. I never got the cane at junior school., but was slippered a few times, which was very painful.

At grammar school the target of the cane depended on who dished it out. In the lower forms we had a lower school master who always caned on the bottom, but for serious offences you could be sent to the deputy head or even the headmaster. The deputy usually caned on the bottom, the head always on the hand.

I was caned twice in the lower school, both times on the bottom, two strokes, and I found it was less painful than the slipper.The pain of the slipper seemed to last longer, but I suppose it's all down to how hard the teacher hits you!

In the higher forms I was slippered again a couple of times but only caned once, and this time it was on the hand. The head told you to put out your left hand , keep your thumb out of the way and look straight ahead.He then administered two strokes, and the pain was quite unbearable, much much worse than a slippering. I could never understand why so many boys were regulars, getting caught smoking so often.

I do hope members will read my new post called "A Question" after reading this.
Here I only speak about the case of boys. In England the cane was used either on the hand or the bottom.It may interest readers that in some countries it was a;lso used on the sole of the feet and under the arm pits.

I think a time line can be drawn about 1960. Prior to this most private schools caned on the bottom, be it clother or bare, Very little in requlations were made other than it was reasonable and appropiate to the offence. The same applied to Church schools where I was head. In state schools their was a mixture of caning on hands and bottom.

In my school I was only allowed to administer a maximum of two strokes to the hands (one on each hand or two or one hand) and more had to be on the bottom. Except for lateness in the war which carried two strokes I always caned on the bottom and think most head did so for the same reason as me. Malking a boys hands sore makes it hard for him to work and so lead to more trouble. A sore bottom does not prevent work. The target area on the hand is very small and with the easy that a boy could move his hand damage could be done to the fingers. this may include broken fingers or thimb as well as swollen joints. The bottom was a much safer area with little risk of injury to a pupil. Most teachers were very keen not to cause lasting injury. One of these being the wish to avoid parents complaining. Break a boys finger or leave the finger joints swollen was likely to result in a complaint, but even a very very swollen and bruised bottom at this time was likely to be ignored by parents. With boys of a young junior age most heads agreed that it was "best" to cane small bottoms rather than small hands.

After 1960 things started to change. While most prep schools and church run schools still tended to cane on the bottom, state schools and senior private schools tended to cane more on the hands. This was due to more links in caning the bottom and sexual motivation. The Heads Teachers Union did advise members to cane on the hands rather than the bottom, certsainly as the activities of STOPP increased. After 1960 more boys tried to reduce the effects of the cane if used on the bottom. One of the old tricks was to wear two pairs of pants.It would be an unwise head that checked a boys bottom for padding.. Some boys would put a thin sheet of exercise paper between their pants and bottom which was impossible to detect when the boy bent over, even with the tighest of trousers.This reduced the sting about 50%. Heads started to cane more on the hands as they could see that they were caning flesh not a piece of paper.

At St Peters and when I moved to a private prep school I still carried on caning on the bottom, which was bared. State heads dare not do it but in both cases the relationship between parents and myself was not remote like it was between state heads and parents.

I think the Barry Tavner case in 1987 when the judge instructed the jury to find the teacher not guilty by saying " one expects to be hit hard" and was a clear indication in private schools where the cane was still used, that it was safer to cane on the bottom than the hands. Breaking a finger would result in a conviction but a bruised bottom would not...it was expected.

Of course the whole issue about caning on the hands or bottom varied greatly from area to area and by type of school to type of school. More to the point by the date and parents attitudes.


George

I can attest from experience that the most effective method of CP for (especially adolescent) boys is an adept application of a belt across their inner-thighs just below the crotch. This works best when short pants are also requisite attire as part of their daily discipline regimen... This area of the body is most sensitive (quite so, understandably, for youths) and thus the affect/effect most meaningful. While shorts nicely facilitate this as a summary discipline, keeping boys in properly brief ones until their mid-teens has been well proven an ideal way to instil docility & teach humility; which is why it was sensibly once the custom...

Hmm, methinks the George who posted the previous contribution isn't the same George as our distinguished Honorary Life Member Retired Headmaster George who, on the face of it at least, probably posted the contribution before that.

However, I'm not going to ask Subscriptions Manager if someone is being less than gentlemanly in their selection of username, because if I do I may offend a long-standing contributor, and as everyone knows Another_Lurker never offends anyone!

I would like to point out that the post about thigh spanking is not from me...your retired headmaster.

George

Hi Retired Headmaster George. Thank you for your confirmation. As I seem to find myself saying far too often in this estimable Forum these days, it is always good to have one's suspicions vindicated.

I am glad you did not think the last post was mine, as i do not agree with it. i would like to confirm you are 100% correct, as the post at the end of Januart was mine.

George

there's a big piece on the "corpun" site about a chap who sold canes to schools in the 50s and 60s.

there's a quote from a 50s newspaper which mentioned that he doesn't approve of "thrashing" because it might damage the hands - the bum is the right place to be hit.

has anyone come across this usage before - "thrashing" meaning "caning on the hands"?

Somehow a girl's bottom being paddled by a man or witnessed by a man has played a central role in the corporal punishment debate in the States, nowhere more evident in the revisiting of Booneville paddling of Nancy so many months later as found in the somewhat adult content website, but not defined as such, in the first link; it is indeed an unconventional view and turns Nancy into quite a heroine. Even more over the top is what's found among CP opponents photos. Come on, the bruises on that schoolgirl and the bending over in the hallway of the other one is not reality but propaganda and seemingly posed by professional models in the last two links. Is there a camera permitted in the school hallways and the girl with a bruised backside looks like she's a hired model and not a recipient of a school paddling. The pictures of these so called documentary photos would be frowned upon among many of this esteem Forum but I hope not censored for the purpose of this posting.

The truth of the moderate nature of that televised Booneville incident shows that a student isn't abused every time when being hit. One could argue emotionally or psychologically but that should be argued on the political level. I think it's time for the USA to realize as long as there is compulsory schooling between 6 and 16 CP, in fairness both genders should receive CP up until that age, where permitted. Nancy was 16 and I think that is a good time to stop paddling because by that time most parents have stopped physically punishing their child. History has shown bans on CP upon a girl's bottom when she reaches the age of 12 have been in place since the early 1900s and such a policy would make that argument of those against CP a moot one but I doubt of that will mute them.


http://disciplinedfeminist.blogspot.com/2009/04/courage-to-submit-unlikely-role-model.html

http://www.chelanschools.org/ms/Persuasive%20newsletter/PM%20Core/Snickers.pdf

http://nospankingzone.org/_wsn/page2.html

Ryan1 The American Way included the ruler on the hand was common prior to Vatican II when nuns were plentiful.



CAPITAN HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT HANDBOOK 2008 - 2009

Capitan Schools are a community where everyone is valued, safe, ...... paddling with a wooden paddle supplied by the school and only on the gluteus maximus....

www.capitan.k12.nm.us/publications/chshand.pdf

Renee from TWP on anatomy wrote in April about the gluteus maximus and rape versus corporal punishment.

http://teacherswhopaddle.wordpress.com/2009/04/25/ptaves-belated-response/

Now a lesson in Ancient History from yours truly, the American Way, who was Gluteus Maximus? He was a victorious Roman general noted for bringing up the rear. Yes he was! An amazing accomplishment! I had assumed that he would have turned tail under the circumstances. Butt there he was, boldly sending up another Buttalion.

The target of the CP intentions is shown in this remarkable school video scene. They're from Vietnam and not Thailand. I tried the Google language search by copy and paste. The number of strokes on the hand are incredible as well as their stoicism in spite of tears. There doesn't even look like there is a set amount. The students watching almost seem oblivious so it must be an everyday occurence. The second video the strokes are given on the bottom which doesn't look as painful. What amazes me is the lack of decorum and empathy of the students as well as the care the teacher takes in readying the cane. In the second (shorter video) it almost seems as if the kids are taking glee in their classmates misfortune especially when it's the girl's turn. They don't get hit as hard but they don't get a free pass either. I notice the girl didn't have to go over the table. The students are definitely aware they're being filmed. I wonder if the kids will suffer reprisals for putting it on you tube. And the UN call school paddlings here torture. Can anyone understand the dialogue? It would be interesting. I'm sure Colin Farrel will make stars out of them. How severe would you consider the CP administered on a 1 to 10 scale in your memory and Dr Dominum's practice?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toAmZT_H6_Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vt_JBILn1Y

Hi American Way. You say:

They're from Vietnam and not Thailand. I tried the Google language search by copy and paste.

And the Another_Lurker prize for imagination, lateral thinking, effort and dedication to the objectives of this estimable Forum goes to .......

American Way!

Seriously American Way, an excellent idea! The phrase 'bao luc hoc duong' (which according to Google Language Services means 'school violence') or variants thereof seems to crop up in a raft of YouTube videos, at least some of which appear to be genuine school CP.

The first of your videos is I think almost certainly genuine and as you say the pupils do not seem to see it as anything out of the ordinary. I thought it was sheer viciousness on the part of the female teacher. How those youngsters kept extending their hands each time for so many hard strokes I cannot imagine.

The second video I'm not so sure of. If the teacher couldn't hear the 'cameraman' with the camera phone shouting at other pupils to move out of shot then he must have been deaf! Or maybe teachers in Vietnam don't mind classroom CP being filmed - who knows. An interesting touch that when the girl got to the head of the queue for punishment the teacher apparently sent her to clean the blackboard and wait until last. The CP implement was interesting. I thought it was a flail of some sort at first. Certainly not a cane, unlike the implement in the first video which I think was a cane or switch.

The second video had been edited rather more than the average surreptitious school video, and was plastered with adverts for this website. I suspect we'd need a local to tell us if the scene was genuine or not.

Anyway, from the seemingly unlimited number of Vietnamese school CP videos you have unearthed here is one more, interesting because the teacher has a nice line in back-hand strokes. Unusual that, I don't ever remember seeing a teacher use the back-hand when administering corporal punishment. Interesting to hear if any other visitors here have observed or been subject to this technique!

Thank you. There was some classroom decorum and self control on her part that was lacking in the second video. In spite of it being routine it was meant to deter and there and some empathy shown from the students. She made an occasional glance at the students. The videographer would have gotten into trouble if he or she were caught.

The second video is beyond me. It was of the teachers gone wild genre. There was no respect shown to the teacher, fear of pain or seeming loss of face. When he pointed the flail at a student he was acting like a schoolyard bully not a classroom teacher.

Vietnam like the Korean teachers in Corpun video could be titled teachers gone wild. Malaysian students are being prepared to succeed in a Western world. I can't say that about Korea or Vietnam and I fear for their future.

The woman in the first video was harsh by the American Way standards with I'm sure some abuses by exception now and more so in the sixties and seventies. The older children in the second video looked like they're being lined up for a shot and showed little dread and in fact suffered much less than the students caned on the hand. From what I can tell from this esteem Forum near the time of the abolishment in Europe the use of the cane were similar to the sane and safe practice of the paddle here. And I think if the truth be told more teachers would like to bring the cane back than the surprisingly high numbers shown in recent surveys in Europe and the teachers the other 29 states. When you take an option away something away you're making it harder on the teacher and making it rougher on the students in the long run. When you take something away it's harder to bring it back. When you keep it or bring it back you're not telling a teacher to hit nor are you telling a teacher not to hit. And is that a bad thing?

Don't you think in the first video the teacher qualifies for workers compensation? Repetitive stress injury would be just a matter of time. It brings new meaning to this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you. My heart goes out to her. Check out Table 3 A8.

http://www.lhc.org.uk/members/pubs/books/rsi/ch09.htm

Hi American Way. Ah, that interpretation of the phrase often attributed to teachers administering CP had not previously occurred to me. I have to say though that I never heard a teacher say it!

In this case I would have little sympathy with any attempt by the Miss in the video to claim for RSI. Unless the children punished had committed a major 'crime' (serious assult on staff, burning down half the school, dropping a sweet paper in the corridor etc.) the punishment was totally excessive.

My niece is actually a teacher in Vietnam at the moment, and was here on holiday last week. I hadn't seen the video then but I'm not sure how I would have raised the subject with her even if I had seen it then.

She teaches English to two classes, one seven year olds and the other forteen year olds.She says the seven year olds are typical children of that age and do mess about in class, though there is always another local teacher present. The fourteen year olds though are totally respectful and she never has the slightest problem with any of them.

I have no idea whether CP is used in her schools, but I reckon had she witnessed something like that shown, she would have mentioned it, if not to me but certainly her parents.

The target thus far has been the hand or the bottom. The American Way was girls on the hands only while some boys on the bottom before the advent of the paddle as the instrument of choice. I think that age group was based on puberty as well and not as someone suggested the setting of a grade. To my knowledge 12 would not correspond to a natural demarcation in a step in schooling (e.g. middle school/high school).

The bare bottom was fair game where for the first time I read that the shoulders were the target for girls. IMHO is a dangerous to health adjustment due to modesty. You figure. Historical mention of girls in Victorian times getting it on shoulders. It is odd that they objectified a woman's bathing suit are clothed as sexual and supposedly not a boys bare bottom. You figure.

girls shoulder target of CP intention

American Way ,

Jane Eyre : charlotte Bronte:-

Chapter 6


A chapter having been read through twice, the books were closed and the girls examined. The lesson had comprised part of the reign of Charles I., and there were sundry questions about tonnage and poundage and ship-money, which most of them appeared unable to answer; still, every little difficulty was solved instantly when it reached Burns: her memory seemed to have retained the substance of the whole lesson, and she was ready with answers on every point. I kept expecting that Miss Scatcherd would praise her attention; but, instead of that, she suddenly cried out -

"You dirty, disagreeable girl! you have never cleaned your nails this morning!"

Burns made no answer: I wondered at her silence. "Why," thought I, "does she not explain that she could neither clean her nails nor wash her face, as the water was frozen?"

My attention was now called off by Miss Smith desiring me to hold a skein of thread: while she was winding it, she talked to me from time to time, asking whether I had ever been at school before, whether I could mark, stitch, knit, &c.; till she dismissed me, I could not pursue my observations on Miss Scatcherd's movements. When I returned to my seat, that lady was just delivering an order of which I did not catch the import; but Burns immediately left the class, and going into the small inner room where the books were kept, returned in half a minute, carrying in her hand a bundle of twigs tied together at one end. This ominous tool she presented to Miss Scatcherd with a respectful curtesy; then she quietly, and without being told, unloosed her pinafore, and the teacher instantly and sharply inflicted on her neck a dozen strokes with the bunch of twigs. Not a tear rose to Burns' eye; and, while I paused from my sewing, because my fingers quivered at this spectacle with a sentiment of unavailing and impotent anger, not a feature of her pensive face altered its ordinary expression.

"Hardened girl!" exclaimed Miss Scatcherd; "nothing can correct you of your slatternly habits: carry the rod away."

Burns obeyed: I looked at her narrowly as she emerged from the book-closet; she was just putting back her handkerchief into her pocket, and the trace of a tear glistened on her thin cheek.

The play-hour in the evening I thought the pleasantest fraction of the day at Lowood: the bit of bread, the draught of coffee swallowed at five o'clock had revived vitality, if it had not satisfied hunger: the long restraint of the day was slackened; the schoolroom felt warmer than in the morning--its fires being allowed to burn a little more brightly, to supply, in some measure, the place of candles, not yet introduced: the ruddy gloaming, the licensed uproar, the confusion of many voices gave one a welcome sense of liberty.

On the evening of the day on which I had seen Miss Scatcherd flog her pupil, Burns, I wandered as usual among the forms and tables and laughing groups without a companion, yet not feeling lonely: when I passed the windows, I now and then lifted a blind, and looked out; it snowed fast, a drift was already forming against the lower panes; putting my ear close to the window, I could distinguish from the gleeful tumult within, the disconsolate moan of the wind outside.

Probably, if I had lately left a good home and kind parents, this would have been the hour when I should most keenly have regretted the separation; that wind would then have saddened my heart; this obscure chaos would have disturbed my peace! as it was, I derived from both a strange excitement, and reckless and feverish, I wished the wind to howl more wildly, the gloom to deepen to darkness, and the confusion to rise to clamour.

Jumping over forms, and creeping under tables, I made my way to one of the fire-places; there, kneeling by the high wire fender, I found Burns, absorbed, silent, abstracted from all round her by the companionship of a book, which she read by the dim glare of the embers.

"Is it still 'Rasselas'?" I asked, coming behind her.

"Yes," she said, "and I have just finished it."

And in five minutes more she shut it up. I was glad of this. "Now," thought I, "I can perhaps get her to talk." I sat down by her on the floor.

"What is your name besides Burns?"

"Helen."

"Do you come a long way from here?"

"I come from a place farther north, quite on the borders of Scotland."

"Will you ever go back?"

"I hope so; but nobody can be sure of the future."

"You must wish to leave Lowood?"

"No! why should I? I was sent to Lowood to get an education; and it would be of no use going away until I have attained that object."

"But that teacher, Miss Scatcherd, is so cruel to you?"

"Cruel? Not at all! She is severe: she dislikes my faults."

"And if I were in your place I should dislike her; I should resist her. If she struck me with that rod, I should get it from her hand; I should break it under her nose."

"Probably you would do nothing of the sort: but if you did, Mr. Brocklehurst would expel you from the school; that would be a great grief to your relations. It is far better to endure patiently a smart which nobody feels but yourself, than to commit a hasty action whose evil consequences will extend to all connected with you; and besides, the Bible bids us return good for evil."

"But then it seems disgraceful to be flogged, and to be sent to stand in the middle of a room full of people; and you are such a great girl: I am far younger than you, and I could not bear it."

"Yet it would be your duty to bear it, if you could not avoid it: it is weak and silly to say you CANNOT BEAR what it is your fate to be required to bear."