I see with interest that this topic continues unabated, between Dr D and Prof N, within another thread! It is however becoming quite deep and has the propensity to make me feel somewhat academically challenged!

Some of you may think that my interjection in this debate may be somewhat overstated, however I am not blind as to why most if not all of us find ourselves followers of this forum. I often wonder if things had been different, if there had been no automatic exemption from corporal punishment for girls, would they have behaved differently and more importantly would I along with thousands of others not been driven by a fetish for many years. There were many instances during my school years which contributed to my state of mind but on this occasion will recall just the earliest.

In the winter of 1963 during my last year in Junior School, whilst playing in the school yard at lunchtime, we were busy skating on ice formed on the tarmac surface. This was a common pastime, though frowned upon by teachers (even before health and safety!) Inevitably there were accidents, most of which only resulted in the odd graze or a tear to clothing. The girl who skated across the ice in front of me failed to clear the line and as I approached at speed on the ice, we collided. The end result was that she was knocked into the wall ahead of her, initially I thought that she was alright, but soon afterwards we noticed that her nose was bleeding. At first there were no recriminations, but when the whistle blew and the classes formed their line up, the girls nose bleed was spotted by one of the teachers. This young lady questioned the girl as to how it had happened and the reply came without equivocation, that I had pushed her into the wall. Everyone knew that this was an over simplification of the facts but with discipline very strict, no talking unless spoken to during line up, was carefully observed. The girl with the bloody nose was whisked away to the medical room (basically a cupboard with a box of plasters in those days)whilst I was propelled to wait outside the headmaster's office. Ten minutes later the teacher returned and entered the head's office only to open the door and invite me in, after her version of events had been explained. There was no opportunity for me to explain myself or to take account of what others had seen, it was, as far as they were concerned a straight forward case of bullying, and what was worse, the bullying of a girl. Whilst the po faced young lady stood with folded arms, I was berated in the usual manner, the headmaster leaving me in no doubt what his opinion was of boys hitting girls and his way of dealing with it. I wasn't sure if I would get the cane or the slipper, the cane was normally only used at this school for serious matters, however any notions of getting the slipper was soon dispelled as he reached behind his tall cupboard and removed his cane. Sorry but all these years later I can't remember much about the cane itself but was told to hold out my hand as he stood on one side of me. Remarkably similar to the scene from the film KES some years later, I was given three hard and excrutiatingly painful strokes across the hand. I began to cry after the second stroke and after the third tucked my hand underneath my armpit. Shocked by the pain, I heard him demand that I hold out my other hand, which took not a little time and more shouting for me to achieve. Another three strokes were then laid into my other hand with similar results. More shouting, after which the female teacher pinched my ear and marched me out of the office, telling me to return to my class. During all of this, the teacher who could not have been out of her early twenties, never once gave any expression of sympathy or comfort, to her it was a job well done. Hurt not just by the caning but also by the injustice of the event, I eventually got over it, until a few weeks later when another incident that did not involve me happened. Another girl in my class who was a notorious bully of younger children, began a fight with another girl in the toilets during which one of the mirrors above the sinks was broken and a girl received serious cuts to her arm which needed stitches when taken to hospital. This notoriously violent incident only merited a good telling off for the offending girl and a letter home to her parents. I know I wasn't the only boy who felt the sting of injustice at this turn of events.

A year later, now at "big school" where it soon became clear that corporal punishment was used much more frequently. A new school meant new faces, both in classmates and staff. We soon all got to learn who were the soft touch teachers and those whose wrath was to be avoided at all costs, well certainly for boys as once again, still in the same local education authority area, meant the same rules regarding the cane and slipper. At this stage in adolescence, boys and girls were starting to "notice" each other in different ways, but girls were certainly a mystery to me, they would say and do some seemingly strange things. We sat at desks in pairs, boys generally sitting with boys and vice versa. Behind me in most classes were two girls who I had noticed because they were attractive, but treated boys with total indifference. Their first names were Margaret and Carol. One day in the school grounds during breaktime, they approached me as I stood alone. Margaret made a statement which I shall never forget as it was so odd, "We think that we would like to see you get the cane". Both smiled at me with that "we know something you don't" look. I remember I was so embarrased by this and just flushed and mumbled some ridiculous reply, to which they just giggled and walked away. Events in the classroom with slipper and cane were almost a weekly event, sometimes more and we all knew those classes that involved significant risks for the boys. One of these was Maths which for a few weeks was taken by the woodwork teacher during the regular teacher's absence. This man was later categorised as one of many in the teaching profession, as a nasty little man with a penchant for the cane. His normal mode was to use not a normal school cane but lengths of dowel rod from his wood store. We had seen him use a variety of rods according to the age and offence. Our woodwork room was directly across from the domestic science room. Once the ds teacher had sent an older boy who was doing cookery for his options choices, across to the woodwork class for the cane from Mr P. We saw him remove a much larger length of dowel to cane this older boy. We kept our heads well down that afternoon having witnessed a hell of a caning, well it seemed that way to us younger boys. One day whilst in Mr P's maths lesson we had all received a warning to keep quiet as he needed to concentrate on doing some marking. One or two failed to heed the warning, and to be fair to him, he didn't react straight away but said that the next boy to cause a problem would be caned. Five minutes later I felt a sharp pain in the middle of my back, to which I reacted naturally with a loud "ouch". I was called out straight to the front of the class, where I received the customary rollicking from Mr P, then told to stand facing the blackboard. He clearly didn't have a cane to hand, so sent one of the class monitors (a girl) to go across to the empty woodwork room and bring a cane which he said was on his desk. During the wait for the cane to be brought across, I had time to think and realised that the sharp jab I had felt was nothing more than a simple dig with a sharp pencil, delivered by one of the two girls who sat behind me. (I later found out that it was Margaret who had leaned across and poked my shirt covered back). They were no doubt anticipating the outcome of their efforts. Five minutes later the class monitor returned with the requested length of dowel rod. Now you might think that I would have voiced my complaints about what had happened, but be assured, we boys had long worked out that it just didn't pay to argue, a compliant approach was always best. Mr P cleared his desk temporarily of homework books and told me to "get across". As I approached the desk, with a thousand and one things going through my head, I saw that the cane he had in is hand was what looked like the longer, thicker dowel that we had seen him use on the older boy previously. Again, I later found out that on entering the woodwork room, the girl had found no less than three dowel rods lying on his desk and just picked one up without thinking (or so she said). Stretched across the teachers desk with my trousered rear facing the class, I had little time for further pondering as the first of four very hard strokes landed full across. I don't care what others say, but for a young boy, it hurts beyond all reason and I saw very few who could keep themselves under control during a hard caning. I was no different and yelled from the first and was crying well before the last. At the instruction to return to my seat, I managed to keep myself from rubbing but as I sat down gave another sharp yelp of pain. Well I did naturally have a go later at the two girls for their antics but was once again careful not push things too far as I didn't wish a repeat caning any time soon. This was the first occasion that I noticed the varying reactions to the classroom punishment and one which was confirmed to me on other occasions now that my interest was stirred. All the boys without question kept their heads down, even to the point of avoiding eye contact with the teacher about to cane or who had just caned. Amongst the fifteen or so girls, half a dozen were wide eyed and keen for the show to commence, another half dozen were totally ambivalent to what was about to happen or had just happened. The rest were either scared themselves or had some sympathy for the boy across the desk.

That's enough recollections for now, but an interesting post script to that event took place many years later during a "school re-union" evening. These reunions were just starting to take off, but pre-dated things like friends re-united on the web. Many of the conversations I noted were about classroom events and "do you remember what so and so did" etc. Quite a few conversations turned to what was perceived as the over use of the cane during our school years, in fact the two women who organised the evening deliberatley didn't invite any teachers who were still in the land of the living, as they didn't want any unpleasantness because of punishments given to some of the boys years ago. Margaret had now turned into a middle aged but non the less attractive woman and during the evening, after some intake of alcaholic beverage, I approached the lady and engaged her in conversation, during which she revealed that she became a social worker, well I nearly spilt my drink! I asked her why she and Carol (in another conversation at the bar) had me caned the way they did. At first she said she failed to recall the incident, but when pushed, the reply was quite shocking, "It was only a bit of fun, get over it!". It may have been fun for them but for me it was another very painful and possibly life changing event. A little after the reunion, I found out that Margaret, in her professional capacity had been involved in an "Inspection Team" whose job was to inspect private school establishments in the county. This was a national requirement during the 80's and afterwards. She was on the team that carried out an inspection of "The Rodney School" near Newark and their report was heavily critical of the fact that corporal punishment was used on girl students! It took me some time to stop laughing before I felt more than a little nauseous at the hypocrisy.

Sorry for the long post, but I am sure this will ring true for many others who may read this forum. If so I am sure we would like to hear your recollections. There are one or two more of mine but they can wait until another time.

Zeno

Zeno
During reading what you wrote here I found my self really angry (despite the years passed and that I am not English at all).
I already located a discussion here called "Vengeance for CP" and I think I could be really happy to read about yours (that I guess didn't happened).
For my opinion you have more to blame the school's policy (and staff) these days then these bitches (at least as an adults I expect them to apologize for this disgusting trick).

Zeno, a really interesting post indicating a number of issues including the male/female debate and another which whilst I have been on the forum has not been explored in depth the difference in the use of cp between junior and senior schools. Now the latter is an extensive topic which I have before promised but so far failed to explore....and whilst fascinating, I will leave untouched at this juncture.

As my time is limited ( I really thought I had finished posting before holiday), I shall confine myself here to a few , hopefully straightforward comments about the debate that Zeno referred to between , amongst others myself and Dr. Dominum.

Let me just recap. In reality there is little difference in practice between the position advocated by Dr. Dominum and that I have myself articulated. The major point really revolves not around students as a whole , but around certain groups of students. Whilst it is probably fair to say in general-that fewer girls either committed offences worthy of say , the cane than boys, and equally that there are more girls psychologically unsuited to that type of punishment, it is not an absolute judgement.

Indeed there are certain groups if you like sub groups- of girls who tend to commit certain offences just as predictably as boys, that is to say , bullying, theft and lying. Indeed I now one Headmistress of a mixed senior school who would repeat that there were far more girls who committed petty theft than boys, but that staff were unwilling to confront girls with the safe frankness as boys- in particular male staff. One swallow doesn't make a summer, but its an interesting starting point.

Indeed the under reporting of female crime in a male dominated and orientated criminal justice system is a quite commonly reported phenomenon. For whilst some women suffer disproportionately for minor crimes, normally those who fail to comply with the classic social female stereotype, our classic middle class female mother is treated with considerable leniency in the initial stages of crime , having far more second chances than a male in the same situation. Indeed even on this site we have seen the occasional female who accepts being treated according to the rules i.e. not being treated exceptionally) as worthy of near hero status .whilst we expect the same of a man without question. There are , as I have said, no actions in this world which are not socially mediated by the prevailing ideology.

However to return to Zeno story. It seems to me that students are students. Each has a specific socio-psychological profile which determines whether they are suitable for such punishment and there also are important medical markers, which may do the same. Nevertheless, whilst there are tendencies to a preponderance of certain typologies in females, and other typologies in males, the real world is messy , and all of us , as I have said before are strung out on a continuum. It is of course useful for administrative purposes to divide along sex lines, but that is convenience , nothing more nor less. So the girl who lied may not be typical of all girls ; the girls who deliberately got our correspondent caned in senior school may not be stereotypical of the average girl in that school , but they are a sub group who probably share certain important general characteristics with a sub group of boys who would act in the same way. Now if we were to mix up all these subjects according to their typologies as offenders, liars, cheats, thieves, bullies, of course we might find sub typologies....for example ,as has been discussed extensively , elsewhere , low and high esteem bullies. It may well be appropriate to deal with such sub types differently, - that is defensible....but not to simply fail to consider all say liars initially alike, until there is evidence to the contrary , because some are male and some female is in my view mistaken.

There is a further complication, what my headmistress friend calls the 'sugar and spice' belief. She claims that too many staff both male and female will accept a girl's explanation without demur, but consider all boys born liars. Actually polygraph evidence from the US indicates this is untrue and the propensity of both sexes to lie is pretty equal but the propensity to be believed is often far higher for women except in certain specific categories of statement , including , as we know, for the crime of rape.

So my objection to Dr. Sax was not that he doesn't have some valuable insight yes he does, but that he reinforces the dominant Judeo Christian ethic of the inviolability of womanhood, as ideological and social device, intended to divide and separate the sexes for a variety of reasons ranging from religious -ideological and socio sexual taboos to the effective deployment of knowledge. This is why, of course the Christian Right salute him!

He does this by methodologically separating the continuum of sexual differentiation , into two discrete categories each with their own social symbolism, and ideology, represented by differential pedagogy and communication and discipline . That a spectrum of methods is needed to deal with a continuum of student need is not in dispute. But that you can draw a dividing line most surely is. That line creates substantial minorities in each group who are inadequately provided for in the generality of this dualism.

But this dualism is not unique to him , far from it, as Zeno points out it permeates the entirety of the educational system and has done so for years. It is the problem of Weberian 'Ideal typologies' generally true to some extent of most , atypical of some , and with an inbuilt tendency to generalise the uniqueness of the ideal..

Zeno's first example shows the escape of the liar, but also a girl who may well have fallen into the expected social role anticipated by the teacher. Boy bumps into her....must be bully....The second incident is more sinister, and one can only wonder if the girls concerned would have been so keen to send someone for the cane if they had themselves or their friends been subject to it? .In the second case obviously the teacher was either half blind or grossly inattentive whether by accident or design. Further more the atmosphere where the boy feels he is intimidated from disputing the truth , is regrettably typical, but grossly unacceptable.

Let me finish with two stories to illustrate my starting point. One at school , one in adult life. First the school story.

My friend miss F of course before teaching us was deputy head (one of two in our sister school. A lower fifth girl was sent to her one day for smoking. To be fair to the girl concerned she had a impeccable discipline record and was a polite A grade student and a credit to the school . Indeed she was seen as a future Head girl ( Head girls were all things sugar and spice ; head boys well that's something else.....) there are a lot of facets to this story for the potential teacher, but I'll only highlight one. Most staff would have let the girl off with perhaps a few lines or a detention at worst...first offence A grade student unblemished record.........and really remorseful and contrite to boot.( Believe me this student meant it as well) Certainly not a potential re-offender. Miss F was adamant ..she must either take the cane (the 'advertised' tariff for her offence)or, if she refused be suspended, which would blot her school record. The girl was distraught, Miss F spent a long time with her and eventually coaxed her to accept.

Why? What did it achieve apart from enhancing Miss F's 'hard' reputation? Well according to her and this later to be Head girl a lot. Miss F argued that she was a potential head girl. Someday she herself might have to refer girls , probably of a very different nature and background from herself, to the Deputy head, and they may well , in extremis, get caned. What did that look like, and more importantly, how could she do it, if she herself was not prepared to accept this discipline when is was earned? She would be completely morally compromised. ....Miss F 'won' giving her some leeway on the 'normal' tariff in recognition of her record and contrite apology ( highly unusual)....Years later when I discussed with the now young lady concerned she agreed that the Deputy head , whilst understanding and sympathetic to her plight, was right to insist...for .....High office carries high responsibility ; and as Zeno reminds us all actions carry consequences which you shouldn't be able to avoid, no matter who you are... ( Alamo values!). .......

The second story concerns the Headmistress friend I mentioned above. We were not so long ago travelling together to London on an inter city train. We were in the quiet carriage, both settling down to a well deserved G&T, when all of a sudden two young 'ladies' , I would guess fresh in their first executive jobs sat down behind us. They were gabbing into their mobile phones like they were a new toy........my friend, well I may be a mere man, but I needed no lessons on how to read her body language........When they started on their second call ...she got up approached them and in her best headmistress voice informed them that either they were unable to read .this was mobile switched off carriage...or they were just incredibly ignorant and insolent, they could take their pick, but whichever- turn those phones off now!!!.They did without demur. I regret to admit none of the remaining passengers in the carriage, nearly all business men , and of course including myself , would have dared do this. We wouldn't have thought twice, however if it had been one of our kind. She returned to her seat to applause! .and then proceeded to lecture me on male social conditioning....what push overs we all were...and how women/girls wrapped all men- especially male teachers- round their little fingers...........Sorry Zeno , plus ça change , plus la même choses ; cold comfort there I'm afraid!!

Zeno,

You have been the victim of injustice and it still clearly rankles. How long ago was this?

Fifty years ago boys and girls were essentially different species with very different futures ahead of them. Most girls were destined to marry young and to have families. WW2 was not long over and the red menace and yellow peril were a concern. Boys needed to be toughened for future conflict. It was taken for granted that boys and girls were treated differently. Anyway, boys were far naughtier and far more inclined to commit those offences that were punished by caning. Things have changed.

Hi Zeno. A most interesting post, thank you. I'm pleased that you decided to open your own thread. I can't readily point you at any instances in this Forum, but I'm pretty sure that when browsing through past threads here I've come across posts relating similar experiences to yours. You were very unlucky to suffer twice as a result of feminine machinations!

You say above:

We soon all got to learn who were the soft touch teachers and those whose wrath was to be avoided at all costs, well certainly for boys as once again, still in the same local education authority area, meant the same rules regarding the cane and slipper.

I take this to mean that your LEA banned the cane or slipper for girls altogether. I'm no expert, but I think this was quite unusual. I've just tried clarify the situation with regard to this, but it certainly isn't easy to do, and in any event it would probably vary over the years. There is some information on the excellent Corpun.com site here. Whilst this is not an itemised list it does say amongst other things:

Richmond was also unusual in adding that girls, unlike boys, must not be caned at all, though they could be slapped with the open hand.

which does suggest that not many LEAs banned the corporal punishment of girls altogether.

A more usual situation was, I think, for an individual school to ban CP for girls. Where this was a mixed school the sort of incidents you describe would probably be inevitable, especially at the secondary level. Young girls are I think pre-programmed to be far more interested in manipulating and controlling people and 'people' events than boys of equivalent age. It would be almost certain that some of them would investigate the possibility of involving boys in punishments that they were not themselves subject to, particularly if these punishments would be administered in front of the class, a ready indicator of success!

The young female teacher who was involved in your Junior School caning was probably not unusual either. At my Infant and Junior schools readiness to use and severity in applying CP was almost in inverse proportion to the age of the teacher. The young lady teacher who administered the punishment that made me firmly resolve to try to avoid school CP thereafter (documented January 9 2009, 8:14 AM here) was in fact the youngest teacher I had there. The male teacher whose punishment of a female classmate may possibly have a bearing on my presence here was also relatively young. I think that young teachers perhaps felt they had something to prove in the class contol and discipline stakes.

The later punishment does indicate though that things weren't always biased against boys. Sometimes girls got a raw deal. At my Junior school both boys and girls were subject to a variety of corporal punishments, though being in general rather better behaved (or possibly more aware of how to avoid going that little bit too far) girls were punished rather less often than boys. However, by far the worse punishment I saw was of a girl. It made a big impression on me for a number of reasons, one of the minor ones being that at the start of the incident I thought I might get whacked as well. The girl who was punished had spoken to me when we weren't supposed to talk, and some teachers invariably punished both parties in that circumstance on a guilt by association basis.

The incident is documented, rather lengthily, on April 11 2008, 12:02 PM here. The incorporated link doesn't work and is corrected in the next post down. When I wrote that post I was convinced that the teacher involved was what is known in this estimable Forum as a 'kinky teacher'. Now, having read several similar accounts, I'm not so sure, maybe he was just over-zealous. I also used to think the incident was what brought me here. Now I think it probably helped, but I'm convinced there's a great deal more to it - maybe there's a gene!

And finally, Zeno, you're not by any chance still in touch with Margaret are you? Any information about CP practices at the Rodney School, Kirklington, near Newark would be very gratefully received for the 'The Rodney School - Caning Myth or Caning Reality?' thread here. Information from an inspection would be invaluable! One small point. You say:

I found out that Margaret, in her professional capacity had been involved in an "Inspection Team" whose job was to inspect private school establishments in the county. This was a national requirement during the 80's and afterwards. She was on the team that carried out an inspection of "The Rodney School" near Newark

I take this to mean that she was originally on inspection teams in your county and later on a national team which happened to inspect the Rodney School, because Nottinghamshire, where Rodney School was situated, and Nottingham, weren't LEAs that banned CP of girls in state schools.

Don't delay too long with those other recollections you mention, as I said above your foundation post in this thread was much appreciated.

Many thanks A_L, Prof N (hope you enjoy your holiday!) and Dr D for their courteous replies. I will if I may, put down in writing thoughts that have occurred whilst reading them.

"I take this to mean that your LEA banned the cane or slipper for girls altogether. I'm no expert, but I think this was quite unusual. I've just tried clarify the situation with regard to this, but it certainly isn't easy to do, and in any event it would probably vary over the years."

My school years were from 1957 to 1968 and during this time frame very little changed with regard to policy in corporal punishment. The swinging sixties it might have been but attitudes to the cane had changed little since the war. From my own research, there was a significant minority of authorities who had an outright ban on corporal punishment for girls. At the same time there were also a similar number of authorities who had no specific rules for this matter. However the majority did have specific limitations or restrictions on the punishment of girls. This could either be in the form of restricting any such punishment to the hands and/or in laying down proscriptive circumstances where corporal punishment could be given to girls. Align these policies to those of individual schools where many of the headmasters came from a generation which certainly subscribed to the sugar and spice and a need to toughen up boys culture. So it is easy to see how for instance girls in my own county at the time, where the rules were one of restriction and limitations, together with the individual schools own stance, would clearly think that they had total immunity. Before I forget, during my first recollection, I may have indicated that I didn't think that punishment with the slipper was of much consequence. I know that to be very untrue, the slipper can be made to hurt horribly, even in some circumstances being as painful as the cane, I apologise for this.

".take this to mean that she was originally on inspection teams in your county and later on a national team which happened to inspect the Rodney School, because Nottinghamshire, where Rodney School was situated, and Nottingham, weren't LEAs that banned CP of girls in state schools."

Just to clarify things. In more recent years it is a requirement of the local authority in which any private school is situated for the Social Services and LEA to carry out regular inspections both for the welfare of the students and basic academic standards. It was simply a requirement for all such schools in the England and Wales to undergo these inspections. My information indicates that Margaret was a member of the team that inspected the Rodney School after the national ban on corporal punishment in state schools in 1988, but long before the eventual ban on this type of punishment in private schools a decade or so later. Unfortunately I am not in touch with this lady as the meeting was now some seven or eight years ago and it was merely the nature of the gathering which allowed me to legitimately bring up the subject.

I would also agree with comments about the endemic and prolific manner in which the cane and slipper were used in my time. Tom Scotts book The Last Resort, gives away the lie in the title. We all knew that it was without doubt the first resort to be used by many teachers, whether this was out of idleness or a natural zeal for beating. It seemed to me that a boy was just as likely to be severely caned for throwing a paper aeroplane as for stealing or fighting. When the television programme Thatll Teach Em was aired a few years ago, they could only intimate the prolific use of the cane, but were forbidden by laws from using it in the programme no matter what the nature of the so called reality programming style. The television channel forum was very quickly clogged by many who indicated that such a programme could never indicate the reality of school life in the fifties because of the lack of the obvious lack of violence.

It is also true that life was very different for boys and girls at this time, with entirely different life expectations and opportunities. However, acceptance of this as a reason to treat boys in way they did ran right through to the commencement of the total ban. This was where females decided that they would try and pick and choose which areas of equality they actually wanted.

The cultural aspect of peoples attitudes to corporal punishment is very strong. I am always amazed to find as many exceptions to the rule where girls were actually caned or slippered, particularly in the UK. The gender rules for corporal punishment were very rigidly imposed by Britain throughout its Empire. Wherever the Brits have been in the world, we seem to have left them with a keen interest in using corporal punishment. Notably, South Africa, Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong and of course Australia & New Zealand. In nearly all of these countries corporal apartheid in terms of gender became the norm and still is today, whether it relates to Judical or School corporal punishment. Australia seems to be the odd one out, as there were some small pockets of dissent where girls were corporally punished on occasion.

I thank Dr D for his thought provoking reply. However.
Maybe Dr D is heavily influenced by cultural attitudes, and is either influenced by the sugar and spice theory or like so many others is willing to discriminate purely on gender grounds without going the extra mile and treating all students as individuals. I do find strange though his ideas of allowing female staff to supervise or watch adolescent boys whilst changing or showering come from. It may not do any harm, but this takes absolutely no account of the feelings of very young and impressionable young men.

In a previous post Dr D indicates (in previous threads) that on odd occasions, duty nursing staff may have to witness a caning. Knowing quite a few nurses, I find it hard to imagine any of them even remotely agreeing to either attend or allow such a thing to happen. Maybe Australian nurses are of a different breed entirely, even the younger ones? Perhaps I am being unfair, as the UK today is a hotbed of political correctness where the wrong look can land you in trouble. It would perhaps have been true that nurses forty or fifty years ago, would have done their duty, when boys were caned in private prep schools. I have an extract from a book somewhere, which details a nurses sympathetic involvement in what is perhaps one of the few believable accounts of bare bottom punishment I have read. Although quite short I will try and find it. I copied the relevant page and maybe I will put into a post here. Available data tells us that such punishments were not that uncommon in prep schools, being particularly prevalent between the wars and still happening into the latter part of the twentieth century.

Finally, there have been comments indicating that it would be exceedingly rare for a female teacher to overstep the mark when caning a boy. Not perhaps as rare as we might think. Simply never reported or brought to anyones attention. As an example my own brother attended the same school some five years after me, when one day I found a letter in my parents bureau. It was a personal letter of apology from a lady teacher, because in the course of striking my brothers behind with a long steel ruler (apparently used in needlework of all things) cuts requiring stitches ensued. Now, neither my brother or my parents had told me about this (I was living away from home at the time). It seems the letter of apology was accepted and that was the end of it. At about the same time my future wife also attended the same school and was able to recall another young lady teacher striking a boys hand several times with a snooker cue, which doubled as pointer and cane. It seems the boys hand became swollen like a balloon and was out of use for several days, but again there were no repercussions as far as she was aware.

In the seemingly unregulated world of that time there were many and varied implements used by teachers which most definitely broke the rules and regulations, but this is probably a subject topic all by itself!

I will find the time A_L to put down my other instances/recollections, together with associated anecdotes for the benefit of this forum.

Finally, I dont consider myself either hard done by or particularly unlucky just a victim of time and place that this forum finally allows me to unload to.

BTW I have been unable to put text into italics so have had to rely on ""! MS word doesn't seem to transpose properly into the message text box on the forum. Any suggestions?

Zeno

Due to severe weather warnings, we've had to cancel our after-school sports training for this afternoon. This gives me an unplanned for amount of free time in which I am going to try and reply to a number of posts made here recently that I've been waiting for a decent window to reply to. So there might be something of a flood of posts from me today (or there might not be - boys can have a tendency to take up unexpected free time).

Some of you may think that my interjection in this debate may be somewhat overstated, however I am not blind as to why most if not all of us find ourselves followers of this forum. I often wonder if things had been different, if there had been no automatic exemption from corporal punishment for girls, would they have behaved differently and more importantly would I along with thousands of others not been driven by a fetish for many years. There were many instances during my school years which contributed to my state of mind but on this occasion will recall just the earliest.

It's an interesting question. I am not a spanking fetishist but I certainly had experience of a school system for the early part of my schooling where boys were officially subject to corporal punishment though girls were officially not. And I certainly saw problems that developed because of that in that environment. So I am open to the idea that such an environment can have an effect on people. But it is my impression - both from being reasonably well aware of the history of corporal punishment as it has been published in books and journals and through knowing quite a few people over the years with experience of it from a variety of angles, that it was actually quite rare for girls to be 'automatically exempt' from corporal punishment. There were obviously places in the UK where it was the case, and certainly individual schools where it was the case, and girls were nearly always, if not always, at less risk of being physically punished than boys, but that's not the same thing as an automatic exemption which did apply here in Australia in my state. But only in my state and one other was the exemption absolute - other states had partial exemptions for girls, but not to the same extent we did.

I can't see any evidence or reason to suppose corporal punishment fetishism is any more common in this state than any other. From my limited knowledge, if anything, I'd say it's somewhat less common here than the norm for Australia (which actually disrupted some of my own theories as to the origin of fetishism). I think, in the end, it's so multifactorial attempts to identify the origins of fetishism are difficult. In any individual case, you might identify a 'cause', but that tells you little about the oversall causes.

I would also agree with comments about the endemic and prolific manner in which the cane and slipper were used in my time. Tom Scotts book The Last Resort, gives away the lie in the title. We all knew that it was without doubt the first resort to be used by many teachers, whether this was out of idleness or a natural zeal for beating. It seemed to me that a boy was just as likely to be severely caned for throwing a paper aeroplane as for stealing or fighting. When the television programme Thatll Teach Em was aired a few years ago, they could only intimate the prolific use of the cane, but were forbidden by laws from using it in the programme no matter what the nature of the so called reality programming style. The television channel forum was very quickly clogged by many who indicated that such a programme could never indicate the reality of school life in the fifties because of the lack of the obvious lack of violence.

Much to my annoyance, I've only ever been able to see the third and final series of That'll Teach 'Em. It doesn't appear to have been aired in Australia, at least not on the terrestial channels, nor to have been officially released on video or DVD and even though I have educated myself as to unofficial ways to acquire programs that interest me, only the third series became available through these methods. It is rather irritating. But I would point out that even though corporal punishment was undoubtedly common and all pervasive in many schools of the time that series seeks to emulate, it was by no means common and all pervasive in every single school. There were schools in which it was a first resort as you say (and in my early days as a teacher, to my subsequent regret, that's how I used it), but there were also schoolos where it was a last resort and there were lot of schools in between. A great many people seem to come to the conclusion that their school experiences represented the 'norm'. If they went to a school where corporal punishment was used rarely, they seem to believe that's how it was in all schools. If they went to one where it was common, they seem to believe that's how it was in all schools. It's a phenomena that plagues attempts to study how schools were and how they've changed.

Here in Melbourne, most 'traditional' boys schools used the cane until at least the 1980s or early 1990s and used it fairly prolifically for much of that time. But one school - virtually identical to all the others in every other way - enacted a total ban as far back as the 1950s. One of my senior Masters went there as a boy, and taught there early in his career, and he's talked to me about the significant cognisant dissonance, he experienced when he started teaching here - because the way we did things just seemed so totally alien. Yet at the time, our model was by far the normal model.

It is also true that life was very different for boys and girls at this time, with entirely different life expectations and opportunities. However, acceptance of this as a reason to treat boys in way they did ran right through to the commencement of the total ban. This was where females decided that they would try and pick and choose which areas of equality they actually wanted.

Yes, but in many ways, that's better than the alternative.

Here women decided they wanted 'total equality' and they didn't want corporal punishment to be used in schools, so what they did as part of the feminist push was push for schools to completely abolish corporal punishment. For boys as well as girls. That was a far, far worse result for boys than the 'double standard' situation was.

In Australia, since the turn of the twenty first century, it's become widely accepted that boys have become the disadvantaged gender in education. That girls are a privileged class over boys in our schools. This idea is mainstream now. Virtually universally accepted. People are divided as to what to do about it, but it's no longer even controversial, the evidence is so strong that our education system favours girls over boys.

Why?

Well, that's interesting. It's only a recent phenomena. Up until about 1975, it was exactly the other way around. Boys were the 'privileged class' in Australian education. Boys were the ones who overwhelmingly went to university. Boys achieved higher marks at school.

In 1975, the Australian School's Commission published a report. It was called Girls, School, and Society and it examined in detail why girls were underperforming in education and set forward strategies to deal with that problem. One of its main approaches was to look at the girls schools that were doing well - bucking the trend so to speak - and to look at their methods. And to suggest strongly that schools should adopt the methods that worked best for girls as their standard practices to address the educational disadvantaged being suffered by girls.

In essence, schools were to be made more 'girl friendly'.

This became the pervasive idea in Australian educational policy for about the next twenty five years. The practices of 'the best' girls schools were spread throughout the education system to improve educational outcomes for girls. And it worked. By the early 1980s, girls educational attainment was increasing dramatically compared to that of boys. It was a resounding success and from there the idea just spread further and further and further.

Suddenly, about 1995, somebody suddenly realised that boys weren't doing very well in school anymore. This is when it became noticeable - once it was noticed, they started looking back a few years and realised it hadn't just started happening. In fact, boys educational attainment had started slipping in the early 1980s, just as the increase for girls started to become very noticeable.

It took a few years before we got anybody to take this seriously - to begin with those involved in advancing the education of girls objected strongly to any attempts to talk about boys, because they worried that a shift in focus would harm girls, but by the late 1990s, even they were starting to say "Hang on - boys are now further behind girls than girls were behind boys in 1975. This really is a problem." People started to seriously look at the problem. In 2001, the Australian Parliament convened a full parliamentary inquiry into the crisis surrounding the education of boys. It delivered its report in 2002.

In the space of 27 years (1975 to 2002) Australia went from producing government reports on why girls were being failed by the education system and what needed to be done about it to producing government reports on why boys were being failed by the education system and what needed to be done about it. There was a radical change in education in that period.

And what it boils down to is what can best be described as an increasing feminisation of education.

Educational policies were deliberately changed to match what evidence showed worked best for girls.

The result of that.

By the year 2000 or thereabouts, co-educational schools in Australia were generally operating under educational policies similar to those that had applied in girls schools in the 1970s. Boys schools - which hadn't radically changed their policies, except where forced to do so were generally still performing at similar levels to the past. Boys in co-educational schools were the ones in dire straits.

You say This was where females decided that they would try and pick and choose which areas of equality they actually wanted.

I'd much rather that approach had been the one that had prevailed here than what we actually got - which was where things were changed to be 'equal' for boys and girls, but always based on what was best for girls, and never on what was best for boys.

"Girls don't want to study Lord of the Flies - let's replace it with Pride and Prejudice."

"Girls don't want to go on long hikes through the bush on school camps. Let's have basket weaving instead."

"Having competition football and netball teams is dividing our student population. From now on everybody plays netball."

The cultural aspect of peoples attitudes to corporal punishment is very strong. I am always amazed to find as many exceptions to the rule where girls were actually caned or slippered, particularly in the UK. The gender rules for corporal punishment were very rigidly imposed by Britain throughout its Empire. Wherever the Brits have been in the world, we seem to have left them with a keen interest in using corporal punishment. Notably, South Africa, Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong and of course Australia & New Zealand. In nearly all of these countries corporal apartheid in terms of gender became the norm and still is today, whether it relates to Judical or School corporal punishment. Australia seems to be the odd one out, as there were some small pockets of dissent where girls were corporally punished on occasion.

Actually, I'd say quite the opposite.

How much influence Britain had on corporal punishment policy in Australian schools is an interesting question to begin with. I'd say culturally at least it had quite a bit - but it is important to understand that by the time the Australian colonies were setting up their own education systems, most of them had already been self governing for considerable periods of time - my state of Victoria (then the Colony of Victoria), for example, actually passed laws making education compulsory eight years before England did.

But what I want to address here is the idea that girls were most often corporally punished in Australian schools than in English ones, because I find that an odd idea.

Back around 1950 a comprehensive analysis of punishment in English schools - including punishment regulations was published.

Of the 144 LEAs at the time, not one banned the corporal punishment of girls - although just under a dozen stated it should be used rarely.

In contrast, by 1950, in Australia (where educational regulation is state based), two states had banned the corporal punishment of girls in government schools altogether (Victoria and Queensland), two had banned it for secondary school girls (New South Wales and Queensland), and one explicitly stated it should only be used in the most exceptional circumstances (Tasmania). Only one state made no rules requiring girls to be treated differently.

That's state schools in both countries - the picture is different for private schools, and anecdotally, I think Australian private girls schools might have been more likely to use it than British private girls schools, but overall, I'd be surprised if Australia was more likely for most of the twentieth century to see schoolgirls corporally punished than the UK.

I thank Dr D for his thought provoking reply. However.
Maybe Dr D is heavily influenced by cultural attitudes, and is either influenced by the sugar and spice theory or like so many others is willing to discriminate purely on gender grounds without going the extra mile and treating all students as individuals.

Believe me, as the father of daughters, I am no believer in the sugar and spice theory.

I also strongly believe that wherever possible, education should be individualised and that students should be treated as individuals. I 'go that extra mile' constantly with my students.

The thing is, though, I have to be a realist and deal with these issues in the real world - not purely theoretically. When it comes to the issue of corporal punishment, the single most important real world issues I have to deal with are legal issues. If they passed a law tomorrow banning the use of the cane, I would have to follow that law, no matter how much I believed a particular boy would benefit from the cane. Legal issues and responsibilities take precedence over and above my own personal beliefs on this issue (and not just on this issue, but this one is somewhat unusual in that legal issues are so much more potentially important than in most other issues).

I think it's possible some people who are in a position where, because corporal punishment isn't used where they are anymore, that all discussion of it can be absolutely entirely theoretical, may not fully appreciate that I don't have that same luxury of being able to think about it from a purely theoretical perspective.

One of the first things I always say to student teachers, or those who are newly qualified is "It's different on the chalkface." Theory is important, ideology is important. But real world conditions have their own special impact.

My views on the corporal punishment of girls in schools aren't based on direct personal experience - because I have such limited direct personal experience of punishing girls in a school environment. If I did, maybe my views would be different - but I don't and so I can't base my views and opinion of direct imperical observation.

In such cases, that's when I go to the theory - and current research on corporal punishment of girls is fairly unambiguous and unequivocal. It's a bad idea in general terms. Are there exceptions? Almost certainly - but until somebody can show me some sort of reliable way of identifying those exceptions, that's not all that helpful.

When I look at data that seems to clearly indicate corporal punishment might be genuinely useful and not significantly risky for less than 5% of girls and there's no data whatsoever on how to identify that 5%, that leads me to a pretty clear position.

Now, I'm on the council of my schools sister school. They do, occasionally use corporal punishment with girls. Their Principal - with a great deal more experience of educating girls than me - believes she can make reasonable judgements as to who will benefit and they also generally use it in cases where the alternative is also potentially damaging (suspension or expulsion). Maybe it can be made to work - and I'm not opposed to that. But if I can't see how to make it work myself, I'm not going to advocate it as any type of general policy.

I do believe in treating students as individuals - but if I can't identify the factor that makes a difference for an individual, that's not best practice.

I do find strange though his ideas of allowing female staff to supervise or watch adolescent boys whilst changing or showering come from. It may not do any harm, but this takes absolutely no account of the feelings of very young and impressionable young men.

Once again, these ideas are not really my ideas. They are a reflection of legal reality I have to deal with. Equal opportunity rules in this state explicitly do not allow me to stop female staff watching boys change or shower - and, in fact, duty of care makes it absolutely clear that not only are they allowed to do so, in certain circumstances, they are actually required to do so (if a child is beaten senseless in the showers, a teacher cannot say in court "I didn't see it because I'm a woman and it was the boy's showers.") We certainly do our best to avoid such a situation - for example, doing our best to make sure a male teacher is on duty in situations where supervision is likely to be required, especially with boys of the ages that are most likely to worry about such things - but the legal reality is not something we can ignore.

In a previous post Dr D indicates (in previous threads) that on odd occasions, duty nursing staff may have to witness a caning. Knowing quite a few nurses, I find it hard to imagine any of them even remotely agreeing to either attend or allow such a thing to happen. Maybe Australian nurses are of a different breed entirely, even the younger ones?

Possibly - it may be, at least, that the type who wind up as nurses in schools, especially highly traditional boys schools are. Our Matron is certainly a supporter of corporal punishment - and is allowed to use it herself, though she does so only rarely - and the other nursing staff (who are a more fluid presence in the school) seem to have some supporters and some opposed. But even those who are opposed understand their primary role in these matters is to ensure the boy is not medically compromised and I think they are professional enough to put personal feelings aside.

BTW I have been unable to put text into italics so have had to rely on ""! MS word doesn't seem to transpose properly into the message text box on the forum. Any suggestions?

Yes, you need to use HTML, surrounding the text with basic html tags.

This page might help

DOC


This might be of use re TTE:


http://download-zzz.com/?mod=server&id=asrffs16&name=THAT_LL_TEACH_EM_DVD+%5BHigh+Quality%5D

Can't see an official DVD around, but will keep looking.


Steve

Hi Dr D

As usual you have provided a comprehensive and thought provoking reply. I do like the way that you do not try and side step any issue, no matter how controversial it may appear. We may not agree on everything, let's face it, it would be a sad world if we did, but we certainly have much by way of common ground.

First of all, I am not a supporter for a total ban on the cane, in spite of my personal experiences. Dr D is spot on about the feminisation of the education system. There is no need for me to repeat what he has already said, educationalists here in the UK need to heed the warnings. Treating boys like girls, both in choice of educational subject matter and by way of response to bad behaviour has clearly not worked for boys. I believe that the consequences for the future of the western world will be profound if this continues.

Before some accuse me of wanting to take my cake and eat it, I still maintain that a total ban of corporal punishment for girls would be misguided. The attitude of Dr D's sister school shows that it is possible to make the system work. Just because Dr D would feel uneasy about making the right decision about whether to cane a girl or not, that could be taken out of his hands. Historically that is what school's have employed Senior Mistresses for, to make such a decision which would perhaps be more in tune with what would be best for an individual girl. This is how it could operate successfully in a fully co-ed environment. Given that the cane would only be used for 'serious' matters and the accepted view that girls committ offences in these areas far less than boys, it is obvious that girls would very rarely be subject to caning - just like in Dr D's sister school. This, in my view would seem to be an excellent compromise, given that Dr D's powerful arguments do have substance. The only fly in the ointment is where there are 'set tarrifs' for offences such as smoking for example. Given that here in the UK girls smoke more than boys, using the cane as an automatic penalty for such things might bring such a compromise as I suggest down on it's knees quite quickly. It will be a sad day when in Australia, a total ban comes into force, which it will, if entrenched views conflict with commonly held opinions about fairness and equality are ignored.

Slightly off topic, but it is also my view that parents and especially mothers. are now making the same mistake in treating boys as girls. The results can be seen all around us and especially on the street late at night, after heavy under age drinking. Not withstanding the fact that here in the UK we are only a whisker away from a total ban on smacking of one's offspring, the fact that young mothers do not chastise their sons with sufficient vigour, if at all, is leading us to a dark and lonely place. Apologists immediatley confuse sensible chastisement with abuse, but if anything the incidence of genuine abuse is rising higher than ever, even with the 'no smacking' ideas being almost the norm. I'll get the violin out again, but in the 50's it was not unusual to see a group of mothers rounding up their children ready for bed, not to see at least one of them carrying a folded up belt or stick with which to countenance any thoughts of 'not doing what you are told'.

Dr D again provides an uncompromising reply to my question about allowing female staff to supervise boys in changing and showering. He is quite right that the duty of care along with health and safety overide any other considerations when push comes to shove, however just for a moment, consider the remote possibility of the same thing with the genders reversed. Would the law of the land prevail? I doubt it, feminists and others would be queuing up to hang the person responsible from the nearest yard arm - yet another double standard which goes back to my original argument.

Zeno

Hi Zeno. Thank you for answering the various questions I raised. From the dates you give for your schooling you'll be 10 years younger than me, but as you say CP policy in schools didn't change much in that time. I think you may slightly over-estimate how common it was for girls to be exempt from CP. As Doctor Dominium notes:

Back around 1950 a comprehensive analysis of punishment in English schools - including punishment regulations was published.

Of the 144 LEAs at the time, not one banned the corporal punishment of girls - although just under a dozen stated it should be used rarely.

However I'll happily agree to differ with you on that issue.

It isn't a Forum standard to put quotations in italics. Doctor Dominum and myself, and one or two other people do it. If you want to do this, and use stuff like bold text etc. the link Doctor Dominum has given you should help. If you get any problems just shout, we have a Computing Corner thread for such eventualities. If, as you say, you use Microsoft Word to format your posts it may pay you to inspect the Computing Corner thread from 7 May 2009 for information on problems you have possibly encountered regarding single and double quotes, although you seem to have found your own solution.

I look forward to your future posts.

As usual you have provided a comprehensive and thought provoking reply. I do like the way that you do not try and side step any issue, no matter how controversial it may appear. We may not agree on everything, let's face it, it would be a sad world if we did, but we certainly have much by way of common ground.

Yes, we do. A lot of the time, people can wind up thinking there's a universal dispute going on when it's simply a matter that people aren't arguing about the things they agree on. A lot of the time, there is a lot that is agreed on.

First of all, I am not a supporter for a total ban on the cane, in spite of my personal experiences. Dr D is spot on about the feminisation of the education system. There is no need for me to repeat what he has already said, educationalists here in the UK need to heed the warnings. Treating boys like girls, both in choice of educational subject matter and by way of response to bad behaviour has clearly not worked for boys. I believe that the consequences for the future of the western world will be profound if this continues.

I do see hopeful signs for the UK in this regard - I know there is a lot of awareness there, just as there is here, of the specific problems impacting the education of boys. Unfortunately, I think the UK runs up against the standard problem of educational reform and that is the problem of bureaucracy. We probably do need some sort of government involvement in education, but I wish we didn't, because it does slow everything down.

Before some accuse me of wanting to take my cake and eat it, I still maintain that a total ban of corporal punishment for girls would be misguided. The attitude of Dr D's sister school shows that it is possible to make the system work. Just because Dr D would feel uneasy about making the right decision about whether to cane a girl or not, that could be taken out of his hands. Historically that is what school's have employed Senior Mistresses for, to make such a decision which would perhaps be more in tune with what would be best for an individual girl. This is how it could operate successfully in a fully co-ed environment. Given that the cane would only be used for 'serious' matters and the accepted view that girls committ offences in these areas far less than boys, it is obvious that girls would very rarely be subject to caning - just like in Dr D's sister school. This, in my view would seem to be an excellent compromise, given that Dr D's powerful arguments do have substance. The only fly in the ointment is where there are 'set tarrifs' for offences such as smoking for example. Given that here in the UK girls smoke more than boys, using the cane as an automatic penalty for such things might bring such a compromise as I suggest down on it's knees quite quickly. It will be a sad day when in Australia, a total ban comes into force, which it will, if entrenched views conflict with commonly held opinions about fairness and equality are ignored.

It's interesting, but the desire to have an effective means of dealing with smoking is one of the main reason girls and co-educational schools seem to have for retaining the cane when they have done so (and, yes, in Australia, as well, girls smoke significantly more often than boys). Because of the health and legal issues involved, smoking must be treated as a very serious offence - but it's a serious offence that is sometimes engaged in by students who'd be unlikely to commit any other serious offence.

Slightly off topic, but it is also my view that parents and especially mothers. are now making the same mistake in treating boys as girls. The results can be seen all around us and especially on the street late at night, after heavy under age drinking. Not withstanding the fact that here in the UK we are only a whisker away from a total ban on smacking of one's offspring, the fact that young mothers do not chastise their sons with sufficient vigour, if at all, is leading us to a dark and lonely place. Apologists immediatley confuse sensible chastisement with abuse, but if anything the incidence of genuine abuse is rising higher than ever, even with the 'no smacking' ideas being almost the norm. I'll get the violin out again, but in the 50's it was not unusual to see a group of mothers rounding up their children ready for bed, not to see at least one of them carrying a folded up belt or stick with which to countenance any thoughts of 'not doing what you are told'.

Growing up in the 40s and 50s here in Australia, it wasn't uncommon here either.

Dr D again provides an uncompromising reply to my question about allowing female staff to supervise boys in changing and showering. He is quite right that the duty of care along with health and safety overide any other considerations when push comes to shove, however just for a moment, consider the remote possibility of the same thing with the genders reversed. Would the law of the land prevail? I doubt it, feminists and others would be queuing up to hang the person responsible from the nearest yard arm - yet another double standard which goes back to my original argument.

Actually, here, I have absolutely no doubt that the law of the land would prevail in such a situation. I presume by the 'genders reversed' you refer to the idea of a male teacher winding up supervising girls in a state of undress - well, that's happened, complaints have been made, complaints have been investigated, and the complaints have been thrown out.

Victoria's 'Government Schools Reference Guide' (which obviously only applies to government schools, but which nonetheless is often useful as a reference for all teachers and schools when it comes to standards and practices) is pretty implicit on the issue.

Section 4.6.l.2

Whenever a studentteacher relationship exists, the teacher has a special duty of care. This is defined as: A teacher is to take such measures as are reasonable in the circumstances to protect a student under the teachers charge from risks of injury that the teacher should reasonably have foreseen. (Richards v State of Victoria (1969) VR 136 at p. 141)

As part of that duty, teachers are required to supervise students adequately. This requires not only protection from known hazards, but also protection from those that could arise (that is, those that the teacher should reasonably have foreseen) and against which preventive measures could be taken.

School authorities in breach of the duty may be liable for injuries inflicted by one student on another, as well as for injuries sustained by a student. Schools normally satisfy the duty of care by allocating responsibilities to different staff. For example, the principal is responsible for making and administering such arrangements for supervision as are necessary according to the circumstances in each school, and teachers are responsible for carrying out their assigned supervisory duties in such a way that students are, as far as can be reasonably expected, protected from injury. This duty extends to intervention in single-sex areas if need be by a teacher of the other gender.

It's made that explicit for a reason - because by being that explicit, teachers are protected from complaint for doing what the law requires, and what accepted practice requires.

Why does a flogging of a woman or the caning or paddling of a schoolgirl seem so controversial? Puritans made concessions to the woman's body in the days of judicial flogging. In the repressed times of sexuality the target of CP (hands or bottoms) were a concern and later matters like menstruation and pregnancy matter. Menstruation is predictable but not so pregnancy.

From the early twentieth century the abolishment for CP became a focal point in the States but after woman's right to vote onward and progressively so with woman's liberation in the seventies any distinction between the genders becomes verboten Religion and politics has a lot to do with CP and it is evident from the Book of Proverbs to Woman's Liberation I don't buy into the spare the rod but I believe strongly in equality bit I'm not to sure about women Marines (Demi Moore) or submarines in today's news.

Equality of the genders discussions are prominent issue on the Teachers Net Chat Board. I would suggest that you search within that site these two threads (Why do Alabama Teachers or High School Tardy Policy). Its credibility would be question overseas more than here. Not every account of girl corporal punishment should be considered fetishist as some members of this esteem Forum have suggested. Southern justice many be surprising to some but I'll argue with any who claim that the majotity of the postings are specious accounts. Some seem less familiar with Southern justice .