Having followed the epic, if somewhat morphed, School Slippering Memories thread, there is a need to consider the here and now!

I read with interest the exchanges between Doctor D and Jenny, with A_L and Prof N attempting to referee! Strange that the subject matter has turned once again to the hot potatoe of "why cane boys but not girls", I suppose it just goes to show this stirs up emotions. Maybe this by itself should influence policy. It would I fear be better suited to a number of other threads, perhaps the one by Zeno, about Gender and Double Standards. It might have helped balance the size of threads a little, looking at the number of posts now in the SSM thread.

Jenny, a new and valued contributor, seems to speak for many of us, when it comes to the wrongs of the past, and why any future policy (however unlikely) would need to be different. I must say that not many of the female's I have known would be as supportive of a gender blind policy. I remember my own SO back in the 80's looking at the front cover of one of the UK Sunday papers (Mail on Sunday) which had a large picture of a school cane and a smaller image of a group of schoolgirls with the headline "The last school in England to Cane its girls". Readers will know that this was the breaking of the Rodney School story. My SO was outraged by the story and went off in a huff. This from a woman who had always "appeared" to support a much more egalitarian view of how corporal punishment should be used.

It may be that some who read this forum might have suspicions about Jenny, just as they have with others, but just like Halfpenny, there is something that tells you all is totally genuine, even if Jenny's view of equality is more aligned with many males (of my age group) than those of females. Still, someone who has spent a significant part of their working life with ICL mainframes during the seventies cannot be all that bad. My SO also worked in a very large computer centre in the East Midlands, training girls how to deal with "plug boards" etc, so she has very kindly verified all Jenny's comments about working with the ICL beast!

There is another word used when speaking of unfairness and that is injustice. It is certainly how a significant proportion of middle aged men feel about their treatment at school. It is of some relief that I see from this forum that I am not on my own in feeling this way. There have been more than enough examples given by myself and others about how injustice and the cane as it was applied in most instances, without providing yet more in this post. However Jenny has alluded on more than one occasion of instances to her personal knowledge of examples of this. Given that Jenny's own school experiences were somewhat different to those of many men of my age (girls getting the stick), I wonder if she might explain how she became aware of these "injustices" i.e. the mention of the shot putter schoolgirl who assaulted a young boy who as the victim was then caned himself! This parallels my own experiences all too accuratley.

Back to 2009. It is all very well debating the wrongs of the past - nothings going to change! Dr D lives in the parallel universe called Australia where CP looks as though it may be on the last lap. But not many miles away from Dr D, exists an education system that simply beggars belief - SINGAPORE.

Anything that happens on this island can be verified by reading the press reports on Colin Farrel's site. What a strange mixture. Very high tech, with modern buildings, equipment and of course teaching standards. But what sets this island state apart is its school discipline methods. If Jenny would care to take a look, she would I am sure be horrified by what she finds. Just as in their Judicial methods, school corporal punishment is totally and completley gender biased. In fact any physical punisment of females of any age is against the law. In schools it is the cane and only the cane that they use, but not just any old cane. Just look at the images showing the size of those canes. School punishments there are not for the faint of heart. Worst of all (from my point of view), these canings are carried out in front of a mixed class and quite regularly in front of whole school assemblies.


The weird part is looking at the pictures of boys and girls in class who seem so modern in their dress and outlook, surrounded by the high tech trappings of the western world, whilst at the same time they watch as their school "discipline master" thrashes the living daylights out of a boy at the front of the class. It is like "English school in the 30's meets with the Playstation Generation! Of course they have an unusual ideology when it comes to all things punishment. Most Singaporeans cannot see anything wrong with their policies either Judicial or Scholastic.

Back in the early 90's when the American boy Michael Fay was judically caned for vandalism, I had a conversation with a woman who had attended school in Singapore back in the 60's and coincidentally was in the same class year as Jenny Agutter the actress (her claim to fame I think). She confirmed that the English school in Singapore relied heavily on the cane, much more so than in the Uk. She also confirmed that it was for boys only. Her viewpoint was that whatever the Singaporeans do today with regard to corporal punishment, they had learned it all from the British during their Colonial days. She may have had a point.

Boys and men seem to support it, girls and women seem quite happy with the law as it stands (note this Jenny!) and in vox pop interviews, girls think it entirely right that males are caned whilst females are exempt. They also have a system of military service for males only, which allows for well educated women, to take advantage of the absence of young men of their own age whilst they are away with the army for two years! They seem to have many women in Singapore who are top lawyers, judges, headteachers etc who help administer this unique system of punishment.


Given all of this, what are the views of readers of this forum about what is a reality in 2009 for citizens of this state? I would be most interested to read the views of A_L, Dr D, Prof N, Jenny and Declan just for a start! Does the Singapore system tick all the boxes for Dr D? Conversley does it send Jenny into into hyperspace in rage?

Oliver S

Oliver_S:


Jenny, a new and valued contributor,

Thank you.

...seems to speak for many of us, when it comes to the wrongs of the past, and why any future policy (however unlikely) would need to be different. I must say that not many of the female's I have known would be as supportive of a gender blind policy.

A true sex/gender blind policy works both ways to the benefit of both sexes.


...even if Jenny's view of equality is more aligned with many males (of my age group) than those of females.

I think you might be surprised at just how many women are in agreement with us. Consider how many men oppose CP of girls. Why should that be less strange than women supporting it? Equality works both ways and women have given their lives for it.

Still, someone who has spent a significant part of their working life with ICL mainframes during the seventies cannot be all that bad.




There is another word used when speaking of unfairness and that is injustice.

That's probably a better, more accurate, word.

However Jenny has alluded on more than one occasion of instances to her personal knowledge of examples of this. Given that Jenny's own school experiences were somewhat different to those of many men of my age (girls getting the stick), I wonder if she might explain how she became aware of these "injustices" i.e. the mention of the shot putter schoolgirl who assaulted a young boy who as the victim was then caned himself! This parallels my own experiences all too accurately.

Unless you were the 12 year old in question, (possible but statistically improbable), the incident I mentioned cannot have been the only one. I did have friends and relatives my own age who attended different schools: which is how I learned about that incident. I don't know if the girl was a shot-put or weight-lifting champion but I know she had the physique to be. Injustice was rife in quite a few schools at the time. Girls were, in practice, exempt from all punishments. Theoretically, they were only exempt from corporal punishment but, if they didn't bother to turn up for detention or do their lines whatever, nothing could be or was done about it. In some ways, I envied my friends who went to schools like that but, on the downside, they had virtually no education and were in almost constant fear of (female) bullies.


But not many miles away from Dr D, exists an education system that simply beggars belief - SINGAPORE.

...But what sets this island state apart is its school discipline methods. If Jenny would care to take a look, she would I am sure be horrified by what she finds. Just as in their Judicial methods, school corporal punishment is totally and completley gender biased. In fact any physical punisment of females of any age is against the law. In schools it is the cane and only the cane that they use, but not just any old cane. Just look at the images showing the size of those canes. School punishments there are not for the faint of heart. Worst of all (from my point of view), these canings are carried out in front of a mixed class and quite regularly in front of whole school assemblies.

What happens there is pure, unadulterated, brutality. The cane cannot be used as a disciplinary tool because, if it were, girls and women couldn't be exempt. They claim they need it to maintain discipline but, it that were true, there would be a massive, female led, crime wave. Its sole use there is for torture.

...Most Singaporeans cannot see anything wrong with their policies either Judicial or Scholastic.

Probably because they're too brutalized to recognize or admit it.

..they had learned it all from the British during their Colonial days.

I believe that's true. We British have a lot to answer for.

Boys and men seem to support it, girls and women seem quite happy with the law as it stands (note this Jenny!) and in vox pop interviews, girls think it entirely right that males are caned whilst females are exempt.

Indicative of a repressed, brutalized, society.

They also have a system of military service for males only,

That's something else I object to. I don't agree with conscription in any case because I'd rather the country were defended by professionals. By not conscripting women, the governments are saying we're not good enough.

which allows for well educated women, to take advantage of the absence of young men of their own age whilst they are away with the army for two years! They seem to have many women in Singapore who are top lawyers, judges, headteachers etc who help administer this unique system of punishment.

I understand (am I'm open to correction on this) that men in Singapore are paid at a higher rate to compensate them for their military service. If that's true, it's another example of how injustice, apparently to men, backfires on women.

Given all of this, what are the views of readers of this forum about what is a reality in 2009 for citizens of this state? I would be most interested to read the views of A_L, Dr D, Prof N, Jenny and Declan just for a start! Does the Singapore system tick all the boxes for Dr D? Conversley does it send Jenny into into hyperspace in rage?

If I really thought about it, I suspect "rage" would be far too mild a word to describe my feelings. I would never visit Singapore nor, knowingly, do anything to support that regime.

Hi Oliver_S. Before attempting to answer some of the questions you pose in your excellent foundation post in this thread, a question of my own.

You say:

My SO also worked in a very large computer centre in the East Midlands, training girls how to deal with "plug boards" etc

Hmm, plug boards = data prep, very large computer centre and an ICL shop as well, East Midlands, could it be ......? At the risk of blowing my own cover (pretty well blown already for anyone who collects all the bits, and anyway I'm sure I can rely on your discretion) your SO didn't by any chance work for a (then) public utility in a three storey block attached to a single storey computer block? Near a river and a dual carriageway with a rather suicidal access to the computer centre if you were coming from the north?

Now to Singapore. I've never been there and I'm certainly not familiar with Singapore. A man who was my boss for a time (your SO might have known him as well) spent a period on attachment out there and told me that provided you had money, worked hard, obeyed the law and recognised that as a European you weren't in charge and things weren't going to be done to suit your ideas, it was pretty near heaven on earth. As I had huge respect for that individual and his opinions it sounded fine, though I think the climate might be too hot for me at times. Also I have a beard and I gather that beards do not endear one to the authorities there - sign of moral decadence or something in their ideology.

There are, I think, a lot of misconceptions about corporal punishment in Singapore, both school and judicial. You may have noted that my early exchanges with Jenny included discussion of one 'Sharron' who was claiming on a discussion board about Singapore to have been caned many times for disciplinary offences in a Singapore female prison. Total nonsense I believe, but nobody on that discussion board contradicted her. You quote with confidence that

In fact any physical punishment of females of any age is against the law.

citing press reports on the excellent Corpun.com site as your authority. But is that really the situation? Singapore is not an open society and neither government nor its citizens tend not to give a great deal away about how things function. I think you are correct, but if I had to back that opinion up I too could only fall back on press reports. Not necessarily the most reliable source.

If indeed only boys are corporeally punished in Singapore schools then I don't have an argument with that. Doctor Dominum, who knows a great deal more about these things than I do, is adamant that in general corporal punishment is much more likely to be effective for boys than for girls, and that it is likely to be harmful to many girls and to relatively few boys. In those circumstances, unless you can apply the fine degree of discrimination necessary to identify exactly which girls would benefit from corporal punishment and which boys wouldn't, which presumably presents problems Singapore does not wish to tackle, the only completely safe course is to forgo corporal punishment altogether. Clearly, in a tightly regulated and highly disciplined society, the powers that be in Singapore have decided that they need corporal punishment in their schools and in their judicial system. In that circumstance applying it to males only is the only logical option.

We should bear in mind that here in the UK the judicial corporal punishment of women was abandoned long before that of men. I don't recall that the rallying cries of the Suffragette movement included birching or the whip for women despite such an obvious inequality. By the time women's lib came along here judicial cp had gone for men also, but in many schools boys were subject to cp but girls weren't. I admit that I didn't follow the progress of women's lib closely, but I think I'd have noticed if any of its advocates had been calling for girls to be caned as well as boys! In short I think that Singapore just reflects a more diciplined and tightly controlled image of past situations here.

In an ideal world I'd prefer to see corporal punishment in schools used when appropriate, and with just adequate severity, for those pupils who would benefit from it, boy or girl. Sadly I've been around for 67 years and I've never seen an ideal world yet. Even if I was so fortunate as to live as long again I suspect that an ideal world would still prove elusive, because there's no such thing.

You say that caning in Singapore schools is exceptionally severe. IMHO if you are going to put the FoG into boys you need to do it properly, and that is what Singapore schools, with their big canes and specially trained discipline masters, do. I am pretty confident that, relative to the numbers involved, very few boys are caned, and fewer still are subject to the so-called public caning in front of school or year group. Most boys will do exactly what I did when I was at school, decide that cp isn't for them and behave accordingly, which of course is what Singapore schools set out to achieve, it's a very disciplined society!

Sorry, I know that I am going against your sense of unjustice over problems you perceived with the cp regimes at your own schools and against everything that Jenny stands for. I have great respect for both your positions. If we were talking about reintroduction of cp in UK schools my position would be somewhat closer to you both. However, Singapore isn't the UK. I doubt if boys in Singapore feel any great concern that they are caned and girls aren't. I suspect that they simply regard it as the natural order of things in their society. I also doubt if any girls in Singapore are clamouring to be subject to caning as well as boys, for exactly the same reason!

Oh dear, the double negatives are coming thick and fast despite proof reading. It must be this cold I've got!

Singapore is not an open society and neither government nor its citizens tend not to give a great deal away about how things function.

should of course have read

Singapore is not an open society and neither government nor its citizens tend to give a great deal away about how things function.

Sorry, possibly the lemsips will work eventually and the problem will go away!

Firstly ICL Beasts......A_L....LOL the building is still there but now looks a shadow of its former glory. I believe the whole operation moved to Leicester many years ago when a new boss took over and didn't like the travelling! My SO would also appreciate NOT having any sort of cover blown, suffice to say she was there from 1974 to 1979. Small world aint it.

Back to OT.. Jenny, many thanks for your considered reply. I also have a similar viewpoint about the brutality of the system in Singapore. We have to remember that there are many throughout the western world who look at that system and would dearly wish for it to be a template for ourselves, heaven forbid.

Singapore is a highly regulated society, so I suspect that there is little chance of the rules being broken about the treatment of girls. It is simply considered the norm. The female that I mention, who was educated in Singapore made a comment that the only complaint she had at the time was that she was always sat in the front row of desks and it was always her desk that was pulled away for the unfortunate boy to be put across. She thought that it would have been far better to have had a spare desk or to have used some other method - how inconvenient for her!

A_L, you and I have a different opinion, about equality and the cane (vive la difference). I am sure Jenny agrees that there has been research which has produced much smoke and mirrors, about treating the genders differently. We do many of our former educators a disservice, if we think that they could not differentiate between those that needed the cane and those that didn't. The "sub-set" of boys and girls that require the cane are not dissimilar, usually with much by way of anticedence, well known to the headteacher. The only real difference is likely to be a reduction in the total numbers of girls that are in that particular sub-set. You don't need an ideal world, just common sense. The likelyhood of any "damage" when balanced against the removal of a major element of unfairness would be very limited indeed.

In more recent times there have been demands from educators in both Singapore and Malysia who have similar regulations, for a change which would girls off the forbidden list, precisely because girls were now exploiting the situation and just as Jenny says, they feel powerless to discipline them - it seems that wearing of a red "shame tabbard" for a day or cleaning the girls toilets after school is no deterrent for their own "subset" of naughty girls. So far the political masters (mostly elderly men, but the education minister is a woman) have refused this request.

Where the common sense approach begins to fail is where you have "set tarrifs", particularly if you use CP for a wide range of offences both serious and petty. In fact I seem to remember that you stood a higher chance of being caned for a petty offence than for something serious in those days.

To take Zeno's experiences as an example - Dr D's preferred option of having CP for girls as an always open option would probably remove behaviours entered into "because" of a perceived exemption.

Jenny mentioned "big strong girl v smaller weaker boy" injustices. Many examples of this could be found in STOPP literature at the time. Unfortunatley this data is now only available to those who are able to prove bona fide educational research. However moving slightly sideways to the judicial arena, during the IOM birching debates in the 70's, many stories of "injustice" came to the fore. One of these concerned a case of unlawful sex between a young boy of fourteen and a girl of fifteen years. By all accounts the leader in the relationship was the girl, being much more mature for her age, but law then (which has only changed very recently)was that only males could be prosecuted for the offence. The end result was that the boy was birched whilst no action was taken against the girl at all. Hows that for injusice! I have never seen a re-printed press article about this case so cannot provide supportive evidence but given prevailing attitudes at the time it would not be too much of a surprise. Many, many cases similar to this have happened on the mainland, fortunatley without the end result of birching.

Well enough off my chest for one day! Don't you sometimes think that this forum is a very useful tool for letting off a little steam? We just need to value each others opinions and accept that we have differences and more importantly why those differences may exist, be it from a long life of social conditioning or experience or a genuine belief in academic research.

Oliver S

Oliver_S


Back to OT.. Jenny, many thanks for your considered reply.

You're very welcome.

Singapore is a highly regulated society, so I suspect that there is little chance of the rules being broken about the treatment of girls. It is simply considered the norm.

Just as women being barefoot, pregnant and chained to the kitchen sink was once considered the norm.

A_L, you and I have a different opinion, about equality and the cane (vive la difference). I am sure Jenny agrees that there has been research which has produced much smoke and mirrors, about treating the genders differently.

I'm always very suspicious of "research" which either support the status quo or returns a "politically correct" result.

The likelyhood of any "damage" when balanced against the removal of a major element of unfairness would be very limited indeed.

It didn't do me any harm (I hate that cliche but, in this case I think it appropriate). I'm not aware of any "damage" caused by girls being caned but I have seen the damage a deliberate policy of injustice can do - it's not pretty.

In more recent times there have been demands from educators in both Singapore and Malysia who have similar regulations, for a change which would girls off the forbidden list, precisely because girls were now exploiting the situation

Are they really surprised? Such a result should be blindingly obvious to anyone.

and just as Jenny says, they feel powerless to discipline them - it seems that wearing of a red "shame tabbard" for a day or cleaning the girls toilets after school is no deterrent for their own "subset" of naughty girls.

Now, that can't be right. All the research says it has to work.

Where the common sense approach begins to fail is where you have "set tarrifs",

I think that's OK as a starting point but they should be flexible to allow for extenuating circumstances/

particularly if you use CP for a wide range of offences both serious and petty.

I think that depends on how it's used. Mild CP like a half-hearted whack with a slipper for something minor like "talking in class" can be very effective and far quicker for all concerned than things like lines or detentions. Even then, it shouldn't be a first resort - a couple of warnings first. If they don't work, then out to the front and "whack!" That approach always seemed to work when I was at school.


Jenny mentioned "big strong girl v smaller weaker boy" injustices. Many examples of this could be found in STOPP literature at the time. Unfortunatley this data is now only available to those who are able to prove bona fide educational research.

That often means "research which supports our opinion".

By all accounts the leader in the relationship was the girl, being much more mature for her age, but law then (which has only changed very recently)was that only males could be prosecuted for the offence.

The law has changed but the practice largely remains as was. The situation is slowly improving though.

The end result was that the boy was birched whilst no action was taken against the girl at all. Hows that for injusice! I have never seen a re-printed press article about this case so cannot provide supportive evidence but given prevailing attitudes at the time it would not be too much of a surprise. Many, many cases similar to this have happened on the mainland, fortunatley without the end result of birching.

They're still happening.

Don't you sometimes think that this forum is a very useful tool for letting off a little steam?

It's very therapeutic.

Why is it 10 to 1 in one school and 7 to 5 in another school gender parity? Very rarely are those differences reflected from school to school than district to district so more often than not it has more to do with the codes of conduct. The states where the fewest are paddles tend towards parity because if only egregious misbehavior would be punished any unfairness would be very obvious and lead to resentment and not because the girls are treated unfairly. That may happen later in life when they resent being on the receiving end on fairness.

Tennessee as previously mentioned is approaching it from a fairness point of view that the girls are getting a free pass which is a new twist usually it is because as Paula Flowe surely believes that CP has more a detrimental impact on girls. I believe there are so many other factors than gender for example age, size and mental state that play a far greater factor.

It is a clever strategy but I don't think it is going to pass muster and get beyond the lower courts. There has been no publicity so it must be moving slowly along the docket. The anti-CP zealots wanted to get it established in the beginning of the school year in September.

The racial strategy has all but failed. To put it bluntly the teacher is not looking at the color of a child's bottom but his or her behavior. The same cannot be said of gender. You cannot make an omelet without cracking eggshells inside and outside. The eggs are not that different in fragility and IMHO undue deference is afforded who assume otherwise.

Now I hear the ice cracking because girls are not immune to the human tendency to play the gender card in this situation as are boys in other situations. Am I still above sea level? Schools where there is a heavy focus on aggressive behavior and open verbal disrespect (offenses meriting paddling) there is a greater disparity. The least parity is greatest but where there are (offenses meriting paddling) for tardy and cell phones and dress code violations. These can be seen by student handbooks as well as the breakdowns of offenses and the detentions and suspensions listed in states that don't paddle.

My dreaded matrices or handbooks with clear consequences for behavior reflecting gender likely to be paddled offenses achieves parity for what I believe less wiggle room. Here is the rub there are handbooks that favor one gender likely to be paddled offenses over the other. I think codes of conduct as well as enforcement don't understand that is if you want to achieve a better omelet you have to break eggshells that are not as different as some believe and that assumption made more by male than females and not only in the school setting. Am I still above sea level?

Jenny: I think there are many things we disagree about and I hope as you previously said I hope they give you something to think about. We are on the same wave length on many things.

American Way


The difference in the ratios of girl to boys being paddled has a lot to do with girls often being given a lot more leeway. Schools with only rarely employ CP tend to use it for more serious offences where there is little alternative. As girls are just as likely as boys to play truant, vandalise (scratching one's name or boyfriend's name on a desk is vandalism), and bully; a bit less likely to fight (although that seems to be on the increase); and more likely to smoke and steal, I would expect girls to receive about the same amount of CP as boys (in a sex neutral school of course). Schools which use CP for almost any offence would probably find themselves using it more on girls if it were used fairly. I don't know about the US but, in the UK, most schools have rules forbidding male-up and jewellery. Boys, on the whole, tend to obey those rules and the vast majority of offenders are girls. If there were any justice, they would be punished for it but, as I said, in practice we're given more leeway so a blind eye is often turned. However, when a boy turns up with a hair out of place, the teachers immediately jump on him: quite possibly in frustration at having to turn a blind eye to so many offences committed by girls.

I don't understand how anyone can be on the "receiving end of fairness". One can benefit from unfairness but both sides benefit from fairness. What so often happens, though, is that the benefit from unfairness blows up in one's face.

Girls, and now boys, will play every the sex card to it's full advantage. I can't blame them really but I doubt they realize the long term implications of their actions.

Jenny: I think there are many things we disagree about and I hope as you previously said I hope they give you something to think about. We are on the same wave length on many things.

I think we're in the same band but you seem to be using a different modulation (to stretch the analogy ). I'm afraid I had trouble following your meaning sometimes but I believe you're pro-CP for boys but not so pro for girls. Is that correct? I'm considerably more pro than anti CP but I don't have very strong feelings either way. What I do feel very strongly about, as I hope my posts show, is justice.

Malaysia & Singapore are also great believers in capital punishment, especially regarding drugs.

And has that eradicated the problem-like Hell!

Equally, if judicial CP had any deterrent effect, why do the numbers receiving it continue to increase?

The only excuse for the mindset in these places-remember which nation, noted for a sadistic and cruel streak, occupied them both in WWII. That might just be where it comes from, too.

The IOM is a bit like something out of Gulliver's Travels-think Yahoos.


I'll leave it there before I start getting angry.



Steve

Hi Oliver_S. You say:

Small world aint it.

It certainly is!

And you also say:

LOL the building is still there but now looks a shadow of its former glory. I believe the whole operation moved to Leicester many years ago when a new boss took over and didn't like the travelling!

Not quite true, though it very nearly was! I was there a few years before and several years after your SO and I regularly see ex-colleagues who still work in the building. Not many of them there now though, due to changes in the pattern of computer usage. I imagine your SO and I knew each other, indeed we may have had anxious exchanges over the readiness of input data when I was still on Ops on the LEOs and juggling deadlines. Happy days! Give her my regards, no names, no pack-drill!

And back on topic:

You say:

A_L, you and I have a different opinion, about equality and the cane (vive la difference).

I'm not sure that our opinions are that different. I think that where we do differ is that at primary school (the only co-ed school I attended) I saw CP as pretty fair. It was virtually the only sanction, applied equally to boys and girls, though a lot more boys misbehaved than girls. You however didn't see your school experience of CP as fair, as only boys were so punished and girls sometimes exploited that situation.

You were thus left with a belief that CP, if used, should be gender blind. I was left with a slightly different view. As I said in my earlier post, in an ideal world I'd prefer to see corporal punishment in schools used when appropriate, and with just adequate severity, for those pupils who would benefit from it, boy or girl. And that applies here, in Singapore, or anywhere else for that matter, though clearly I am only entitled to comment on the former.

However, there never is an ideal world and because I saw a fair bit of gender blind CP I encountered some aspects of it which certainly wouldn't be acceptable in today's circumstances. I can remember girls who were so distressed at corporal punishment that they struggled and had to be forced to accept the punishment. I described one such incident at the end of this post but there were others. In retrospect that probably meant that CP wasn't a suitable punishment for those girls. I don't recall anything similar with boys. I also saw a girl punished by a male teacher in a way which seemed unusual and made a considerable impression on me at the time.

Taken together with subsequent information, some of it from here, I'm left with the conclusion that if you are going to apply corporal punishment to boys you probably can take a broad brush approach without too many problems. If you are going to apply it to girls I think a great deal more care is needed. I don't think that care is likely to be available in the state schools of Singapore, or the state schools here for that matter.

I don't disagree with your statement that:

We do many of our former educators a disservice, if we think that they could not differentiate between those that needed the cane and those that didn't.

But the fact remains that they still sometimes made mistakes. And modern teachers have a great many social and organisational pressures on them that teachers didn't have when I was at school in the late 1940s and 1950s. The teachers then had big classes, but they were very much in control of what happened in their own classrooms, without the targets and fixed curriculums which burden and distract teachers today.

I do disagree when you say:

You don't need an ideal world, just common sense. The likelyhood of any "damage" when balanced against the removal of a major element of unfairness would be very limited indeed

Sadly, common sense isn't common! And while teachers might have more of it on average than the population as a whole it isn't universal in their ranks. Replacing one element of unfairness (girls not caned at all) with another (some girls caned who shouldn't be) doesn't seem to me to be progress.

You say:

In more recent times there have been demands from educators in both Singapore and Malysia who have similar regulations, for a change which would girls off the forbidden list

Clearly you have made a closer study of school CP in this area than I have. As I've said before information about Singapore is hard to come by, but I was under the impression that in some Malaysian schools girls were not on the 'forbidden list' as regards the cane. I seem to recall something about schools for the Chinese ethnic group. Perhaps one of our Malaysian contributors could enlighten us as to the current situation there.

And finally you say:

Well enough off my chest for one day! Don't you sometimes think that this forum is a very useful tool for letting off a little steam? We just need to value each others opinions and accept that we have differences and more importantly why those differences may exist, be it from a long life of social conditioning or experience or a genuine belief in academic research.

My sentiments exactly!

Hi Another_Lurker

You [Oliver_S] however didn't see your school experience of CP as fair, as only boys were so punished and girls sometimes exploited that situation.

Only sometimes? According to friends who attended such schools, girls exploited that situation to it's full extent, effectively making themselves immune from all forms of punishment and, often, generally running riot.

I can remember girls who were so distressed at corporal punishment that they struggled and had to be forced to accept the punishment.

Sounds like it was very effective then. If she were that distressed she wouldn't want to repeat the experience and, therefore, would be more likely to behave herself. Once you let on that, by feigning distress, girls (why not boys too?) can escape punishment, you'll have a school of permanently distressed pupils.

In retrospect that probably meant that CP wasn't a suitable punishment for those girls.

On the contrary, it was very suitable as it would be something they would want to avoid a repeat of.

I don't recall anything similar with boys.

Boys are conditioned, almost from birth, to accept whatever "nasty things" are thrown at them without making a fuss. A boy, in pain after a serious injury, will often be told to "pull your self together and don't be a big baby". A girl or woman, of any age, will elicit sympathy by just looking a bit upset. Please don't say you've never known a woman to pull that trick - it's the first one in the manual. Personally, I wouldn't do it, I've too much respect for myself, but there are a lot who will.

Taken together with subsequent information, some of it from here, I'm left with the conclusion that if you are going to apply corporal punishment to boys you probably can take a broad brush approach without too many problems.

Is that because boys' feeling are unimportant? Some people have expressed minor surprise that I advocate CP (among other things) for girls in the interests equality. I'll now express surprise that a man wants his own sex to be treated in a manner he considers worse.

If you are going to apply it to girls I think a great deal more care is needed.

Why? If a children of either sex want to avoid being punished, all they need do is behave themselves.

I don't think that care is likely to be available in the state schools of Singapore, or the state schools here for that matter.

I can agree with that but if it's not considered necessary for boys, it's not necessary for girls either. By giving us special consideration, you're treating us as some inferior beings unable to take responsibility for ourselves. I accept you don't see it that way, and certainly don't intend it but that's the way it is. Try imagining yourself in a woman's position - not being allowed to make decisions for yourself or take responsibility for yourself because someone else (the opposite sex) thinks it wrong that you should be subjected to the consequences.


Oliver_S said: You don't need an ideal world, just common sense. The likelyhood of any "damage" when balanced against the removal of a major element of unfairness would be very limited indeed

The certain benefits of removing injustice would far outweigh the possibility of "damage" that might or might not be caused.


You said: Sadly, common sense isn't common! And while teachers might have more of it on average than the population as a whole it isn't universal in their ranks. Replacing one element of unfairness (girls not caned at all) with another (some girls caned who shouldn't be) doesn't seem to me to be progress.

I agree about common sense. The simple solution is to remove CP for both sexes. That way you have the triple benefits of: a fair, egalitarian, policy; girls who shouldn't be caned (for whatever reason) wouldn't be; and boys who shouldn't be caned wouldn't be either. Win. Win. Win.

Oliver S. I wouldn't be surprised if CP is being used in Malaysia with the rise as they put it in indiscipline. A rule prohibiting it recently after many years of use can be grand fathered out of existence and brought back. It was only a few years ago in the the oldest spanked or given detention thread a group of girls display red palms for real or as a practical joke including possible a nineteen year old girl who stayed back. If a class is to be punished for an offense it is hard to say but I'm too old for that.

Jenny: The difference in the ratios of girl to boys being paddled has a lot to do with girls often being given a lot more leeway. Leeway is given by the false presumption that girls cant take CP and its not beyond them to pretend to be to avoid CP (unfairness served their short term interests but can you blame them) and administrators are more male than female I can hear the college friend from Texas looking back at high school(it's just not right for a man to paddle a girl) with her regional accent.

As in many areas including schools the breaking the classroom glass ceiling the gap is closing but arguably slower in areas where CP is practice for a number of reason and they are more likely. It was good to see Renee of TWP taking more responsibility after ten years of teaching. And lastly definitions of what is perceived by the faculty as most reprehensible student behavior is punished the severest and the codes of conduct are like landmines where some girls step and others boys step on more frequently some based on unfair gender stereotyping while others based on reality.

In my own experience with the RSM Mercies forty years ago they had really small minds. Much is made of naughty girls dressed in Catholic school uniforms getting hit by Sisters in eroticism but in convent schools Nuns were trying to create little miniatures of them and were like lion tamers fighting forces were in full rage. A virgin bride or novice was not to be had but they were had. The bridal dresses and habits come in many shades of white in convent schools.

Thank goodness in my coed school (12 years) the Nuns they didnt set the bar so high. Their sexual frustration made the girls land minds were on any seductive behavior from an inch over the knee to one button open on the blouse to a sway of the hips. The boys were punished for insubordination (their word before we even knew how to spell it). When you went home you loved your mother more in comparison so you wouldnt bring that one home to meet her but you found a way by seventeen (almost in act and age but thats TMI for a family forum).

Back to CP the less the gap between the student code and the home code the less reason to punish. Boys and girls are often spanked evenly as toddlers but by the time they reach middle school spankings are rarer but boys get spanked more at home and that carries over to paddling in school. Good parents make good teachers. Bad parents should not be teaching. Bad parents consider success when they think their childrens destiny is to be like them and more so when that destiny is heaven. My parents of blessed memory said get a better education because when youre poor only a degree will open the door because it wont be because of whom you know that you will become someone.

My parents never or almost never spanked their disapproval and my fathers word the wise and his intimidating manner proved sufficient. Their tolerance allowed us to be crazier enough when we were young to become somewhat unique. When good teachers have to deal with good children (arent they all good) of bad parents CP may regretfully be needed more. Unfortunately there are good parents who dont teach and are clueless when it comes to what goes on in schools and there the ones keeping the teachers from doing their job.

Should girls get it more only if they break rules set by teachers for what they consider for the good of the schools. No one in the name of CP parity would design a code of conduct to establish numbers that one may think should be perceive fair percentages. Teachers need to collaborate and determine what conduct makes the classrooms more difficult to achieve its mission and what disciplinary actions best curb that behavior. Ill leave it to the social scientists (prof n) and the psychology savvy (Doctor Dominum) defend the thesis that girls are more likely not to be helped by CP than boys. His expertise is more in boys school. Some of his pontifications based on his studies Im not comfortable with but that is to be expected of anyone who posts frequently myself the exception that proves the rule.

Hi Oliver,

Please accept my apologies for not having responded sooner to your 'request'. I assure you that unlike with my fourth form physics master whom you may see I have posted about elsewhere today , this is not through dumb insolence or a lack of respect!!!!!!

There is another very serious reason for not doing. and it is this;-

I frankly do not understand the approach or practice in the Far East towards this subject. Moreover I have very grave misgivings about some traditions and practices in certain countries, which I freely admit , although having read the Koran, still mystify me.So apart from making rather obvious comments about the concrete reality in these states I am not in a position to give any lead.

So far as I see it , many states have censorship which is the antithesis of a education based society. Some States have odd views about categories of their citizens, including women, religious groups and economic categories.

I am aware I see this through western eyes. I never dismissed ethnomethodology as a useless framework, and it is this wariness of treading on ground where I am not even sure of the basics that makes me abstain from this debate until I have something substantive to say.

But as for your new thread....There you will see me bright eyed and bushy tailed!

Hi Jenny. A rather late response I'm afraid. I nearly didn't take up the points from your October 22 2009 at 1:28 AM post above because, much as I've enjoyed our exchanges there is little point in constantly refighting the same old battles when neither side is going to give ground. However, on reflection I realise that there are some new possibilities for a polite discussion, so here goes:

In response to my saying that I'd seen girls who were distressed and struggled when given corporal punishment you said:

Sounds like it was very effective then. If she were that distressed she wouldn't want to repeat the experience and, therefore, would be more likely to behave herself.

If you or I were publicly flogged for current 3 penalty point and £60 fine motor offences it would doubtless be very effective, we wouldn't want to repeat the experience and we'd be more likely to behave ourselves in future. But would that make such a punishment sensible and suitable in our particular cases?

And in the same context you say:

Once you let on that, by feigning distress, girls (why not boys too?) can escape punishment, you'll have a school of permanently distressed pupils.

But we didn't (have a school of permanently distressed pupils that is). I said that the resulting strokes were fairly mild, just enough for justice to be seen to be done, and on reflection that was usually the case where distress and opposition to receiving CP was shown. Other children presumably noticed this as well, but despite that most girls who incurred them took their whacks without any histrionics.

Many more boys than girls incurred CP and my layman's theory now would be that then for girls at least there was a fairly close correlation between naughtiness and suitability for CP. In a few cases individuals from the majority of girls, for whom CP wasn't really a suitable penalty, happened to stray over the good/naughty boundary and that was when the problems occurred. In the case of boys CP was just part of school. You tried to avoid incurring it, sometimes very successfully like me, but you took it when it came. All of which would seems to me to correlate with the results of research that show that CP is likely to effective with most boys and harmful to most girls. Don't damage your keyboard!

Still in the same context you say:

Boys are conditioned, almost from birth, to accept whatever "nasty things" are thrown at them without making a fuss. A boy, in pain after a serious injury, will often be told to "pull your self together and don't be a big baby". A girl or woman, of any age, will elicit sympathy by just looking a bit upset. Please don't say you've never known a woman to pull that trick - it's the first one in the manual. Personally, I wouldn't do it, I've too much respect for myself, but there are a lot who will.

I haven't known many women pull that trick. In fact thinking back I can't think of any, except perhaps a couple of youngsters - and as I said to you elsewhere any woman with a good brain can twist me round her little finger, so it would have been worth them trying. In two climbing falls I've seen women incur injuries that would have had many men crying for their mummy, but they remained completely composed and certainly didn't attempt to elicit any sympathy, despite being surrounded by men.

When I said:

Taken together with subsequent information, some of it from here, I'm left with the conclusion that if you are going to apply corporal punishment to boys you probably can take a broad brush approach without too many problems.

You replied:

Is that because boys' feeling are unimportant? ......... I'll now express surprise that a man wants his own sex to be treated in a manner he considers worse.

Can you please indicate where I said that I considered the corporal punishment of boys to be 'worse'.

With regard to the need for care if CP was to be applied to girls you said:

Why? If a children of either sex want to avoid being punished, all they need do is behave themselves.

There's no arguing with the second part of that, and I was a major exponent of it. Unfortunately though some children lack the determination, self control and low cunning necessary to achieve that end, they do naughty things and they need to be punished, because that's how they'll learn not to do them. And selecting that punishment is where the care comes in!

In response to my determination to treat women and girls as being different from men and boys you say:

By giving us special consideration, you're treating us as some inferior beings unable to take responsibility for ourselves.

No I'm not, I'm simply acknowledging the scientific fact that men and women differ in all sorts of ways, including the way their brains are structured and function, and specifically that people far more learned and experienced than me have said that CP appears to be a bad choice with many girls. As regards the 'inferior beings' bit, that's complete nonsense in my case. The people who set me up for life with a brilliant education in primary school were women. One of the best managers I ever had was a woman. The greatest PM this country has had in my financially active lifetime was a woman. I could go on, but I won't.

You also said of the boy/girl cp issue:

The certain benefits of removing injustice would far outweigh the possibility of "damage" that might or might not be caused.

I'm sorry, but with all due respect (and that's a lot of respect) that's a ridiculous statement. Neither the injustice nor the possible damage can be accurately measured by any known system, so how can one 'far outweigh' the other? You see the issue from the 'injustice' viewpoint, I see it from the 'possible damage' viewpoint. Why does your opinion 'far outweigh' my opinion?

And finally you say:

I agree about common sense. The simple solution is to remove CP for both sexes. That way you have the triple benefits of: a fair, egalitarian, policy; girls who shouldn't be caned (for whatever reason) wouldn't be; and boys who shouldn't be caned wouldn't be either. Win. Win. Win.

Absolutely correct - but that would spoil all the fun! Of our arguments that is, not of the CP!

Meanwhile back to 2002 and then fast forward to 2009. What happens if you have a senior class of about 25 boys and 25 girls committing a serious offense. Principal Robert Cousins put the kebosh on a tradition of rowdy behavior surrounding October homecoming. He paddled the girls without a witness and he had the coach paddle the boys. I'm assuming with a school of 200 that 50 would be seniors eith 25 boys and 25 girls all on a Friday. Didn't get much work done that day? That's exponentially worse than being lined up for a flu shot. No mention was made of suspensions and the ruckus over it faded quickly but I can hear her say but it's not right for a man to paddle a girl.

Leave it to Colin Farrell to share their high school yearbook pictures and I would imagine that unless they were familiar with Corpun they wouldn't realize they exists in cyberspace beyond their My Space or Facebook even seven years later when they are 24 or 25. How embarrassing can it get? Let's hope their younger siblings behave better unless they passed it of as a part of grwing up with Texas grit. Do they have anything like a homecoming (the first home welcoming football game pageantry) in the UK? They look so angelic how could they get into so much trouble.

Read about the mass paddling of seniors October of 2002 Corpun.

This is not going to be the American Way. I doubt if you will see many more mass paddlings but you never know? Robert Cousins sounds like he is from the old school so maybe he has handed over the paddle like the DHM of our estimable Forum will soon do. I'm dying to see your post retirement documentary where your school will be umasked. Be sure to put it on youtube.

Deep in the Heart of Texas

Hi Another_Lurker

If you or I were publicly flogged for current 3 penalty point and £60 fine motor offences it would doubtless be very effective, we wouldn't want to repeat the experience and we'd be more likely to behave ourselves in future. But would that make such a punishment sensible and suitable in our particular cases?

Such a punishment would be harsh and, if you and I were singled out for it, unfair. I don't know how we could define "suitable" or "sensible" in that context though.

But we didn't (have a school of permanently distressed pupils that is). I said that the resulting strokes were fairly mild, just enough for justice to be seen to be done,

That's a very important consideration in my opinion.

and on reflection that was usually the case where distress and opposition to receiving CP was shown. Other children presumably noticed this as well, but despite that most girls who incurred them took their whacks without any histrionics.

Good for them. There is always a potential danger that, if children discover an escape clause, they'll exploit it. That's what often happened in schools where girls were exempt from punishment, according to friends who attended such schools. I accept the effect can be mitigated by their self-respect though and that would seem the be the case here.

Many more boys than girls incurred CP and my layman's theory now would be that then for girls at least there was a fairly close correlation between naughtiness and suitability for CP.

I can go along with that.

In a few cases individuals from the majority of girls, for whom CP wasn't really a suitable penalty, happened to stray over the good/naughty boundary and that was when the problems occurred.

The occasional straying over the boundary usually doesn't require punishment.

In the case of boys CP was just part of school. You tried to avoid incurring it, sometimes very successfully like me, but you took it when it came.

Boys are conditioned to believe there's no escape. Girl's are taught otherwise.

All of which would seems to me to correlate with the results of research that show that CP is likely to effective with most boys and harmful to most girls.

I think it was beneficial to me and every other women I know who received it at school. I wouldn't want that benefit denied other girls.

Don't damage your keyboard!

I can't afford to. There isn't a big, strong, clever, man available to repair it. I'd just have to cry.


I said:
Boys are conditioned, almost from birth, to accept whatever "nasty things" are thrown at them without making a fuss. A boy, in pain after a serious injury, will often be told to "pull your self together and don't be a big baby". A girl or woman, of any age, will elicit sympathy by just looking a bit upset. Please don't say you've never known a woman to pull that trick - it's the first one in the manual. Personally, I wouldn't do it, I've too much respect for myself, but there are a lot who will.

I haven't known many women pull that trick. In fact thinking back I can't think of any, except perhaps a couple of youngsters - and as I said to you elsewhere any woman with a good brain can twist me round her little finger, so it would have been worth them trying.

From what you've said about yourself, they probably didn't need to.

In two climbing falls I've seen women incur injuries that would have had many men crying for their mummy, but they remained completely composed and certainly didn't attempt to elicit any sympathy, despite being surrounded by men.

Women who engage in those activities are not likely to be the type who rely on men too much.


Can you please indicate where I said that I considered the corporal punishment of boys to be 'worse'.

You didn't; neither did I say you considered it worse for a boy. Your comment "Six strokes of the cane is a severe punishment. I am tempted to say 'especially for a girl'." (Re: oldest spanked or given school detention -October 6 2009 at 12:56 AM) coupled with the comment "Taken with the fact that you both seem to express a preference for corporal punishment over what I would have regarded as more ladylike punishments I have to confess that sometimes I feel very old!" (Re: School Slippering Memories - October 15 2009 at 2:56 AM) suggested to me you see CP as a severe punishment, worse than such things as lines or detentions (I presume those are what you meant by "more ladylike punishments"). You then said "Taken together with subsequent information, some of it from here, I'm left with the conclusion that if you are going to apply corporal punishment to boys you probably can take a broad brush approach without too many problems." to which I replied "Is that because boys' feeling are unimportant? Some people have expressed minor surprise that I advocate CP (among other things) for girls in the interests equality. I'll now express surprise that a man wants his own sex to be treated in a manner he considers worse." Taken together, you consider CP severe, certainly more severe than lines or detention (if I presumed correctly), but are willing to see this worse form of punishment applied to boys without consideration for their feelings: unlike applying it to girls where you "think a great deal more care is needed."

With regard to the need for care if CP was to be applied to girls you said:

Why? If a children of either sex want to avoid being punished, all they need do is behave themselves.

There's no arguing with the second part of that, and I was a major exponent of it. Unfortunately though some children lack the determination, self control and low cunning necessary to achieve that end, they do naughty things and they need to be punished, because that's how they'll learn not to do them. And selecting that punishment is where the care comes in!

So why only apply that care to girls?

In response to my determination to treat women and girls as being different from men and boys you say:

By giving us special consideration, you're treating us as some inferior beings unable to take responsibility for ourselves.

No I'm not, I'm simply acknowledging the scientific fact that men and women differ in all sorts of ways, including the way their brains are structured and function, and specifically that people far more learned and experienced than me have said that CP appears to be a bad choice with many girls. As regards the 'inferior beings' bit, that's complete nonsense in my case. The people who set me up for life with a brilliant education in primary school were women. One of the best managers I ever had was a woman. The greatest PM this country has had in my financially active lifetime was a woman. I could go on, but I won't.

I didn't realise you were around when Boudica was Queen. I doubt any of those women were mollycoddled - Boudica certainly wasn't. I will open a door for anyone if it's more convenient for me to do it or if that person is likely to find it difficult (hands full for example) and I'm grateful when aonther person, male or female, does the same for me in similar circumstances. However, if a man rushes to open a door for me when it would me more convenient for me to do it myself, I infer that he thinks I'm incapable of doing it simply because I'm a woman. The same applies to a man pulling out a chair at the table for me. I'm quite capable of doing these things myself and I find it demeaning when a man implies I'm not. It's treating me as an inferior being.


You also said of the boy/girl cp issue:

The certain benefits of removing injustice would far outweigh the possibility of "damage" that might or might not be caused.

I'm sorry, but with all due respect (and that's a lot of respect) that's a ridiculous statement. Neither the injustice nor the possible damage can be accurately measured by any known system, so how can one 'far outweigh' the other? You see the issue from the 'injustice' viewpoint, I see it from the 'possible damage' viewpoint. Why does your opinion 'far outweigh' my opinion?

Because I'm a woman? Seriously, you're correct. I've seen the effect injustice can have so that's what I want to eliminate because I believe the benefits of so doing are certain. I am not aware of any damage (in the sense Dr Dominum seems to mean) to me or any of my female friends who were caned at school.

And finally you say:

I agree about common sense. The simple solution is to remove CP for both sexes. That way you have the triple benefits of: a fair, egalitarian, policy; girls who shouldn't be caned (for whatever reason) wouldn't be; and boys who shouldn't be caned wouldn't be either. Win. Win. Win.

Absolutely correct - but that would spoil all the fun! Of our arguments that is, not of the CP!

Agreed!

I agree about common sense. The simple solution is to remove CP for both sexes. That way you have the triple benefits of: a fair, egalitarian, policy; girls who shouldn't be caned (for whatever reason) wouldn't be; and boys who shouldn't be caned wouldn't be either. Win. Win. Win.

And at least a tenfold increase in the number of boys being suspended. That's what has commonly been seen when corporal punishment has been abolished.

There is nothing egalitarian about abolishing forms of discipline that are likely to be effective with boys (and less likely to be effective with girls) while at the same time retaining forms of discipline that are likely to effective with girls (and less likely to be effective with boys).

What you've suggested here is about as egalitarian as abolishing treatment for breast cancer would be.

I'm sure everyone knows the relevant quotation by Samuel Langhorne Clemens so I won't repeat it here!

Hi Jenny, Doctor Dominum's comment above reminds me that my response to your post that he quotes might have mislead you. My 'Absolutely correct' refers to the fact thast it is indeed the simple solution. The simple solution isn't necessarily the correct one and I agree totally with Doctor Dominum on the implications of that solution in this case.

I thought I possibly detected some points on which we might find common ground in your October 23 2009, 11:17 PM response above and I've tried to build something on that but got bogged down in too much complexity.

I'll see if inspiration strikes me tomorrow.

Doctor Dominum


I said: "I agree about common sense. The simple solution is to remove CP for both sexes. That way you have the triple benefits of: a fair, egalitarian, policy; girls who shouldn't be caned (for whatever reason) wouldn't be; and boys who shouldn't be caned wouldn't be either. Win. Win. Win."

And at least a tenfold increase in the number of boys being suspended. That's what has commonly been seen when corporal punishment has been abolished.

Not necessarily. Girls are just as badly behaved as boys so the number of boys being suspended would just increase to the same level of girls. If fewer girls are currently being suspended, someone is turning a blind eye to offences committed by them - just do the same for boys.

There is nothing egalitarian about abolishing forms of discipline that are likely to be effective with boys (and less likely to be effective with girls) while at the same time retaining forms of discipline that are likely to effective with girls (and less likely to be effective with boys).

See my reply to Prof.n in "School Slippering Memories Re: getting somewhere? October 24 2009, 6:39 PM"

What you've suggested here is about as egalitarian as abolishing treatment for breast cancer would be.

I wouldn't support such a move but it would be egalitarian: men can suffer from breast cancer too.

Hi Jenny. Back into the fray, though very aware that I am a minnow swimming amongst sharks! You say to Doctor Dominum:

Girls are just as badly behaved as boys

No they are not. They may possibly be getting worse behaved with the almost total absence of any sort of discipline, corporal or otherwise in home or school today, but they are not as badly behaved as boys, never have been and I doubt they ever will be. If girls are as badly behaved as boys, what suddenly happens to them when they become eligible for the rigours of the justice system?

Figures from the Ministry of Justice National Offender Management Service, Prison Population 23 October 2009, to be found here.

• Males:       80405
• Females:     4301

That's 18·7 times as many men in prison as women. Where have all those naughty girls gone?

OK, I admit I'm being a bit disingenuous there. Naughty children don't necessarily go on to do the sort of things that result in prison sentences. But some of them certainly do do exactly that. Why so many more males than females? Simply because there are a lot more naughty boys than naughty girls available to become criminal adults. Not 18·7 times as many maybe, but a lot more!

You also say:

If fewer girls are currently being suspended, someone is turning a blind eye to offences committed by them

Suspension figures are hard to come by, and I can't find anything as up to date as the prison population figures. In fact I can't find any suspension figures at all, just fixed term and permanent exclusion figures, which seem to be published once a year, considerably in arrears. The latest figures for England are here, published in July 2009 for the 2007/2008 school year.

An extract:

Characteristics of Excluded Pupils

• In 2007/08 the permanent exclusion rate for boys was approx 3.5 times higher than that for girls. Boys represented 78 per cent of the total number of permanent exclusions each year.
  
  
• In 2007/08 the fixed period exclusion rate for boys was almost 3 times higher than that for girls. Boys accounted for some 75 per cent of all fixed period exclusions.
  
  
• Boys are more likely to be excluded (both permanently and for a fixed period) at a younger age than girls, with very few girls being excluded during the primary years. The most common point for both boys and girls to be excluded is at ages 13 and 14 (equivalent to year groups 9 and 10); around 52 per cent of all permanent exclusions were of pupils from these age groups.

So there we have it, 3·5 times as many boys permanently excluded and 3 times as many boys excluded for fixed periods. Do you really suggest that schools are turning a blind eye to naughty girls to that extent. Of course they aren't! When it comes to the point where behaviour is so bad that exclusion is looked at schools just want the child out so that other children can get some education and the teachers can give it to them. Whether the child being excluded is a boy or a girl doesn't even enter into the equation!

And finally, personal experience. When I was at a mixed Infant/Junior school in the late 1940s early 1950s boys were most certainly naughtier than girls in school. I'd say perhaps 4 or 5 naughty boys to 1 naughty girl. Other people here have confirmed that sort of pattern for other periods. Agreed a very few people have claimed, as you do, that girls are and were as naughty as boys, but those who've said that have been very much in the minority. In fact didn't you say somewhere here that rather more boys than girls were caned at your school, which you've said was a very fair school where punishments were concerned?

I'd like to here of any verifiable published source that says girls are as naughty as boys. School statistics, official statistics, school punishment books, collections of personal reminiscences, anything you like. If girls really are as badly behaved as boys the data must be out there somewhere!

Not necessarily. Girls are just as badly behaved as boys so the number of boys being suspended would just increase to the same level of girls. If fewer girls are currently being suspended, someone is turning a blind eye to offences committed by them - just do the same for boys.

Not necessarily, Jenny?

Perhaps not, but I didn't pull that 'tenfold increase in suspensions' out of thin air. In every single case in Australia where corporal punishment was abolished from schools, it was followed by an incredible increase in the number of boys being suspended from school. Every single case. The data on this is clear an unequivocal. There has been some increase for girls as well, but nowhere near as dramatic and it didn't start immediately following the abolition of corporal punishment (which wasn't used for girls anyway) but started after a gap of a number of years.

The same massive increase in the use of suspension was seen in Canadian provinces as corporal punishment was abolished, across the UK as corporal punishment was abolished, in New Zealand as corporal punishment was abolished, and in US states where corporal punishment has been abolished. And in every case, the increase of the US of suspension with boys has been far more dramatic than that with girls.

When something has happened 100% of the time, and the opposite scenario has never happened 'not necessarily' doesn't say much at all.

The idea that 'girls are just as badly behaved as boys' is not one I think you'd find many teachers agree with. Australian figures indicate that co-educational schools typically report 90% of serious behavioural issues involve boys, not girls.

Personally I believe there is ample evidence to support the thesis that boys as a group misbehave more than girls. But I do also agree that in many schools, at many times, there has been a tendency to let girls get away with more.

Jenny - the simple fact is that about 80% of students currently being suspended from school in Australia are boys. The figure for England is similar - about 75% of suspensions ('fixed term exclusions') involve boys.

There's two possible explanations for this:

(1) - boys are worse behaved than girls. In which case, it is only sensible that either different measures might be needed to deal with their misbehaviour.

or

(2) - boys are not worse behaved than girls, in which case a suspension rate three to four times higher would seem to reflect that the current education system is biased against boys (that sexism is in play) in which case, arguing for the preservation of the status quo is not egalitarian at all, but merely perpetuates sexism in fact.

Actually, there's a third explanation - and that is that the truth is a little of (1) and a little of (2) interacting. And that's the one that is most likely to be the truth.

I wouldn't support such a move but it would be egalitarian: men can suffer from breast cancer too.

At about 1% of the rate of women. So abolishing treatment would kill 100 women for every 1 man it killed. If you think that is egalitarian, you're using a very odd definition of the word.

Declan ,

A quick IT point . You will really find a vast improvement in your system and speed by installing mozilla firefox as your default browser. It can be more difficult to initially 'run' but that is because of the multitudinous 'add ons' which you just need to steadfastly refuse- eventually , like trolls,they go away. The great advantage is that you don't get the adverts, pop ups and other garbage that seems to fly around in cyberspace. Its free , and it really will make a difference to your speed , ( it even does to mine , and I'm notorious at never doing correct housekeeping , or shutting down redundant programmes)!!


Another Lurker,

Well AL did you read my last post on the 'slipper' thread? Because there I gave a health warning on the use of statistics in criminology. You see you don't teach this stuff for years and not know in which direction the argument may next turn ....... OK look at it this way. On my bookshelf ( and criminology is not a particular interest), I have , perhaps 0.75m of criminology material. i guess 75% is basically debating statistics...and as to official one,.... well, what answer do you want , Minister?

Lets look further, Even at a superficial level I doubt anyone would argue that women are treated equivalently to men in the criminal system.

At one end of the spectrum, we award the worst penalties to certain women murderer's child molesters and the like because the offences outrage our sense of decency and 'femininity' which permeates our everyday lives as an ideological substrate. In psycho-social terms there is no reason why men , any more than women should be predisposed to act in certain pathological ways, but it offends our sense of morality for a woman to be unmasked as not fulfilling the 'mother goddess' myth. Without digressing , this also has a lot to do with the paradox that women caning boys is socially and politically OK ; when men caning girls is not. In social mores the ATTRIBUTION of motivation is all.

At the other end we on occasion, and for little understood reasons, treat some inadequate badly for minor crime, whilst , on the whole ignoring and excusing much of middle class female criminality ( sugar and spice). Moreover there are concrete barriers to equal treatment. firstly we just do not have the plant to incarcerate the same proportion of women as men. this is a long term issue, because the two sides of the criminal justice system ( male: female) have been subjected to different policy imperatives over a long number of years.

Then there is psychological historicism ( nice phrase). This refers to the inherent developmental tendency in the world of crime and punishment, to essentially reproduce structures which 'mirror' our understanding of history.In simple terms, before the enlightenment , punishment was relatively , harsh, random and public spectacle.It didn't really matter a fig if you got the 'right' culprit : the deterrent was the public punishment , and the very real fear of torture in the dark , dank dungeon. Just like a class of little boys ( and girls) watching a class caning, eyes agog, motives dubious at best . Nevertheless it deters.

Today punishment, even capital punishment ( or corporal punishment , see the Malaysian thread) tends to be confined to specific houses of correction, where we 'aim'(?) to control the many with the few ( guards) ; reform the prisoner through observation and control ; and isolate. . This denudes the prisoner of private space,and provides a ground for modern eco-psychiatry. inexorably leading to the mechanism which essentially strips a prisoner immediately of his civil status, and never allows him to fully reclaim his/her humanity.

For purely ideological reasons reinforced by mythological belief systems, we pre identify the guilty as males, ( also depending on cultural norms possibly drawn from, minority racial groups, outsiders ( eg Romany peoples, the intellectually challenged......) I need not go on. Just look at the official figures.

a long explanation to a simple point, school discipline and criminal justice are very different worlds. You can't cross compare statistics without a lot of painstaking work, and making a raft of methodological assumptions......

I could continue but I think, or hope, you see the difficulties.......

Hi Another_Lurker


If girls are as badly behaved as boys, what suddenly happens to them when they become eligible for the rigours of the justice system?

"Naughtiness" in school is not the same as criminality in adult life. Very few school rules equate to criminal offences. I can only think of: Vandalism; Theft; Bullying (Assault or Robbery). Being late for work is not likely (outside of the military) to get you gaoled. Nor is wearing makeup, failing to do your homework, talking in class, or smoking: to name a few school rules.


Figures from the Ministry of Justice National Offender Management Service, Prison Population 23 October 2009, to be found here.

* Males: 80405
* Females: 4301

That's 18·7 times as many men in prison as women. Where have all those naughty girls gone?


OK, I admit I'm being a bit disingenuous there. Naughty children don't necessarily go on to do the sort of things that result in prison sentences. But some of them certainly do do exactly that. Why so many more males than females? Simply because there are a lot more naughty boys than naughty girls available to become criminal adults. Not 18·7 times as many maybe, but a lot more!

You certainly are being disingenuous. Those figures show incarceration rates, not offending rates.

Women shoplifters were less likely than comparable males to receive
a prison sentence. They were also more likely to be sentenced to a
community penalty or to be discharged.

Men and women stood an equal chance of going to prison for a first
violent of fence. However among repeat offenders women were less
likely to receive a custodial sentence.

Women first offenders were significantly less likely than equivalent
men to receive a prison sentence for a drug offence, but recidivists
were equally likely to go to prison.

Among first and repeat offenders, women convicted of violence and
drug offences were always more likely to be discharged and men
more likely to be fined. But again, this seems to be less a
consequence of a policy of leniency than a reluctance to impose one
particular sentence the fine on women.

.... However, even when men were stealing bacon or coffee rather than alcohol or
items to sell, they rarely engaged magistrates sympathies.

The above quotes are from the "Home Office Research Study 170 - Understanding the
sentencing of women" which you may peruse at your leisure http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors170.pdf The study attempts to justify lenient treatment of female criminals but, regardless of any justification (which I reject), it goes someway to explaining the discrepancy in incarceration rates even when there is no difference in offending rates.

The problem is compounded by a general reluctance of the police and CPS to prosecute women - ask any male victim of domestic violence.

Suspension figures are hard to come by..... The latest figures for England are here, published in July 2009 for the 2007/2008 school year.

...3·5 times as many boys permanently excluded and 3 times as many boys excluded for fixed periods. Do you really suggest that schools are turning a blind eye to naughty girls to that extent. Of course they aren't!

Is there any reason to believe the schools are less lenient to girls than the courts are to women?

When it comes to the point where behaviour is so bad that exclusion is looked at schools just want the child out so that other children can get some education and the teachers can give it to them. Whether the child being excluded is a boy or a girl doesn't even enter into the equation!

At that level, I'd tend to agree but not at the lower level where the cane might be used instead. Consider smoking. I think that's a good example because the male/female offending rate are roughly equal and most schools consider it a serious offence. If a group of boys and girls are smoking (reasonably common) and are caught (less common thankfully), how could it be dealt with? My school would just cane all of them - and did! If girls were exempt from the cane, the boys can be caned but what about the girls? Is it necessary to expel or suspend them? I don't think so. So what's left? Detention? Lines? A severe "telling off"? That last one is little more than turning a blind eye and there's no reason why the boys could not have been punished in the same way. What's happening now is that boys are being expelled or suspended where, previously, the would have been caned but, as girls tended to be exempt from the cane in the latter years before its abolition, there are still being treated as they were before.

And finally, personal experience. When I was at a mixed Infant/Junior school in the late 1940s early 1950s boys were most certainly naughtier than girls in school. I'd say perhaps 4 or 5 naughty boys to 1 naughty girl. Other people here have confirmed that sort of pattern for other periods. Agreed a very few people have claimed, as you do, that girls are and were as naughty as boys, but those who've said that have been very much in the minority. In fact didn't you say somewhere here that rather more boys than girls were caned at your school, which you've said was a very fair school where punishments were concerned?

Our experiences clearly differ. I think you may have misunderstood what I said about more boys being caned than girls. I was speaking in general - not what happened at my school. In fact, I said the opposite. In the early years it seemed more girls received CP than boys and I speculated that it could have been due to a mistaken belief among those girls that they wouldn't get the cane no matter what they did.

I'd like to here of any verifiable published source that says girls are as naughty as boys. School statistics, official statistics, school punishment books, collections of personal reminiscences, anything you like. If girls really are as badly behaved as boys the data must be out there somewhere!

I think we'll only find statistics of recorded offences which, for the reasons I've given, will not be the same as actual offences.

Jenny,

Agree with most you say on this to AL but would reiterate,in the round women are treated both more leniently than men in most categories of crimed, and so far as most categories of women are concerned. however there are areas where they are treated more harshly than men, in the case of paedophilia and certain categories of murder ( technically I suppose homicide, given our peculiar division between murder and manslaughter) this is particularly noticeable .

To make sense of this is important not to treat women as a whole as the Home Office tend to do, but to categorize them educationally, socially, even in terms of self ascribed gender, to get a clear , and not very pleasant picture of what is going on.

Many years ago, when aspiring to the Professorial rank, I led a team undertaking work for the Home Office and the old DFE on the interface between youth justice and education.. Because of its delicacy I can't say anything in detail about the work but let me just indicate that Yes Minister was not that far from the truth in many things.


I would never refer anyone to home office statistics without simultaneously suggesting they read these alongside the work of a good criminologist , say someone like Prof. Phil Scraton.

Doctor Dominum


Not necessarily, Jenny?

Perhaps not, but I didn't pull that 'tenfold increase in suspensions' out of thin air. In every single case in Australia where corporal punishment was abolished from schools, it was followed by an incredible increase in the number of boys being suspended from school. Every single case. The data on this is clear an unequivocal.

That's only because the schools choose to use that method of discipline. I thought your repertoire was in excess of twenty methods so there must be something other than suspension they could use.

There has been some increase for girls as well, but nowhere near as dramatic and it didn't start immediately following the abolition of corporal punishment (which wasn't used for girls anyway) but started after a gap of a number of years.

Abolishing something that isn't used isn't likely to have much effect.

The same massive increase in the use of suspension was seen in Canadian provinces as corporal punishment was abolished, across the UK as corporal punishment was abolished, in New Zealand as corporal punishment was abolished, and in US states where corporal punishment has been abolished. And in every case, the increase of the US of suspension with boys has been far more dramatic than that with girls.

Se my reply to Another_Lurker above.


When something has happened 100% of the time, and the opposite scenario has never happened 'not necessarily' doesn't say much at all.

That not mean that method had to be chosen.


The idea that 'girls are just as badly behaved as boys' is not one I think you'd find many teachers agree with. Australian figures indicate that co-educational schools typically report 90% of serious behavioural issues involve boys, not girls.

Reported behaviour is not the same as actual behaviour. ("There are no undetected bugs in our software.")

... But I do also agree that in many schools, at many times, there has been a tendency to let girls get away with more.

Which goes at least someway to explaining the differences in reported behaviour.


Jenny - the simple fact is that about 80% of students currently being suspended from school in Australia are boys. The figure for England is similar - about 75% of suspensions ('fixed term exclusions') involve boys.

There's two possible explanations for this:

(1) - boys are worse behaved than girls. In which case, it is only sensible that either different measures might be needed to deal with their misbehaviour.

or

(2) - boys are not worse behaved than girls, in which case a suspension rate three to four times higher would seem to reflect that the current education system is biased against boys (that sexism is in play) in which case, arguing for the preservation of the status quo is not egalitarian at all, but merely perpetuates sexism in fact.

Actually, there's a third explanation - and that is that the truth is a little of (1) and a little of (2) interacting. And that's the one that is most likely to be the truth.

That third is a possibility but I think the second is the most likely. Giving boys the same leeway as is given girls would go someway to redress the balance. Replacing one sexist system with another is not the answer.

I said: "...men can suffer from breast cancer too."

At about 1% of the rate of women. So abolishing treatment would kill 100 women for every 1 man it killed. If you think that is egalitarian, you're using a very odd definition of the word.

Equality of opportunity (which is what I advocate) is not the same as equality of outcome.

Wearing my school governor hat I visited the primary (nursery -11) school last Wednesday.

During the morning I made short visits to class rooms across the age range.

Did I see any naughty behaviour. In fact very little and it was dealt with the same for both sexes. But what was evident was that it was different and I think this is where the problem of comparison breaks down

Girls and boys misbehave differently and in the past result in being treated differently giving the idea that boys are more naughtier than girls.


I would say I was impressed on Wednesday at the way the teachers handled it, it was very low key and without looking for it a visitor might miss it but it was effective as lessons were not disrupted and this meant that children of all abilities were not prevented from learning.

I have been a governor for 20 years and this was the best example of good teaching practice I have seen.

Prof.n

Agree with most you say on this to AL but would reiterate,in the round women are treated both more leniently than men in most categories of crimed, and so far as most categories of women are concerned. however there are areas where they are treated more harshly than men, in the case of paedophilia and certain categories of murder ( technically I suppose homicide, given our peculiar division between murder and manslaughter) this is particularly noticeable.

I agree a few, certainly not all, female child abusers who are prosecuted (paedophilia is not, per se, a crime) are treated more harshly but fewer are prosecuted in the first place. Would a 25 year old male teacher, convicted of having sex with one of his 17 year old female students, really get a lighter sentence than a 25 year old female teacher convicted of having sex with one of her 17 year old male students?

If a man kills his wife, he's a murderer. If a woman kills her husband, she's a victim of years of domestic abuse who finally snapped. The fact that there is no evidence of domestic abuse is only due to her "bottling it up" for years so it's quite understandable that she finally couldn't take any more and killed to protect herself and her children.

I accept what you say is true in some cases but there are a lot of counter examples.

Of course there are counter examples - the interesting thing is , I think, that where this 'harsh' sentencing takes places it is often associated with 'social conscience' which is itself a reflection of the dominant ideology which is patriarchal, of course, but by its existence prescribes simultaneously a matriarchal role and norms of conduct.

Hi Jenny: It's not about equality but necessity. Gone are the days of giggling, gabbing and gossiping. There were always fights but never as we have seen here of late. Those who say the paddle is a picnic compared to the cane should think again. Jusr ask Nashia reduced to tears. Meanwhile back in 2009 as in Wednesday, October 21st.

But this was different in that I was called over to the high school next door.

The reason: A ggirl fighth!

Because the only lady teacher who paddles was on personal leave for this month, I was placed on gstand byh just in case. I was told it could happen but not likely.

Wrong!

So, after a five minute walk -I come into the front office and lo -A petite former student of mine with a black eye, busted lip, and a bruised cheek. The other was a much larger black girl (A highly recruited basketball player) sporting a slightly swollen lower lip.

Mrs. (Renee) c., these two were in a gcat fighth dispute over a boy earlier this morningcSchool policy calls for BOTH to be paddled, soch said Mr. Roberts, the high school principal.

gCatfight?h I questioned. gLooks more like a mugging outcome youfd expect to see on the Live At 6 local newscast!h

I talked Mr. Roberts into allowing me to take complete charge of the matter -Which he agreed. Then, I took both ladies from the front office to the vice principalfs office in back of the building. After calling the librarian by intercom for the purpose of a (female) witness, I then turned towards Nashia who must be the biggest (and meanest Ifve heard) high school girl basketball player around.

gNashia, if it were up to me -Ifd just call the sheriff and have you arrested for assaultcAnd you could wave bye bye to ANY future college basketball scholarship!h

Nashia looked at me wide eyed and pleaded,hLook, Mrs. c., I just elost itf when I saw Amy getting too echattyf with my boyfriendcPleasecJust paddle me!cIf I donft get that scholarshipch

Amy interrupted,hStevefs locker is next to mine!cI was not flirting ch

gAmy dear, calm down and have a seatcNashia, come with me into the conference room with Ms. B (Librarian).

Holding a rather heavy 20 x 4 x 1 double handled paddle, I informed Nashia that she would get 5 swats and to bend over with hands against the wall.

I then proceeded to deliver 5 hard swats to the thin looking dress slack covereded rear end of Nashia. And I did not hold back as I usually do and held the paddle with both hands -Nashia REALLY deserved this one!

SMACK SMACK SMACK SMACK SMACK

Even behind closed doors, anyone in the hallways outside the office would have heard it! And Nashia, the roughest girl in the school was reduced to tears and clutching her rear as she was sent back to her class.

Amy, waiting outside, had a look of sheer terror and started to plead.

gNo, AmycIfm NOT going to paddle youcYou need to get medical attentioncSo call your mom or dadcIfll sign your dismissal form,h I responded.

Ms. B started to say something but I cut her off saying,h No, I donft care what Mr. Roberts says about it taking TWO for there to be a efightf because poor Amy was NOT in a efightf but rather a real life ebeatingf!h

A relieved and grateful Amy hugged me and then proceeded to call her dad who arrived a short time later to pick her up.

I do not believe Nashia will be getting in any more trouble like this week and if my gpaddling reputationh causes the high school girls to act more like ladies and not thugs -That will be for the better!

And for those who would try to make this a RACIAL issue -FORGETABOUTIT!

If Amy had been black and Nashia white -The paddling would have been exactly the same!

Those who read TWP will have seen the piece kindly reproduced above for us by American Way. Please compare it with the video ( - just talking heads) I have posted from the UK.

As usual Renee ticked all the boxes, quick, safe and authorised. I was also pleased to see she used sense in ignoring a set policy of 'both parties guilty', when that clearly wasn't the case.

As to the cane versus swats again, its not such a big deal. Both hurt I assure you , but they are very different as Alan Turing has elegantly shown us in theory.

The comparison that I gave some time ago ( 2 swats a bit more than one of the best) is one drawn from my not very great experience of c.p., Miss F's considerable experience of paddling and caning, and also her daughter, who received the paddle in a number of US schools, also from mom(!) , and the cane at a separate school to the ones her mom taught in, here in the UK. The main difference is what Dr. Dominum talked of sometime ago where the cane is a geometric progression of pain build,which i thought very close to the truth as I perceived it . Whilst the paddle is certainly more than straight addition the gradient is nowhere near the 'geometric' progression of the cane in my view,.

It's the best we can judge, so unless someone else out there can give a another comparison based on experience, I'm afraid I'm sticking with it.

Pain is very individual.So no one can tell you how bad your pain is. That is a medically accepted fact. What is unbearable to one is not to another. so experience is the only guide. Pain thresholds, ( as opposed to the measurement of the application of pain), physiologically vary from person to person, day to day and minute to minute,according to the heat and humidity, and crucially depend psychologically on mental state and resilience.......as for her tears as an indicator , well, a lot of that is tension release, and probably some humiliation however reasonable Renee may have been with her. .

In these situations there always is tension, as those who have been through it know.

In this case the paddle used was heavier (1 inch not the normal 1/2 inch ) but doubtless the extra weight/need for two hands would be offset by the fact the 1970's had those pesky holes that seem to get people so hot under the collar.

As to equality, well of course it doesn't arise what with parental opting out an' all.

A few salient (I hope) observations regarding Renne's posting first and foremost I'm glad she noticed the mitigating circumstances and a form that I posted could be signed in minutes to allow a student to bring what might not have been assessed as obviously as this situation. She was in the on deck circle and they didn't ask a male teacher (hooray). She had prior knowledge of Amy but that didn't enter into her judgment the marks did.

She had the authority to ratchet down the punishment with Amy and certainly ratchet it up due to size and attire but there was a certain hit hard and not feel bad because she deserved it tone that didn't sit well with me. In spite of anyone's best intentions righteous indignation isn't always right.

TWP has never said stop CP on the high school level but has never been keen on it either for a variety of reasons and I parted company with them on this estimable Forum and I'm glad that Renee has an opportunity to paddle someone older than an eighth grader and prof n I can't agree with you more about the size of the paddle being better than those used even if they initially failed Renee's paddle inspection of course this isn't triple A it's the major leagues high school.

Being called in as a substitute hittter will not afford her the opportunity to see the long term effects on Nashia as she can with Miranda. I hope no one like Paula Flowe plants a seed of doubt in her young mind that Renee is a racists especially where Nashia won't come to know her except as an executioner so to speak.

My caution to Renee is that great care must be taken to ascertain the facts and mitigating circumstances (with form posted it can be done with due deliberation in 15 minutes top) and in case of doubt if that means delay so be it. I say this as a father (almost twice her age and in no way discounting her ten years as an educator) so I'm looking forward to their promised elaboration on examples justifying delay over the obvious benefit of swift retribution.

My obssession with teachers ascertaining the facts will be more understandable after my promised Halloween account. Renee was in the perfect situation of looking at the marks but that is mote often than not not the case. It is what you you see and not what you hear about someone who has a bad record from someone however trustworthy. It doesn't have to be a beyond the reasonable doubt but mistakes can be high stakes when it comes to a child trusting an adult.

Post paddling informing the parent is a must and the school must make a good faith effort to inform the parents (however absent or not caring) before their child tries to get their parents to buy their story. If a child says but my parents are going to kill me you can tell them I don't think that's going to happen so I'm not going to be looking for your name in tomorrow's obituarty section.

Here's a quick story about abiding by set codes. Bully terrorized everyone until my nephew beat him up in middle school. The principal meets with my sister and says he did what we couldn't and he'll get detention but do not punish him for if he didn't fight back he would be paying for a lot of therapy down the road. My kind of principal.

When you're bending over and getting seven swats from this paddle you would gladly change places with six of the best. Even in the strictest of search modes you can google (Crystel is caned by the headmaster. Slo-Mo, accompanied by Jerusalem tune) and it doesn't seem to be as bad as I would imagine seven from below. Even if the HM in the video wasn't a bit swishy or light in his loafers he couldn't do much damage as our very own DHM in his prime could from seven swats of the paddle below. prof n you brought to our attention the seven swats given in the South Delta MS school and this is a HRW exhibit from there (they found the worse). Too many splinters but to paraphrase with humor Shakespeare there is a destiny that shapes our ends rough hewn them though they may be.

Geometrics IMHO rubbish . I would gladly trade places with Crystel with six of the best from that wimpy Headmaster than be bent over the principal's desk. We never punish for bad grades and the poor girl could be working with all her cylinders for all we know prof n in the brace position you might push the school football linesman right through the wall even without holes.

American Way,

Two levels , at the extreme , you can kill with a paddle - pretty easily too, I guess!!!Its certainly been used as a plot on 'law and order' ( but what hasn't?). I said before it is easy , some might say too easy, to injure seriously with a paddle. Why? Because any fool can hit with a bat.

However, when you come to sensible moderate punishment of kids that isn't what we are after. We want to deliver an appropriate lesson without residual damage. I won't repeat Dr. Dominum's strictures on this.

What I am comparing is 'the best stroke of the cane , in comparison to a good full lick of a paddle , completely within the limits set by TWP, which as I've said on too many occasions, were exactly the same limits used by Miss F , and which she had been taught as safe.....That includes a LIMITED swing, and you know the rest.

Where she agreed with Dr. Dominum is that the cane needs more skill than the paddle, and seconds thought shows why. That's why the TWP criteria are so precise. I'm sure any of us would have been extremely angry at what Renee's basketball player had done, but you don't punish in anger, and heavens(!) anywhere near the maximum power for a paddle would be clear abuse . My reservation about the paddle has always been how easy the line is to step over, and we have examples littering history.

So yes you could knock someone into the middle of next week with a paddle ...but it would hardly be an advertisement for the technique ; but it would give Paula the opportunity for some more air miles........

Sorry to be a bit Po faced, AW , but it is this danger , ( use without limits) that will cross the line into abuse, and then lose the battle for sensible punishment regimes. The result then ....look at the video I posted!

I know you stand for moderate punishment, but I really do think it can be dangerous even to joke about what could be done with a paddle. anyway come to think of it , judicial canings in the Far East show what damage can be done with the cane as well........

TWP wrote: "I do not believe Nashia will be getting in any more trouble like this week and if my paddling reputation causes the high school girls to act more like ladies and not thugs -That will be for the better!"

I¡¦m sure there are those among this estimable Forum who would strongly differ but don¡¦t count me among them. In first grade I visited the monkeys at the zoo and I was shocked that some had something ugly sticking out of them and those were the ones (monkeying around) sisters would yell at during recess. I never wondered why the boys were yelled at more than the girls because the boys (monkeyed) around.

As an aside in eighth grade (more on that at Halloween) they could be more than one pairs of Adam and Eve because there were many cavemen from different parts of the world. Charles Darwin was a heretic and so was I. The pastor was called in after Sister Mary Godzilla called me a heretic. He came to my defense and said it was only necessary that one couple have full consent of the will to commit a mortal sin and then from there it didn¡¦t matter. The theory was if you couldnt go to hell for all eternity than your soul couldn't be immortal.

prof n how can you make a statement worthwhile on a chain of conditions (if if if if) and be sure of proportional accuracy worth considering? I guess you would have to interview consenting adults to get a fair measure. Great value was derived when I asked about the bruising and hurting effect from a physic/physiology perspective and I was ready to employ two paddles just as Miranda and Nashia were on the receiving end would have me tossed the thin paddle that Renee seemed to advocate. However imprudent to share what goes on behind closed doors Renee did an experiment but I hardly think she would be up to sampling a cane.

prof n you make the cane sound like an elegant instrument requiring expertise and the paddle as if it's were a crude instrument IMHO that is not the case. They are both instruments of correction embedded in the culture. The cane is a thin instrument that painfully comes in contact with the flesh in six different spaces and if significantly apart the pain caused by the shearing effect would be diminished? Why should obesity become a benefit? ): The size of the bottom doesn't seem to matter as much as when a paddle for it comes in contact with a larger portion of the bottom even given the fact that the edges of the paddle produce the painful shearing effect. Even the body of the paddle itself produces pain especially when heavy. Is there any truth that teachers would cane four times horizontally than two vertically to get as much pain out of six of the best? Does what is called gating occur?

Quite right to point out the dangers of non moderate punishment. I had never considered the possible damage that could be done by over use of the paddle, but knew well that even through trousers and pants, over exhuberant use of the cane can easily cause bleeding.

I have always thought that moderation is the name of the game with any system. Dr D's school at least has a system, with checks and balances. Go back forty years and there was very little by way of moderation built into the system. Almost anything was ok (for boys anyway).

An area where I have to eat a little humble pie with my assumptions. Although over severe, the schools in the far east at least have a "discipline master/mistress" who at least provides an element of consistency. Those administering should be able to be totally professional and not allow emotion to enter into a punishment. To lay on extra hard because they deserve it, as in the paddling case outlined above, should not happen.

One of the reasons that have been put forward why men should never paddle, cane or slipper girls, is that of strength, thereby indicating that any punishment from a man would be more severe than that given by a woman. We know that this isn't the case (see Prof N's description of Miss f), but it is undoubtedly true that some men do not know their own strength and there have been countless incidents of boys being beaten much harder than they should have been due to this syndrome. Given that punishments would be authorised, not involve any indecency and be witnessed, strength should be the only cause of concern. However this concern exists with boys as well as girls. Given that all recipients experience some loss of face and embarrassment I cannot for the life of me see what the objection would be to having men paddle/cane girls, other than the strength/power factor.

I know that it causes A_L some concern, but despite my egalitarian instincts, there is maybe, just maybe, a case for only using female's to administer punishment. Although there have been undoubted exceptions, by and large women must be much less prone to using brute force, which is where unwanted injuries come from. Technique, especially with caning, is what makes a punishment effective or not. The possibility of excess power being used by men is just as relevant for young boys as well as girls. I wonder if this lies behind TWP's stance on paddling, or is their policy just blatantly sexist?

Oliver S

So called 'Gating' is one of the myths about the cane. I doubt anyone other than sadists deliberately caused it to happen.

Anywhere that hard strokes of the cane overlap, there is likely to be some damage. Generally it causes a small blood blister that often breaks if a further stroke lands on the same spot. At the time of punishment, it is not noticeably more painful, but it is tender afterwards and takes longer to heal.

Oliver_S

One of the reasons that have been put forward why men should never paddle, cane or slipper girls, is that of strength, thereby indicating that any punishment from a man would be more severe than that given by a woman. We know that this isn't the case (see Prof N's description of Miss f), but it is undoubtedly true that some men do not know their own strength and there have been countless incidents of boys being beaten much harder than they should have been due to this syndrome.

In my considerable experience, as an oft times recipient of such, women go harder than men. The average man might be stronger than the average woman but he's also more aware of his strength and controls it. Women tended, in general but definitely not always, to just whack away as hard as they could. That's one of the reasons I would be opposed to a ban on men punishing girls - it would make it worse for the girls.

I know that it causes A_L some concern, but despite my egalitarian instincts, there is maybe, just maybe, a case for only using female's to administer punishment.

In general, I'd rather only men did it. Clearly there are individual variations but, given a simple choice of man or woman, I'd pick a man.

Although there have been undoubted exceptions, by and large women must be much less prone to using brute force,

I found them more prone to it.

The possibility of excess power being used by men is just as relevant for young boys as well as girls.

Don't forget the possibility of women using excess power.

That's only because the schools choose to use that method of discipline. I thought your repertoire was in excess of twenty methods so there must be something other than suspension they could use.

To an extent, you are correct. But only to an extent, and the extent to which you are correct doesn't actually address the real issue.

Yes, schools, in theory could choose some other method of discipline besides suspension. But they are not and there are reasons they are not. Quite complicated reasons in some case, quite simple reasons in others.

What does happen - not necessarily what should happen, but what does happen is when corporal punishment is banned, the vast majority of schools simply replace with either suspension, or the most severe forms of detention available to them.

You seem to see the world as as something that should function the way you want it to. Even assuming that what you want is right - and that's a big assumption - it should be fairly obvious to you that that is not how the world actually works.

But let's say, just for the sake of argument, that all those schools had used some other method besides suspension to replace corporal punishment. Would that create an ideal solution?

No - almost certainly not. Because if they chose to use detention instead of suspension, more boys would be being suspended than girls. If they chose to use a token economy system, more boys would be being fined than girls. If they chose to use deprivation of blit, more boys would be blit-depleted than girls.

Your position is that girls are just as badly behaved as boys. I don't know a single teacher out of all of those I've encountered over my career who believes that. I don't know of a single piece of evidence for that position. Personally I don't think it's at all likely - although I do agree that girls often get away with things boys wouldn't. The two positions aren't incompatible - if boys misbehave three times as often as girls and are punished five times as often, for example, both things would be true at the same time.

Regardless, however, of whether boys do misbehave more often than girls, it is easily and demonstrably true that boys are experiencing the most severe forms of punishment available in schools today at a far higher rate than girls. If you believe that discrepancy is unjustified by their behavior then as a matter of justice, we should be looking at what can be done to fix that.

My position is simple at its core. I believe students should (with occasional exceptions for very special reasons) be punished for misbehaving. I believe teachers should have the widest possible range of punishments available to them as options, so they can make use of the most appropriate punishment in any particular case - and by appropriate, I mean most likely to succeed balanced with least likely to do damage?

Is that happening now in places where corporal punishment is no longer an option? No, it most certainly is not. The massive explosion in the rate of suspensions clearly demonstrates it.

And that rate has exploded far more for boys than it has for girls.

Three basic possibilities.

"Boys are no worse behaved than girls and the different suspension rate for them is unjustified." - if so, it's obvious that there is endemic sexism occurring in the current system, which theoretically is supposed to be treating boys and girls in the same way. Continuing to insist that that status quo continues is not egalitarian - it's endorsing sexusm.

"Boys are no worse behaved than girls and the different suspension rate for them is a relection not on behaviour, but on the efficacy of the discipline provisions now in place in correcting misbehaviour." - if so, it is obvious that the discipline provisions now in place are more effective at correcting the misbehaviour of girls than they are of boys. Continuing to insist of one model for disciplining both boys and girls therefore means perpetuating a system that is better in effect for girls than it is for boys. That's not egalitarian either.

"Boys are worse behaved than girls and the different suspension rate for them reflects the fact that they misbehave more often than girls." - if so, then we are clearly dealing with populations with different characteristics and therefore the sensible approach is to differentiate our disciplinary approach with them. To look at which methods are most succesful in dealing with boys and make sure they are available for dealing with boys. And fairness says we should do the same for girls.

The thing is, our current system does do this for girls. Most coeducational schools have disciplinary policies in place at the moment that include all the methods we know to be most effective in dealing with girls behavioural issues. They do not have all the methods that we know to most effective with boys.

As I have said, I have no fundamental problem with the idea that corporal punishment should be available for use with girls. I believe experienced, informed teachers, should be able to choose the method they believe most likely to work with a particular child, and that no reasonable method should be unavailable to them, even if some should be used more rarely than others.

But let's not pretend the current system is fair and just, simply because it meets an incredibly simplistic definition of equal. And let's not pretend that banning corporal punishment from schools has somehow created a more equal environment for boys and girls than one in which boys were caned and girls weren't. The evidence is unequivocal that for whatever reason boys are now being punished far more severely and less effectively than ever before - and the same is not true for girls, at least not to anywhere near the same extent.

You seem to me to believe it is acceptable for boys to be sacrificed on the altar of theoretical equality. You don't care what the actual real world effects of policies are, as long as they match your worldview.

One more point - we have an education system today that is far more 'girl friendly' than 'boy friendly' across the board. A system deliberately designed over the last thirty years specifically with improving things for girls while often not even considering the needs of boys. Even if girls and boys are inherently no more likely to misbehave than each other, an environment which is girl-friendly and boy-hostile will change that equation dramatically. When 80% of girls are interested in a mathematics lesson because of the way it's being taught and 80% of boys are bored witless because of the way it's being taught - who is going to misbehave?

Abolishing something that isn't used isn't likely to have much effect.

An identical effect was seen in Australia seen in jurisdictions that had allowed corporal punishment for girls, as in those that did not. Certainly even in those jurisdictions that allowed it, it was still used less with girls - but there should have been some observable difference.

When something has happened 100% of the time, and the opposite scenario has never happened 'not necessarily' doesn't say much at all.

That not mean that method had to be chosen.

No, but if another method had been chosen, we'd still see the same discrepancies. The problem is they abolished the single most effective method for disciplining most boys. It was not the single most effective method for disciplining most girls. Those methods are still in place.

The idea that 'girls are just as badly behaved as boys' is not one I think you'd find many teachers agree with. Australian figures indicate that co-educational schools typically report 90% of serious behavioural issues involve boys, not girls.

Reported behaviour is not the same as actual behaviour. ("There are no undetected bugs in our software.")

Correct - reported behaviour is not the same as actual behaviour. But nor is UNREPORTED behaviour. Your theory seems to be that incredibly massive amounts of misbehaviour by girls are going unreported. But you haven't provided a shred of evidence to support that. Your theory is at least as unproven (and I think far more unproven) than the idea that there are gender differences in behaviour.

Look - teachers can easily ignore minor misbehaviour - talking in class, etc. They are in far less of a position to ignore serious misbehaviour - children wielding weapons, etc. Boys misbehave far more often on the serious scale than girls - do you really think teachers are reporting boys who pull knives in the classroom? But ignoring when girls do it?

That third is a possibility but I think the second is the most likely. Giving boys the same leeway as is given girls would go someway to redress the balance. Replacing one sexist system with another is not the answer.

If you think boys behaviour would improve by given them more leeway, you know nothing about boys. Yes, we might wind up punishing them less - but we wouldn't be doing them any favours. We'd just be setting them up to fall even further behind in school than they already are. We'd just be making the gender based discrepancies in education worse.

Equality of opportunity (which is what I advocate) is not the same as equality of outcome.

I'm sorry - I can't stop laughing at this one. I've been fighting the demagogues of equality of outcomes in education since the 1970s. The people who abolished corporal punishment in this state were exactly the same people who made equality of outcomes the stated goal of education in this state for a decade (foremost among them, Mrs Joan Kirner).

I despise the idea of equality of outcomes and fight it at every turn.

And what you've been repeatedly saying is almost perfect 'equality of outcomes' rhetoric. If that's not what you believe in, you really need to some research into actual real world results of the policies you are advocating.

Stating that the same punishment should result from misbehaviour regardless of the person involved is pure equal outcomes - "You do this, this is the outcome. It is always the same."

Equality of opportunity involves recognising that there are differences between populations, and tailoring your response to those differences. It doesn't involve treating everybody in the same way. You make modifications to address differences. You base policy on those differences.

So many points to deal with !!

Lets start with American way :-

prof n how can you make a statement worthwhile on a chain of conditions (if if if if) and be sure of proportional accuracy worth considering

Well yes ! My comments on the paddle versus the cane are taken entirely from my experience. Its unfortunate : but that's the way it is. Yes they are hedged with qualifications, but really you could hardly expect anything else.

I was first trained in science and then in social science. I tend to go from the particular toward the general. . You see general statements based on wide experience are fine, and yes I would encourage them. Unfortunately there are not all that many of them about. Then again there are general statements based on no experience.Here there are plenty , but with absolutely no parameters against which they can be assessed.

What I try to do is to explain my position and , yes, qualify it given the circumstances which surround it . There are lacunae ; there will be areas of fogginess where I don't know but try to discern, and so on .......What i will do is try to answer questions , but based on the limited and imperfect experience i have. But for you, dear reader, to assess those, it is necessary that you know their limitations.

Just two examples....It would be possible to suggest with some substantial grounds to suggest that because Miss F knew me well, was , certainly by the standards of the 70's friendly and interested in me for several cogent reasons , she might well have 'treated me favourably, and let me off lightly. Its possible , but I don't believe it, but it is only fair for the 'if' to be there.

Again in my second caning I was astounded to find out some time ago that the Head had written the word stoic in the remarks column of the book. Was I ? I cant tell you more than to say I tried.Now I'm neither particularly tough or hard, whatever that may mean, but this I do know , that I was probably naive enough to have swallowed all those stories about a real man doesn't blub ( after all I couldn't know could I ?) so I did my damnedest not to be embarrassed in front of the Headmaster, who to me was a rather awesome and judgemental figure.But maybe he was making a point for some other reason, I'm not privy so who knows? But if I'm going to tell the incident it's information my readers have a right to know. So probably not definitely....another if....and so it could go on.

Then you continue :

I guess you would have to interview consenting adults to get a fair measure. Great value was derived when I asked about the bruising and hurting effect from a physic/physiology perspective

You can get wide vale from interviews providing you ask in a common format and follow the rules on check questions and the like.But each experience will be circumscribed, and so the less you ask, the less you know. and then there is truth ....look at Kinsey.
So in the end even the policy prescriptions are if....but quite reasonable ones I suggest.

And to finish where I came into this debate , on the post that TWP picked up on ...the bottom line is that in paddling, there are safe ground rules that haven't changed much in 40 years. the amazing fact is that they haven't become more universal in that period. but if the rules are followed you can paddle effectively , without the excesses that lead to court cases. On this one the jury is in, My friend using these riles ran a well disciplined successful very large high school for 20 odd years without a single complaint or law suit. Not unusual, but good practice yes.

prof n you make the cane sound like an elegant instrument requiring expertise and the paddle as if it's were a crude instrument IMHO that is not the case.

Absolutely not! Either instrument can be used without expertise to hurt and abuse. But what is true is that an inexperienced caner may not even be effective and may have some difficulty with a large and heavier cane in hitting the target area : with respect you are unlikely to be ineffective with a paddle although again you may well miss the correct target and cause significant damage. I suppose aesthetically at a pinch you might be able to mount the argument the cane is elegant, there is a literary history to it !


To me the paddle has lot in common with the slipper, not in effect, one has clearly much more severe potential, but in that it is a mass object with a large spread of effect. As I've said before in my mind the pain is qualitatively different, and plateaus differently. that's why it is probably a good thing when teachers experienced these thing themselves before giving them to anyone else....which brings me to

Oliver writes ;

One of the reasons that have been put forward why men should never paddle, cane or slipper girls, is that of strength, thereby indicating that any punishment from a man would be more severe than that given by a woman. We know that this isn't the case (see Prof N's description of Miss f), but it is undoubtedly true that some men do not know their own strength and there have been countless incidents of boys being beaten much harder than they should have been due to this syndrome. Given that punishments would be authorised, not involve any indecency and be witnessed, strength should be the only cause of concern. However this concern exists with boys as well as girls. Given that all recipients experience some loss of face and embarrassment I cannot for the life of me see what the objection would be to having men paddle/cane girls, other than the strength/power factor.



Yes, and this is why , any regime cane or paddle should be carefully regulated, with outcomes monitored. As I've said elsewhere I feel, the issue of sex is overplayed, except in as much as today we are conditioned to treat male /female interaction in school with suspicion, so it may be that few if any men would for there own reasons choose to paddle or cane girls

.
Jenny has posted elsewhere that in her experience women could hit harder than men. I would suggest that this may be because they are less likely to have suffered punishment themselves in their formative years. Moreover in a mixed school they will not want a 'softer' reputation than the men , and probably have less to compare it with.

I know Miss F did get paddled at school -, ( her record would make me look not wet, but possibly soaking). She was a rebel and a proud one at that!She told me she was seen as a girl with a stellar academic record, who was a tomboy and challenged every rule and decision of the administration.She says she wasn't a recidivist , you didn't need to be , there were always so many rules to break! No wonder she thought me a wimp!

Her frustration was, she told me , positively channeled by a female administrator with whom she had a rapport, into an eclectic mix of Kerouac, Hemingway, plus Texas 'Roadhouse' music which led eventually 'Country Blues/Rock' . The discipline problems ceased.

Having had my nose bloodied in this thread far too often I'm just going to step back in briefly to say:

Hear hear, Doctor Dominum!

and:

Oliver_S, you say:

I know that it causes A_L some concern, but despite my egalitarian instincts, there is maybe, just maybe, a case for only using female's to administer punishment.

No it doesn't, not now, though it did. But I certainly don't think ONLY allowing females to administer CP to boys is a good idea!

If girls feel uncomfortable with being hit by a man (it's just not write for a man to paddle a girl) and possibly parents as well (who knows why they opt out) and if suspensions are considered a less desirable punishment than it would make sense to take the paddle out of the hand of a man.

TWP never paddled (only threatened) girls in the few times they paddled on the elementary level and so far Renee has paddled two girls and it is only October. On the receiving end unjustly and a victim of racial prejudice over forty years ago has skewed my way of thinking and feeling. I always try to put myself into the other person's shoes.

Renee's professed demeanor with Nashia (she really deserved it while putting her strength into it) and it's why it is often or not the case that the teacher who writes the child up is not allowed to paddle that child. Renee enters unaware of what she will find and encounters a good student she knows (Amy) bruised and cut and she perhaps rightly classified her as not technically a mutual combatant but a victim and gives her a free pass.

From Nashia's POV it would be impossible for her not to pick up angry vibes from Renee. Nashia probably regretted the force she used and may have not been fully aware of her fighting advantage or her lack of self control. She may have regretted it to the point that she was relieved that Amy wasn't paddle after seeing what she did.

Renee was in no position to recues herself being the only one on duty and decisions made in haste are often regretted but you learn from every experience. I make a mistake every other leap year so whom am I to judge.

Doctor Dominum

...if they chose to use detention instead of suspension, more boys would be being suspended than girls. If they chose to use a token economy system, more boys would be being fined than girls. If they chose to use deprivation of blit, more boys would be blit-depleted than girls.

The question is "why?" Is it because boys are more badly behaved that girls or is it simply because boys are treated more harshly than girls?

Your position is that girls are just as badly behaved as boys. I don't know a single teacher out of all of those I've encountered over my career who believes that.

Quite possibly because they've become so accustomed to overlooking girls' behaviour that it now just washes over them unnoticed. I was aware of it when I was at school and I see it now at the local school. It's not all that rare to see girls lighting up a cigarette as they leave either. I always tried to avoid being seen smoking (not always successfully ) but, then, I wasn't going to get away with a "good telling off".

I don't know of a single piece of evidence for that position. Personally I don't think it's at all likely - although I do agree that girls often get away with things boys wouldn't.

At least we agree on that point.

The two positions aren't incompatible - if boys misbehave three times as often as girls and are punished five times as often, for example, both things would be true at the same time.

If boys misbehaved half as often as girls but were punished five times as often, there punishment record would be the same.

Regardless, however, of whether boys do misbehave more often than girls, it is easily and demonstrably true that boys are experiencing the most severe forms of punishment available in schools today at a far higher rate than girls. If you believe that discrepancy is unjustified by their behavior then as a matter of justice, we should be looking at what can be done to fix that.

My position is simple at its core. I believe students should (with occasional exceptions for very special reasons) be punished for misbehaving. I believe teachers should have the widest possible range of punishments available to them as options, so they can make use of the most appropriate punishment in any particular case - and by appropriate, I mean most likely to succeed balanced with least likely to do damage?

I agree, what we seem to disagree on is what works and what causes damage.

Is that happening now in places where corporal punishment is no longer an option? No, it most certainly is not. The massive explosion in the rate of suspensions clearly demonstrates it.

And that rate has exploded far more for boys than it has for girls.

Two reasons. Boys are treated more harshly and, whereas schools have had plenty of practice dealing with girls without using the cane, they haven't bothered trying the same approach with boys.


The thing is, our current system does do this for girls. Most coeducational schools have disciplinary policies in place at the moment that include all the methods we know to be most effective in dealing with girls behavioural issues. They do not have all the methods that we know to most effective with boys.

Judging by the behaviour of girls at the local school, these "most effective methods" don't work anything like as well the the ineffective cane did when I was at school.

As I have said, I have no fundamental problem with the idea that corporal punishment should be available for use with girls. I believe experienced, informed teachers, should be able to choose the method they believe most likely to work with a particular child, and that no reasonable method should be unavailable to them, even if some should be used more rarely than others.

I agree, provided they don't base their decision purely on sex.



...if another method had been chosen, we'd still see the same discrepancies. The problem is they abolished the single most effective method for disciplining most boys. It was not the single most effective method for disciplining most girls. Those methods are still in place.

What is the most effective method of disciplining girls then? You've mentioned "inductive discipline" but what is that other than a "good telling off"? I'll admit that did work, once, in what I consider an exceptional case. I mentioned elsewhere an incident in which significant quantities of school paper was misappropriated by some members of a group of us entrusted with its delivery to the stockroom. I didn't actually take any myself but, when one of us was caught, we were all in it together. As we waited outside the Headmistress' study, we knew we were in very deep trouble and, failing the arrival of a portable gallows, we were all going to get the cane. However, we didn't, when the Headmistress spoke to us, she just sounded disappointed and, for some reason, that had a greater effect on all of us (boys and girls) than I suspect the cane would. In that particular case, not getting the cane actually seemed worse. I was expecting it and was ready for it but it didn't happen. I think, though, it was the fact that we didn't get what we expected and, in all honesty, what we thought we deserved that had the effect. If the cane had not even been a possibility, I doubt the "talking to" (I can't even call it a "telling off") would have had any effect whatsoever.


...do you really think teachers are reporting boys who pull knives in the classroom? But ignoring when girls do it?

No, but girls who do it are often labeled as "disturbed" or "upset" while boys who do are just thugs.

If you think boys behaviour would improve by given them more leeway, you know nothing about boys.

Of course it wouldn't, just as it doesn't improve girls' behaviour. What it does is deem that behaviour acceptable.

Stating that the same punishment should result from misbehaviour regardless of the person involved is pure equal outcomes - "You do this, this is the outcome. It is always the same."

It starts as equality of treatment. If equality of treatment or opportunity results in an equal outcome, so much the better.

The question is "why?" Is it because boys are more badly behaved that girls or is it simply because boys are treated more harshly than girls?

It's far more of the former than it is the latter.

Your position is that girls are just as badly behaved as boys. I don't know a single teacher out of all of those I've encountered over my career who believes that. I don't know a single educator who believes it.

Quite possibly because they've become so accustomed to overlooking girls' behaviour that it now just washes over them unnoticed. I was aware of it when I was at school and I see it now at the local school. It's not all that rare to see girls lighting up a cigarette as they leave either. I always tried to avoid being seen smoking (not always successfully sad.gif ) but, then, I wasn't going to get away with a "good telling off".

Apparently any teacher who disagrees with your position must be a sexist or at least a fool.

I'm neither.

I know very few teachers who 'overlook girls' behaviour'. Every single teacher I know well (and that's not necessarily a fair sample of all teachers - in fact, it probably isn't) is utterly dedicated to trying to do what is best for their students, and pays a very large amount of attention to what their students are doing. These are not soft teachers who ignore misbehaviour by anyone. And the ones who teach girls are exceptionally dedicated to the idea of shattering glass ceilings and making sure their girls achieve at the highest levels. And they succeed. They are not the type to ignore the misbehaviour of girls.

As I've said, I do agree that girls often get away with things boys wouldn't - but that's largely because it's a lot easier to give a student a second chance or even a third chance, than a fourth, fifth, sixth, or twentieth chance. When a girl misbehaves - at least seriously - it's far more likely to be abberent behaviour for that particular student than it is typical behaviour for that student. You can ignore abberent behaviour you consider unlikely to be repeated, far more easily than you can ignore typical behaviour you consider likely to be repeated.

I don't know of a single piece of evidence for that position. Personally I don't think it's at all likely - although I do agree that girls often get away with things boys wouldn't.

I agree, what we seem to disagree on is what works and what causes damage.

Yes - but my position is based on research, as well as my personal beliefs and experiences. Yours doesn't seem to be based on anything except your personal beliefs.

I could understand that more easily, if you seemed to think teachers were people who were capable of making the correct decisions simply by drawing on their own beliefs. But that doesn't seem to be compatible with your position. You believe teachers are sexist in their handling of disciplinary infractions of students. If so, how can you possibly trust them to make sensible decisions unless they go beyond their personal views and ideology.

Unless they look at the research.

Now, I happen to believe experienced teachers, for the most part, do get it right. But I look at research for guidance too. In this case, the available research backs the position that most experienced teachers I know of have arrived at through their long experience - and when both of those things are in agreement, I see little reason to ignore them.

Two reasons. Boys are treated more harshly and, whereas schools have had plenty of practice dealing with girls without using the cane, they haven't bothered trying the same approach with boys.

Sorry - that's absolute nonsense. The problem isn't that schools haven't tried the same approach that works with girls as works with boys - it's that they've tried that approach over and over and over again even though it isn't working.

Where schools have been allowed to try alternative measures of treating boys and girls differently again, they've generally seen much better behavioural results for boys. In most cases, this has not included corporal punishment (because legally, in most cases, it can't) but has instead including a variety of other measures founded in authoritiarian/authoritative teaching. But there are still discrepancies, and there are still more discrepancies than there would be if corporal punishment was available.

All too often the approach that works with girls is the only approach schools are allowed to use - mandated by policy.

Judging by the behaviour of girls at the local school, these "most effective methods" don't work anything like as well the the ineffective cane did when I was at school.

They do if they are used properly - but not all schools use them properly. Plenty of schools accept a level of misbehaviour nowadays that they never would have accepted in the past. That's a separate issue as to the methods used to deal with that misbehaviour.

There are plenty of girls schools around here that maintain just as high standards as they ever had and which never had corporal punishment, or which no longer use it. And co-educational schools where the girls are just as well behaved as they ever were. I know of no co-educational school or boys school without corproral punishment where this is the case. Some do better than others. None do as well as they used to.

When corporal punishment remains as an option, some are managing to do so.

What is the most effective method of disciplining girls then? You've mentioned "inductive discipline" but what is that other than a "good telling off"?

Quite a few things. In fact, inductive discipline doesn't necessarily involve telling a student off at all, although that can be part of it.

Explaining what inductive discipline is in detail goes beyond what I can reasonably do here - it's too complicated to give a potted version - fairly easy to implement but not easy to explain. And I'm not an expert in it anyway - I don't use it much (because it's of very limited utility with boys). If you really want to understand it, you'll have to do some research - Thomas Gordon's work is a good starting point.

I'll admit that did work, once, in what I consider an exceptional case. I mentioned elsewhere an incident in which significant quantities of school paper was misappropriated by some members of a group of us entrusted with its delivery to the stockroom. I didn't actually take any myself but, when one of us was caught, we were all in it together. As we waited outside the Headmistress' study, we knew we were in very deep trouble and, failing the arrival of a portable gallows, we were all going to get the cane. However, we didn't, when the Headmistress spoke to us, she just sounded disappointed and, for some reason, that had a greater effect on all of us (boys and girls) than I suspect the cane would. In that particular case, not getting the cane actually seemed worse. I was expecting it and was ready for it but it didn't happen. I think, though, it was the fact that we didn't get what we expected and, in all honesty, what we thought we deserved that had the effect. If the cane had not even been a possibility, I doubt the "talking to" (I can't even call it a "telling off") would have had any effect whatsoever.

What you describe isn't really inductive discipline. Not all 'telling off' or 'talking to' is.

No, but girls who do it are often labeled as "disturbed" or "upset" while boys who do are just thugs.

Again, that doesn't match reality - boys are far more likely to get such labels as 'disturbed' than girls.

Of course it wouldn't, just as it doesn't improve girls' behaviour. What it does is deem that behaviour acceptable.

You seem to be saying here that 'not caning' is the same as 'not punishing' or 'not disciplining'. It isn't. I agree - letting a girl off for something you would punish a boy for, all things being equal, is not a good idea. But that's not what I am talking about here at all. It never has been.

When I had girls in my class, I never once failed to punish a girl in a situation where I would have punished a boy. Not once.

It starts as equality of treatment. If equality of treatment or opportunity results in an equal outcome, so much the better.

Equality of treatment is not equality of opportunity. And if equality of opportunity means anything, you won't get equal outcomes. Nor should you.

A school that achieves outcomes is a school that is not doing what it needs to for at least fifty percent of its students. More often, more like ninety percent.

Jenny ,

Three local British examples . ( Of course anecdote and i grant you three swallows don't make a summer).

I live approximately ten miles from the local mainline station. Frequently I use a taxi service to and from this junction The taxi service normally provides minibus transport to and from the local High school for 'priority' cases ( social service provision). One ,morning recently my car driver told me ( he knows my profession),that having doenthe minibus run one day, he was retained by the school to take , along with a colleague a group of girls to a local sports centre for a competitive match. On arrival there was an altercation between the rival teams which resulted in his colleague's minibus window being broken with a stone from a girl both drivers identified. The staff from the two schools separated the 'thugs' and no more was said about it .

His firm claimed the damage fro the school, when the papers came through for insurance the school had logged the incident . 'Accidental damage- no perpetrator identified, no action taken'.


Everyone in the local area is aware that the school has a policy of permitting smoking 'off ' the school grounds, but not within 9 though you'd never know it)! Last year there was a rumpus from parents when an anti smoking campaign was run in the school. Anyone caught smoking was to be referred for counseling. It emerged that many more girls than boys were so referred, a ratio of better than 2 : 1. however a sharp eyed PTA member picked up that in the corresponding term seven boys had been suspended for repeated smoking. No girls.Local paper got it . No comment fro m the school.


I raised this not so ling ago with the local ESO whom I know well professionally. She laughed and said I'll tell you another one. In school X ( a not so local high school), there is a current problem of taxing. Its senior girls on first year boys. The gang wait at the entrance to the school grounds. therefore many of the young boys , should they not get to the school early, will loiter in the environs and go into school late. They get detention ( at lunch). The girls gang can be seen from the senior mistresses office , they get ignored.

At a routine meeting she had mentioned this to the lady concerned, as it is so obvious, and, moreover the council (lea) has received a number of parental complaints. Her response? these girls will be gone next year! As to the boys, well the early bird.......or some such nonsense.


Nelson had a blind eye too.The difference ? He was on the whole a pretty good commander.

Doctor Dominum

I know very few teachers who 'overlook girls' behaviour'.

I refer you to Prof.n's post above.

...my position is based on research, as well as my personal beliefs and experiences. Yours doesn't seem to be based on anything except your personal beliefs.

You overlook my personal experience.

Judging by the behaviour of girls at the local school, these "most effective methods" don't work anything like as well the the ineffective cane did when I was at school.

They do if they are used properly - but not all schools use them properly.

At my school, the cane was effective - on both boys and girls. I grant you it didn't stop me misbehaving completely but it did give me the incentive to try to avoid being caught. It had the same effect on boys too.


No, but girls who do it are often labeled as "disturbed" or "upset" while boys who do are just thugs.

Again, that doesn't match reality - boys are far more likely to get such labels as 'disturbed' than girls.

Yes, you're probably right, girls are more likely to just be a little "upset".

You seem to be saying here that 'not caning' is the same as 'not punishing' or 'not disciplining'. It isn't.

Effectively, that's what it amounts to. If I got lines and I didn't do them, I got the slipper. If the slipper (or cane) were not options, would would I have got itsead? Nothing?

Equality of treatment is not equality of opportunity.

It can be be.

And if equality of opportunity means anything, you won't get equal outcomes. Nor should you.

Why on Earth not? You might not get equal outcomes but I know of nothing that would definitely prevent it.

Jenny
Re the gender of those administering CP, you make some very good points which I cannot find fault with. I am just trying to put possible solutions in the melting pot, to see if in the end we can ever have some sort of consensus about CP and gender. Your point about women just wacking away without due regard is a valid one which I have seen happen, there the brutality was all about lack of experience than strength.

The other point you make is also valid; that women who cane will overstep the mark because they have no personal experience. Yes this would very much be the case, despite your own personal experiences, the vast majority of women would have little, if any, experience of CP on the receiving end. Social studies here in the UK reveal that for most females their only experience of CP is that of being a witness to it carried out in school and in the home. Does this give them enough knowledge to become administrators in CP as adults?

On the positive side, all evidence seems to point to the fact that women as administrators who have given CP to girls, do not fall into the trap of falling for sob stories, or other mind games, because as females they are able to see through the fog often created, whereas men in my experience fail this test very badly (Even Dr D has admitted to being manipulated more easily by young girls).

Unfortunatley Jenny, men of a certain age just do not see where you are coming from. They will use anything available, be it research, alleged experience, but most of all their life long social conditioning as a male to support a viewpoint that is inherently unjust. I don't seem to remember that any of them have ever put down in black and white just what the "negative effects" to using CP on girls actually are. They certainly cannot be physical, so what are the psychological or social ills that can appear in the long term? Are they resentful or pushed to the wrong side of the tracks? Do they become withdrawn and introverted? Or do they have nefarious fetishistic interests that cause them to subscribe to forums about CP?

Every one of the above applies equally to boys as well as girls. The numbers involved may be in the end about a third less, but that doesn't make it right to use a double standard just because in the main it seems to work ok. The more that older men dig their heels in and avoid an issue that was just not on the map fifty years ago, but is very much at the top of agenda's in 2009, the less there is any chance of using any CP in schools any time soon. Total abolition is on its way and we will be all the poorer for it.

Dr D keeps telling us about his proven experience in private schools for boys, for forty years or more, but I'm afraid it is a world away from a mixed inner city comprehensive in the latter part of the twentieth century. All the research in the world won't stop girl gangs and the ever increasing violence being displayed by girls and young women continuing to escalate.

Oliver S

Oliver S. Amen to that.

Doctor/ Jenny

A couple of points.

I don't disagree with Dr. Dominium that there are other effective ways of operating a discipline model without , or with significantly reduced, corporal punishment on the agenda. This however misses a point in respect of state schools

I am currently engaged as a somewhat sceptical observer in a controlled experiment with a positive discipline regime . Very empirical for me I know. Now the details are not important and would detract from the point that needs to be made. this is in a school with average class size 20 . The median full teaching groups 9 year groups) are less than 25. The school has 'on tap' psychological support, fully accredited counselors and a pretty inexhaustible supply of teaching assistant etc etc. It is in the private sector and fees are in the middle of the upper quartile of the HMC range.

OK in English its posh, expensive, and well resourced.The parents have the highest expectations and generally strongly back school policy. People choose for their kids to attend there.If they can get a place, that is . Which can mean the parents may have to mortgage their houses and curtail their lifestyle choices to do so.

The school I described in the first two items of my last post is, in contrast , a 'modernized ' ex secondary modern turned comprehensive. Lots of new buildings ...yes, but with huge problems even in the geography of these additions....( dead ends corridors, insufficient bus/car parking ; very limited playing fields, no swimming bath,or on site sports facilities,). In wider terms a very mixed intake including one area of substantial social deprivation. a dedicated staff . class sizes about 32/35 in reality ( couldn't promise that's what is says in government returns.....) , a substantial 'truancy ' list , and a permanent police presence on site. the school has outgrown its plant and is in an area of ever growing middle class housing demand. Active middle class PTA who push their and i mean THEIR kids at all costs, but also unseen underclass parents who ' Frankly couldn't give......'.In terms of funding it is under resourced, topped up by essential cash from whatever hair brained schemes the Rt. hon Mr. Balls and company determine to torture the staff with this year. .

Dr D think Summer Heights High without the space and humour!

Now in one of those schools a resource intensive, intervention based discipline programme has an excellent chance to achieve something ...in the other its just another sick joke piled on already overworked staff.

Second point is expectations theory.

In the first school expectations are very high, wrong uniform you'll be sent home.....sanctions ( yes they do have them , range from lines to traditional three hour Saturday detention. By the science labs ( Dr. D again please note!) there are signs any pupil entering this restricted area without specific authority will automatically incur a Saturday detention.....) and there is zero tolerance of 'disturbance ' in class oh! and electronic registration in every class......
homework is delivered and returned electronically, every pupil has a lap top.....and the school intranet. Teaching is mainly by interactive whiteboard.

In the other school well if you get to class good for you. if you do your homework we are pleased , if you get line and don't do them ...well nothing, lunch time detentions ( 1 hour less H&S break and time to get to and from class means a whole 20 minutes if your very unlucky. If, of course you are polite and turn up. Normally its only the good kids, who probably got the detention by mistake , that do turn up.......Eventually you will get 'monitored ' and after endless bits of paper have gone hither and thither you'll get an all expenses paid break from school - suspension!Meanwhile you'll fall further and further behind.

See the problem it isn't the system its the will and resources.

Third point. If there is nothing you can do about bad behaviour better ignore it. See the string on Boris Mayor of London. One way to do this legally and efficiently is to rewrite your school rules , taking a 'realistic' approach. Decriminalize everything! works wonders for the suspension statistics......and I can show you a school that did just that , we call it an adult approach.....all about sharing responsibility.....give me a break!

so Jenny please sit down in the comfy chair and make yourself at home ,whilst I try to find your file, and , please do me the favor as we are to discuss your smoking of not lighting up here, health and safety you know....oh and before we start , would you like a vodka and tonic......and a twiglet perhaps ??


No but the thing is Doctor i don't doubt good, well managed , well resourced schools, with committed staff and low SSR's can do it . but guess what its expensive , time consuming. no wonder the rhetoric and reality don't match, and that , i think is where Jenny's argument is going........


ps. Oh and remind me why did the state sector like cp ( cheap quick and not very cheerful), and well if some are harmed, you can't please all of the people all of the time........typical lea mentality........That's what I saw in the failing comprehensive where, when young and gullible, I once did cover teaching. I have written elsewhere of that and how there was another way .

However, it wasn't what a staff member advised me on the QT. 'Look I agree there are some kids you can't hit,I know, so just be unfair, it usually works!'

I'm not a Job's comforter. Some staff are excellent, dedicated, committed ; most staff try; some shouldn't be anywhere near a school.

Prof, n:

Three local British examples . ( Of course anecdote and i grant you three swallows don't make a summer).

Thank you for those examples of schools' reactions to girls' misbehaviour. Three swallows do not make a summer but a whole flight of them gives an indication it's on its way.

This type of behaviour just didn't happen when I was at school, so I can only guess at the type of punishments it would have attracted, but such guesses where what discouraged such behaviour in the first place. In the first example, if one of the combatants had been from my old school, the if she had been really lucky and caught the teacher in an exceptionally good mood, I think she might, just might, have been let off with a good dose of the slipper there and then. Absent any of those factors, I can't imagine her not getting the cane. Even fighting in the playground was highly likely to result in an appointment with the cane so I can't see how fighting in public would be treated more leniently. Simply throwing a stone in such circumstances would put one at serious risk of the cane and causing damage thereby would significantly increase the probability. If it were the same girl engaged in the fight who threw the stone, I can't even begin to guess what would have happened. Suffice it to say, I would most definitely not want to be her - being unable to sit comfortably, if at all, for a few months would be most inconvenient.

Regarding pupils smoking, that happened, albeit to a lesser extent, among girls in schools where girls were exempt from the cane. I believe I've already mentioned a friend telling me that a girl actually lit up in class a her school - presumably knowing she wouldn't be punished. As your figures show, in that particular school, twice as any girls were caught smoking as boys but infinitely more boys were suspended for it than girls. A few years ago, those suspensions would have been canings so, on the face of it, more boys would have been caned than girls - this, of course, would be especially true in schools where girls were exempt from the cane.

The same applies the teachers ignoring "taxing". That never happened in my school of course - those girls would have, quite rightly, been caned. A few years ago, in the sexist schools, their victims might have been caned instead of getting detention for persistent lateness.

Dr Dominum has a point when he says schools are "girl friendly", as your examples show, but a sexist policy of only caning boys will not solve the problems caused by girls - quite the opposite in fact.

Suffice it to say, I would most definitely not want to be her - being unable to sit comfortably, if at all, for a few months would be most inconvenient.

Do you mean this figuratively for from what I can gather from the Teacher Chatboards girls have attested to two weeks with diminishing discomfort for five swats. Maybe prof n is right.

Oliver_S

Your point about women just wacking away without due regard is a valid one which I have seen happen, there the brutality was all about lack of experience than strength.

Seen it? I've felt it - on several occasions

Unfortunatley Jenny, men of a certain age just do not see where you are coming from. They will use anything available, be it research, alleged experience, but most of all their life long social conditioning as a male to support a viewpoint that is inherently unjust.

Some of the arguments they put forward are ridiculous beyond belief. A personal favourite is "Girls shouldn't be caned because girls don't commit the type of offences boys are caned for." So, no girl has ever smoked (wrong); played truant (wrong); bullied other pupils (wrong); damaged or stolen school property (wrong). One man who advanced that argument then went on to say he once got the cane for forgetting his gym kit so, presumably no girl has ever forgotten her gym kit either (wrong yet again).

In any case, if that claim were true girls simply wouldn't get the cane anyway so what's the point of exempting them?

I don't seem to remember that any of them have ever put down in black and white just what the "negative effects" to using CP on girls actually are. They certainly cannot be physical, so what are the psychological or social ills that can appear in the long term? Are they resentful or pushed to the wrong side of the tracks? Do they become withdrawn and introverted?

I'm at a loss to understand that too. "Negative effects" is far too vague a term to have any meaning.

Or do they have nefarious fetishistic interests that cause them to subscribe to forums about CP?

Ah, you might have a point there. That seems to affect boys in the same way though so it can't be seen as a "negative effect" peculiar to girls.

Dr D keeps telling us about his proven experience in private schools for boys, for forty years or more, but I'm afraid it is a world away from a mixed inner city comprehensive in the latter part of the twentieth century.

Only half a world away I believe - Australia.

All the research in the world won't stop girl gangs and the ever increasing violence being displayed by girls and young women continuing to escalate.

Exactly. My headmistress and teachers had the solution and it worked very well indeed - in spite of all the "research".

American Way

I said (half in jest): "Suffice it to say, I would most definitely not want to be her - being unable to sit comfortably, if at all, for a few months would be most inconvenient."

Do you mean this figuratively for from what I can gather from the Teacher Chatboards girls have attested to two weeks with diminishing discomfort for five swats.

How long the discomfort lasted was very much dependent on how hard I got it. After being caned, sitting was very uncomfortable for the rest of the day and uncomfortable for a few days thereafter but it would be OK after a week. In the case I was referring to with my comment (above), I think I would have been anticipating a rather longer period of discomfort but, in reality, not a few months - I hope! Thankfully, I was never in the position to find out.

It wasn't only sitting either. I remember a friend wearing a loose skirt one weekend, which was very strange as she normally wore tight jeans. When I commented on it her reply was (along the lines of) "I got caught.... and sent to Miss... [headmistress] yesterday (Friday)." Enough said.

Jenny
I can see that we are closer in terms of outlook than with many others...still surprising to find a woman that would see eye to eye over this. All my previous discussions with many females since I was at school in the 60's, showed me that most wanted all the perceived benefits of equality but were quite happy to do without the perceived (by them) negative aspects. What really got to me though was the fact that most if not all were quite happy to see the continuance of the system then in place which perpetuated the double standard (your school not included of course).

I note your comments about not sitting comfortably for the rest of the day after being caned and being clear from discomfort after a week. This confirms my view of the physical effects of SCP during that period. I did hint in another post about Dr D's regime and the "transitory redness" statements. I guess you will feel like me that there is something that doesn't quite tally there? I didn't

On another note I have just read the thread relating to items in the Cambridge Medical Journal (CP Re-visited thread) relating to SCP and JCP back in the 1930's. It seems that the debate we are having now is nothing new. I wonder what your take, Jenny, is on one of the underlying issues debated in those letters, that of making girls exempt from CP of any kind because of menstruation. It is difficult for men to comment on this (dare I say non PC) so the modern female opinion would be interesting.

Oliver S

prof.n:

so Jenny please sit down in the comfy chair and make yourself at home ,whilst I try to find your file, and , please do me the favor as we are to discuss your smoking of not lighting up here, health and safety you know....oh and before we start , would you like a vodka and tonic......and a twiglet perhaps ??

Very kind of you, don't mind if I do. Have you got any Bacardi? Shaz is waiting to see you too and she prefers that. I know you're very busy but coming to see you gets us off lessons so there's no point any of us behaving ourselves - I'd really miss my weekly skive. Cheers! Would you mind topping my glass up please? I'll take it outside so I can have a smoke with it and you can serve the next one - it's a pint of lager I think.

I'm so glad we don't get the cane here, it would be terrible having to obey rules.

I don't buy into this gender deference but consider the anti-CP source and take it to be another disgraceful ploy. FYI Title IX protects woman against discrimination and is laudable but this is asinine. It is not about the courage to submit but the projected cowardice that typifies the anti-CP likes of Jeff Charles and Jordan Riak and Murray Strauss have played this gender card passing themselves off as Knights in Shining Armor but Paula Flowe spin beats them all. She said it is unfair on girls because if asked once it gets around it might make them want to lie.

This is a family forum so I must not make a play on their nomenclature no spank and tell this estimable Forum what I think of the most asinine of all their propaganda no paddle.

It is part of a victim philosophy that promotes outdated stereotypes of women. I wonder what Paula Flowe will say about Renee and Nashia. Paula has made a great deal out of the disproportion of black girls being paddled over white. Office of Civil Rights doesn't record CP according to countless factors that would account for that difference for a politically correct capitulation to anti-victimizing the victim mentality that reinforces a sense of entitlement that has wreaked havoc on our society. This is from November 2005 newspaper.

He also alleged that paddling was a potential violation of Title IX, which promotes gender equality in schools, because girls could be placed in more discomfort if they are paddled at a certain point in their menstrual cycles -- or else, their privacy could be violated if they had to be asked about their cycles before paddling.


Paddling and Cycling

Oliver_S

I can see that we are closer in terms of outlook than with many others...still surprising to find a woman that would see eye to eye over this. All my previous discussions with many females since I was at school in the 60's, showed me that most wanted all the perceived benefits of equality but were quite happy to do without the perceived (by them) negative aspects.

I find it just as surprising that men advocate a system that they think is unfair to boys and men. I have no respect for those women who only want the benefits of equality - why should I, they have no respect for themselves? They're no better than the men who kept us subjugated. There aren't so many of them nowadays though, more and more women are realizing that we can never have the same rights as men unless men have the same rights as we. It's very simple logic.

What really got to me though was the fact that most if not all were quite happy to see the continuance of the system then in place which perpetuated the double standard (your school not included of course).

Probably because their education was so badly harmed by that unfair system that they couldn't see how badly it harmed their education.

I note your comments about not sitting comfortably for the rest of the day after being caned and being clear from discomfort after a week. This confirms my view of the physical effects of SCP during that period. I did hint in another post about Dr D's regime and the "transitory redness" statements. I guess you will feel like me that there is something that doesn't quite tally there? I didn't

As I said, it depends on how hard you get it. I've no doubt that a brutal thrashing with a thick, heavy, cane could cause a lot of damage. At the other end of the scale, a moderate caning can sting a lot when you get it but not cause any longer lasting injury or significant discomfort. In between is what I would call an ordinary caning which stings like Hell at the time, leaves you sore for a day or two, and leave marks which fade after about a week.

On another note I have just read the thread relating to items in the Cambridge Medical Journal (CP Re-visited thread) relating to SCP and JCP back in the 1930's. It seems that the debate we are having now is nothing new. I wonder what your take, Jenny, is on one of the underlying issues debated in those letters, that of making girls exempt from CP of any kind because of menstruation. It is difficult for men to comment on this (dare I say non PC) so the modern female opinion would be interesting.

Absolute rubbish! It's just another lame attempt to excuse injustice. It made no difference to me whether I was menstruating or not and I don't recall any other girl at school making a fuss about it either. Remember, we had a headmistress, who would have been far more aware of such things than any man, and she never asked me if it was my time of the month before caning me - she just got on with.

My advice to any girls who's thinking of using that as an excuse to escape punishment would be to behave herself and, if she can't manage that, have the cane/slipper on her hand instead. You'll find these little problems will soon melt away.

I know very few teachers who 'overlook girls' behaviour'.

I refer you to Prof.n's post above.

I've read his post. It doesn't change what I said. I know very few teachers who overlook girls behaviour. Posting some examples where somebody did doesn't indicate it's a particularly common problem.

You overlook my personal experience.

No, I don't overlook it. I should have said 'your personal beliefs and experiences'. But your personal experiences are of one person's reactions, and maybe those of a few friends. My personal experiences are from dealing with behavioural issues involving thousands of children - mostly boys, but not entirely.

At my school, the cane was effective - on both boys and girls. I grant you it didn't stop me misbehaving completely but it did give me the incentive to try to avoid being caught. It had the same effect on boys too.

I don't doubt it gave you the incentive to try and avoid being caught. What I wonder is how readily extrapolated that can be to every other girl in existence. The research evidence is it can't be. The views of teachers with long experience of teaching girls is that it can't be as well.

Yes, you're probably right, girls are more likely to just be a little "upset".

That's nothing like what I said. It's nothing like what I believe.

You seem to be saying here that 'not caning' is the same as 'not punishing' or 'not disciplining'. It isn't.

Effectively, that's what it amounts to. If I got lines and I didn't do them, I got the slipper. If the slipper (or cane) were not options, would would I have got itsead? Nothing?

No, it isn't what it amounts to.

The fact you decide not to do a punishment is not the same thing as no punishment being given. And frankly, if I was dealing with a student, male or female, who I believed was simply not doing an assigned punishment because they wanted an alternative punishment as some sort of act of rebellion, I would not be inclined to give them the alternative. I don't believe in suspension very often, but in the type of situation you describe, I'd be more inclined to suspend than cane - simply to prevent a situation where a stubborn, ill-disciplined child was allowed to try and dictate terms. I would not regard the cane as working in that case - I'd regard it as its use being an absolute failure.

If you only do the lines out of fear of being caned, you're complying with a punishment you don't seem to regard as effective to avoid one you do regard as effective. But the key is, you are complying. And that is often the aim of the punishment - to force compliance. To force obedience on the disobedient. If you continue to be disobedient, obviously the cane wasn't an effective deterrent. So why would we suppose it would deter future misbehaviour?

Equality of treatment is not equality of opportunity.

It can be be.

Yes, it can be. But that doesn't make it the same. It just means in some cases, the circumstances make it so. In other cases, they don't.

And if equality of opportunity means anything, you won't get equal outcomes. Nor should you.

Why on Earth not? You might not get equal outcomes but I know of nothing that would definitely prevent it.

Unless you are dealing with a completely homogenous group (which can happen, but it's very rare, and especially rare in modern education where most education systems have forced schools to integrate all students regardless of individual or group characteristics), you won't get equal outcomes from equal opportunity. If somehow, you've managed to wind up with an homogenous group, then you might.

On the positive side, all evidence seems to point to the fact that women as administrators who have given CP to girls, do not fall into the trap of falling for sob stories, or other mind games, because as females they are able to see through the fog often created, whereas men in my experience fail this test very badly (Even Dr D has admitted to being manipulated more easily by young girls).

Really? When did I admit that?

Unfortunatley Jenny, men of a certain age just do not see where you are coming from. They will use anything available, be it research, alleged experience, but most of all their life long social conditioning as a male to support a viewpoint that is inherently unjust. I don't seem to remember that any of them have ever put down in black and white just what the "negative effects" to using CP on girls actually are. They certainly cannot be physical, so what are the psychological or social ills that can appear in the long term? Are they resentful or pushed to the wrong side of the tracks? Do they become withdrawn and introverted? Or do they have nefarious fetishistic interests that cause them to subscribe to forums about CP?

I've answered this before in as much detail as I think can reasonably be expected on this forum. I rather object to the suggestion that I have not. As I have made quite clear, the issue is not a simple and if people really are interested in understanding it, as opposed to simply expressing their own opinions based on their ideological beliefs, they'd be well served by actually going and reading the research.

Every one of the above applies equally to boys as well as girls. The numbers involved may be in the end about a third less, but that doesn't make it right to use a double standard just because in the main it seems to work ok.

A third less? Where did you pull that number from? The effects that are being identified are generally significantly larger than that. A simple difference of 33% wouldn't worry me at all. A difference of 2 or more standard deviations is another matter.

The more that older men dig their heels in and avoid an issue that was just not on the map fifty years ago, but is very much at the top of agenda's in 2009, the less there is any chance of using any CP in schools any time soon. Total abolition is on its way and we will be all the poorer for it.

If you think pushing for gender equality will actually lead to retention of corporal punishment as opposed to hastening it's abolition, I suggest you read all of Jenny's posts - she's happy to see total abolition as long as it's equal. Almost everybody who pushes for 'gender equality' at all costs is, because equality is their only aim - they don't care if a solution is equally bad or equally good - as long as it's equal by their chosen definition (which are often quite odd definitions - such as ones that would regard the abolition of medical treatments for conditions that affect 100 times as many women as men as being an equal solution).

Some of us care about the greatest good for the greatest number. Actual real world benefits, not theoretical political ones.

Dr D keeps telling us about his proven experience in private schools for boys, for forty years or more, but I'm afraid it is a world away from a mixed inner city comprehensive in the latter part of the twentieth century. All the research in the world won't stop girl gangs and the ever increasing violence being displayed by girls and young women continuing to escalate.

And nor will corporal punishment. Girls gangs are not caused by a lack of corporal punishment - otherwise they'd have existed in this state for at least 100 years. Increasing violence by girls is also not caused by a lack of corporal punishment.

Yes, most of my experience is of teaching in a privileged single sex environment, I agree. But you know something - I still have more experience of teaching girls, and of teaching in a 'comprehensive' environment than 99% of the people on this forum - because I have at least some experience of it, as opposed to absolutely no experience of it at all. I also spend a significant amount of my time in conversations and discussions with other teachers from a wide range of different schools.

Dr D
I apologise if some of my comments have appeared a little confrontational. I respect your views entirely. My comments about attitudes of "older males" is more generic than aimed at yourself. I also note that your own personal views have not always been the ones that you currently hold. Maybe I will also change my views in the next twenty years, lets face it, they have moved considerably over the last thirty years. It doesn't seem five minutes since I was classed as a hippy enjoying the summer of love, now I seem to be closer to the views of my parents. I would never have believed it, had anyone told me at the time!

It is difficult to locate exact comments or phrases that have been used by a contributor on the forum. Forgive me if I was wrong but I seem to remember you making a comment about someone, maybe your grandaughter, being able to twist you around her little finger. A far from unique social reality which we (men) are all guilty of from time to time and is generally considered to be amusing. I was just trying to illustrate the problem(?) that we have.

Having said that we don't hold the same views and opinions, that is not quite true. We (the royal we) seem to simply have our priorities in a different order. The gender argument, as can be seen in the thread about old medical journals, shows has been with us for a hundred and fifty years and will no doubt still be with us well into this century! Where Jenny supports totaly equality with little or no deviance, my first choice would in fact be your second option(?). SCP should be available for both genders, with that fact well publicised. With an additional caveat in that there should also be no mandatory caning sanctions. This would allow for schools to make an informed choice of punishment. It should prevent most, if not all of the injustices talked about on this forum, which coincidentally also seems to have happend to Dr D earlier in life. By removing the mandatory element, it would also prevent scenarios where boys and girls who offend together, receiving different and possibly disproportionalte punishments. It may mean that many more boys than girls would be caned, but the one size fits all policy is as much of a no brainer as a totally discriminatory policy. (see my short reply in the "Beauty of Double Standards" thread)

Dr D, I still have difficulty with the realities of SCP in your school, where a "six of the best" can leave only transitory redness and show no marks the following day. An explanation of this and I assume there will be one, would be appreciated.

Again apologies if I you have found some of my comments irritating, but I guess that for many of us the subject is highly emotive and we do not have the benefit of being able to provide a totally balanced viewpoint, supported by evidence on every occasion!

Oliver S

Hi Oliver, you wrote Dr D, I still have difficulty with the realities of SCP in your school, where a "six of the best" can leave only transitory redness and show no marks the following day. An explanation of this and I assume there will be one, would be appreciated.

I know Dr D is quite capable of answering for himself, but I think it is a bit of an unfair question. As we are speaking of reality rather than fiction here, it would be impossible for Dr D, as a working teacher, to be too explicit.

I assure you, six of the best is not a trivial punishment and it does have after effects that vary from person to person In this instance these are better not described in too much detail.

Hi Jenny

On the positive side, all evidence seems to point to the fact that women as administrators who have given CP to girls, do not fall into the trap of falling for sob stories, or other mind games, because as females they are able to see through the fog often created, whereas men in my experience fail this test very badly (Even Dr D has admitted to being manipulated more easily by young girls).

At the university level, on the issue of fog you certainly have a point. there are a number of studies which de facto show the female of the species to be simultaneously more manipulative, and more successful at said manipulation in a largely male dominated environment. The isn't how the authors would present the research of course.

I can certainly think of a couple ( well that's what I'll admit to!) instances where 'young ladies' certainly pulled the wool...

Having said that , it is also the case that some women can be just as gullible as men. I remember one such lady in our department nicknamed 'mother hen', who would attempt at the end of the first year degree exams (she was first year tutor), to hawk round the scripts of students who had failed to every single member of staff to see if they 'couldn't find ( manufacture?) an argument for 40%. Well not every single one ; certainly not me , but then I was an 'arid' on the board, she was wet wet wet! I felt sorry for her. It is very difficult to sell the case for a pass when all the paper contains is candidate number and one paragraph of not very well constructed English!

But there is a serious point here that may not be purely sex related. Men were often expected to engage in corporal punishment without giving it a lot of thought.They bought into it as 'part of the package' . Most women who are prepared to administer the cane or paddle as part of their educational duties,did so by deliberate choice, and therefore tended to have a thought out view of education which involves a central role for a student to assume personal responsibility.A consequence based strategy. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time In this sense they are less influenced by a sob story. Why? Because in the nature of consequence based regimes , a sob story may explain , but it doesn't excuse.

Now in America where this type of thinking predominates , both men and women choosing this role as senior 'administrators' have thought this through.In Britain it was a far less focused process.

That is a difficult concept for certainly many British students to take on board. our society is based on 'mitigation' . 'If I did it , it was for such good reasons I shouldn't have to pay the penalty......and ' I've such a good record before this ( perhaps I'm clever enough never to have been found out before?), I deserve at least one more change, and I'm really so sorry.....'


This is quite foreign to the British sense of fair play, but yet is so much more equitable and effective.To put it in stark contrast, if I was to weigh up the consequence of a given action. In my British home the issue would resolve around can I manufacture a good credible excuse . if yes then I've a good chance of getting away with it ......even if not can I think up a reason in mitigation for what I'm going to do, yes, well then the consequences won't be substantial.

In a no consequence regime the excuse would cut no ice. Excuses are NOT explanations , and even the best explanations don't CHANGE FACTS. Moreover, obfuscate and you ran the risk of being accused of lying, which inevitably increased the penalty - considerably. (No wonder I'm no fan of empiricism). In a consequence based regime there is only one option - the right one- come clean and face the music. And that Jenny, I may be wrong, sounds to me pretty well how your headmistress ran your school.

hcj: Winona along with most districts in Missouri have addressed an issue that you raised 10/28 ar 1:30. However delicate an issue it should not be ignored. Pain is a necessary component and parents should be the judge of abuse and the rarity of complaints with over 200,000 students and many paddled more than once is as sure a sign as any that something is being done right. There are blemishes and every teacher's record is not unblemished but far fewer than those who oppose CP would like you to believe. They seem shocked at seeing bruises but as I have often said you have to break some eggs to make an omelet so the untrained need to learn how to use the right implements and how to employ it. The teachers are used to these spurious attacks and TWP isnt afraid to stay out of the fray (kitchen) to take the hear and deomonstrate what is sorely lacking that quality of having the Courage to Submit.

It would not be inappropriate for teachers to be involved in this delicate matter but not so parents and school nurses. Winona Missouri caution has some relation to hcj post however inelegant some make out of the instrument of correction that has been a time tested American Way kitchen utensil.

Corporal punishment should always be administered in a manner that is fair, non-abusive, and that will not cause permanent physical damage. Occasional bruises occur and are not indicative of abuse or that unnecessary force was used by the teacher or administrators as bruising potential varies from person to person.

Doctor Dominum and Jenny , Hi

You wrote this exchange :

(J)At my school, the cane was effective - on both boys and girls. I grant you it didn't stop me misbehaving completely but it did give me the incentive to try to avoid being caught. It had the same effect on boys too.

I don't doubt it gave you the incentive to try and avoid being caught.


It didn't give an incentive to BEHAVE, just to avoid detection!!!!! that says something about deterrence! Just think about it , that could give Paula a good argument....it doesn't modify attitude, simply makes behaviour more deceitful.........


Also ;

(J)Effectively, that's what it amounts to. If I got lines and I didn't do them, I got the slipper. If the slipper (or cane) were not options, would would I have got itsead? Nothing?

(DD)No, it isn't what it amounts to.

The fact you decide not to do a punishment is not the same thing as no punishment being given. And frankly, if I was dealing with a student, male or female, who I believed was simply not doing an assigned punishment because they wanted an alternative punishment as some sort of act of rebellion, I would not be inclined to give them the alternative. I don't believe in suspension very often, but in the type of situation you describe, I'd be more inclined to suspend than cane - simply to prevent a situation where a stubborn, ill-disciplined child was allowed to try and dictate terms. I would not regard the cane as working in that case - I'd regard it as its use being an absolute failure.

If you only do the lines out of fear of being caned, you're complying with a punishment you don't seem to regard as effective to avoid one you do regard as effective. But the key is, you are complying. And that is often the aim of the punishment - to force compliance. To force obedience on the disobedient. If you continue to be disobedient, obviously the cane wasn't an effective deterrent. So why would we suppose it would deter future misbehaviour?


I may be wrong , but as I remember school the main issue in whether you 'did' a punishment probably came down to whether you respected the person who was disciplining you.OK sometimes you might have an element of fear, but hopefully it was a balance.

What do I mean ? Well to quote two examples I've dealt with here before. a prefect who was known to be 'unfair' accused me when quite young of a minor offence and tried giving lines. I refused and , with nothing to back his position he backed down. Now had it been my House Captain who at that time I respected I probably would have done them because I would have believed he was genuinely 'mistaken' not vindictive. But no respect ; no compliance.

Doctor Dominum must have seen this with boys who protest their innocence, but accept the caning because they respect his integrity and his belief he is doing right-= even if it eventually proves not to be so.

Second example. Many boys when they knew the details of my caning whilst 'still protected by the red list' asked me, ' Why on earth when I could have effectively had a free pass did you let Miss F cane you ? I'd have walked straight out.'

I may be wrong , but I doubt they would have done. Anyone doing that would have in my mind, lost any semblance of honor ( such a big man to walk out! and ( sorry Jenny in those days!) on a woman too), shown cowardice, and an unwillingness to 'stand up ' thus accepting responsibility (in this case) for deliberate disobedience. Finally as I had railed against the inequality of the list in my mind I would have been a laughing stock. All that was doubtless part and parcel of her calculation. She did say it was 'a hard decision'. Actually not , in my mind, having heard her 'sentence' there wasn't a decision to take. Responsibility can't be avoided for ever.

If , however , I had held her in low esteem , given no respect , and not admitted the accusation things may have been different.That's why maintaining mutual respect is so important in teaching. Once it breaks down, there is no coming back.

I remember the story of Winston Churchill at Prep school . No matter how severe the punishment, and his head apparently thrashed him well over the line of abuse. Churchill's response? to break into his head's study , steal his favorite headgear and burn it ritually on the lawn.....you cannot enforce respect through fear of punishment. look at the amazing stories of defiance in the concentration camps or the gulags for more difficult and meaningful examples.



Unless you are dealing with a completely homogenous group (which can happen, but it's very rare, and especially rare in modern education where most education systems have forced schools to integrate all students regardless of individual or group characteristics), you won't get equal outcomes from equal opportunity. If somehow, you've managed to wind up with an homogenous group, then you might.

Yes and isn't it interesting that mixed ability teaching, social integration through zoning or busing, all those 'measures. which were aimed at providing equality of opportunity , have only succeeded in producing inequality of outcomes as parents vote with their feet and chequebooks ? Its not bad faith but as John Maynard Keynes reminded us it is not the pen or the sword that drives society : it is as nought compared to the power of vested interest.

I know very few teachers who 'overlook girls' behaviour'.

I refer you to Prof.n's post above.

I've read his post. It doesn't change what I said. I know very few teachers who overlook girls behaviour. Posting some examples where somebody did doesn't indicate it's a particularly common problem.

I don't think that exactly exhausts the point I made with the pair of posts on this issue. So let's me make my position clear. I believe that misbehaviour in schools today , and particularly the state sector in England is , in a substantial number of schools, running out of control. There are a number of reasons for this.

Yes and ignoring bad behaviour is certainly one. Just ask the local bus company here who had to withdraw a service because of the dreadful behaviour of a 'mass' of pupils who wreaked a bus and terrified passengers.....not our fault says the school , not a school service and caught outside our gates. Bullying outside the school grounds....not our responsibility. A group of boys walking six abreast and pushing an old lady into the road ...ditto. And as I mentioned in the last post , redefining behaviour. No adherence to school uniform . Abolish it! Rewrite the school rules to reflect the 'ethos' of modern society.

Now I'm not saying in every school, or all teachers etc. . But actually I am sure no one ( except the British government ) would deny that some schools in Britain are badly funded, appallingly managed , and bereft of effective sanctions due to government action and the neutering of schoolteachers rights by the courts, that they cannot handle the day to day issues let alone barrage after barrage of new and expensive innovations ? And haven't you come across a strata of teachers who should never have been employed, given their lack of knowledge ,training and experience of the world? I know I have! I acknowledge that there are far, far more good teachers than bad, but rotten apples.......oh and too many bureaucrats pushing paper instead of standing on their hind legs teaching classes......

Today in Britain we have toddlers excluded from school - yes formal discipline at three. By five the numbers are horrifying.So we need to do something, and something that doesn't divert massive resources from teaching the decently behaved kids as well. That's not to say we ignore research, but to inject a little reality into what we are talking about , I remember a phrase used over and over by my friend.....( not I assure you exclusively to me !),

'Look, you know the rules, no one asked you to misbehave, you chose to do that yourself. However unpleasant the consequnce , and I am sorry about that, it is your doing - no one else's.'

You avoid punishment by behaving. PERIOD.

That is something we forget at our next generations peril

Oliver S At the risk of following in line so often to be called your Amen corner I would like to repost an observation that appeared on the July 2009 high school tardy Teacher Chat Board (however apocryphal) in response to your 10/28 at 12:38 post echos your thoughts When the issue of equal punishment came up and a voluntary choice for all students was applied, girls as well as boys began to be paddled routinely)..

Two additional points may be in order. Infractions meriting paddling with less gender differential code of conduct violations are the schools where there are less differences in CP hence the thread name high school tardy. Alvin TX is a case in point.

A factor not mentioned is that parents who place DNP (do not paddle) restrictions (did they use DNC in the UK). often do so not based on gender but for conscience reasons (families that don't believe in CP (often new to the south given traditions)who exempt period.

Another factor is girls may opt in because the alternative is less attractive (TWP Nashia and Nancy Guillen) basketball and Saturday school. So lacking conflicts some may not have chosen the paddle OTOH arguably more would opt in if they knew that they would be paddled by one of their own gender hence my final answer in student handbook is single gender paddling and witness however it may unfairly brush male administrators, coaches and teachers by bad experiences. Sorry prof n coaches will be allowed to paddle they also should not be unfairly brushed by none other than guess who?

A generation of teachers who taught in the seventies were aghast at the number of girls that opted in after Shelley (Shelly) Gahsperson (boo hoo hoo) paddling in 1981 that popularized the option. Hence womens liberation broke stereotypes that those who choose to live in the past still resists. Bob Dylan "The Times they are a Changin" is not an oldie for some but thankfully not all of that generation. The pseudonym shows a sense of humor and a sense of openness to change even in Arkansas however unfairly stereotyped. Dr Dominum what did you think of Bob Dylan or was he after your time?

Re: high school tardy policy
Posted by: Mrs. Old Foggey on 7/21/09

It is intersting that one result of equal rights has been a more equal
application of corporal punishment. Through the mid 1970's in Arkansas and
elsewhere, girls were a small minority of students who were paddled. When the issue of equal punishment came up and a voluntary choice for all students was applied, girls as well as boys began to be paddled routinely.

While 9th grade boys still seem to receive the most swats, at this point they are followed closely by 11th and 12th grade girls. The infractions resulting in swats in these groups include tardies, cell phone use, tobacco violations, parking lot violations, etc.

Doctor Dominum

I've read his [Prof.n's] post. It doesn't change what I said. I know very few teachers who overlook girls behaviour. Posting some examples where somebody did doesn't indicate it's a particularly common problem.

Almost anyone in the UK could fill this forum with similar examples. I can't speak for Australia but, in the UK, it is a common problem.

I should have said 'your personal beliefs and experiences'. But your personal experiences are of one person's reactions, and maybe those of a few friends.

Amongst whom there are no counter-examples.

My personal experiences are from dealing with behavioural issues involving thousands of children - mostly boys, but not entirely.

Most importantly, you do not have the experience of receiving CP as a girl.

I don't doubt it gave you the incentive to try and avoid being caught. What I wonder is how readily extrapolated that can be to every other girl in existence. The research evidence is it can't be. The views of teachers with long experience of teaching girls is that it can't be as well.

Of course it doesn't apply to every girl: anymore than it applies to every boy.

You seem to be saying here that 'not caning' is the same as 'not punishing' or 'not disciplining'. It isn't.

Try telling any girl that who, no matter what she did, escaped the cane purely by being a girl. I've heard girls laughing about how they "got let off" in their schools.

I said:
Effectively, that's what it amounts to. If I got lines and I didn't do them, I got the slipper. If the slipper (or cane) were not options, would would I have got instead? Nothing?

No, it isn't what it amounts to.

The fact you decide not to do a punishment is not the same thing as no punishment being given.

The effect if the same if no action is taken oven my refusal.

And frankly, if I was dealing with a student, male or female, who I believed was simply not doing an assigned punishment because they wanted an alternative punishment as some sort of act of rebellion, I would not be inclined to give them the alternative.

What alternative? I described what would have happened in my school, that's not the only possible alternative. If you didn't impose an alternative punishment, you would have to let them off.

I don't believe in suspension very often, but in the type of situation you describe, I'd be more inclined to suspend than cane - simply to prevent a situation where a stubborn, ill-disciplined child was allowed to try and dictate terms. I would not regard the cane as working in that case - I'd regard it as its use being an absolute failure.

It's quite possible they want to be suspended. Unless you know what they want you can't be sure you're not giving them it. Remember Br'er Rabbit asking not to be thrown into the briar patch?

If you only do the lines out of fear of being caned, you're complying with a punishment you don't seem to regard as effective to avoid one you do regard as effective.

No, I would be attempting to avoid a worse punishment.

But the key is, you are complying.

Simply to avoid a worse punishment - in this case, the cane.

And that is often the aim of the punishment - to force compliance. To force obedience on the disobedient. If you continue to be disobedient, obviously the cane wasn't an effective deterrent. So why would we suppose it would deter future misbehaviour?

No, obviously lines were not an effective deterrent. If I do them to avoid the cane, then clearly the cane would be. Remove lines from the equation and next time I misbehave, I get the cane. If I can't avoid that by doing lines I'd be forced to adopt an alternative strategy such as behaving myself.

Firstly everybody . management but Jenny and Dr. Dominum in particular,

Sorry for the missing machine code at 4.34 local. I did the unpardonable , had the text on preview,received message it wouldn't log me in ,some garbage about cookies..... the phone rang and rather than wait , than leave it and whoops I pressed 'respond' hard without review. Therefore your viewing quality is reduced....to say the least!



Hi American Way ,

Two very quick points

Firstly there never has been to my knowledge a opt out from the cane in Britain. The main reason is that the various Associations of school heads agreed on one thing . their castles : their rules. Parents should stay out of disciplinary matters. it is this intransigence that led directly to Scotland losing the right to belt, instead of the original proposal to allow parents to opt out....which was the requirement of the Court judgment .


Secondly , just for fun, I can't speak for Dr. Dominum , but I'm afraid here you have a Dylan anthologist....and to be honest it really is a bit dangerous to see the old fellow as changing very much at all these days.

Much earlier that's also true of 'Slow train a coming?' ? Saved? Infidels ? Knocked out Loaded? Let alone much later : love and theft ; and what about his conversion to Texas Roadhouse???? Sorry ! That's all for a different forum , we all have other interests!!!!!So ......

'smell the pinewood burning ; hear the schoolbell ring, gotta get up close by the teacher if you want to learn anything' 'Floater : ( too much to ask)'

Shall we hijack this thread, talk about Bob's back catalogue and go fishing for bullheads down those old rebel rivers? His times have a changed a lot.......? Probably better not, that could be worse than a fun pester.......

I remember when, in a previous employment, email use started to become quite common. Occasionally there would be heated discussions on some topic or other, and I remember being distinctly unimpressed by people who dissected my message and commented on it sentence by sentence. So I'm going to do exactly that!

(Well, not quite. I'm going to select a single sentence in a rather longer post; but the sentiments expressed in that sentence are, I think representative of a point of view with which I disagree; and my response is quite general.)

Jenny:

"I should have said 'your personal beliefs and experiences'. But your personal experiences are of one person's reactions, and maybe those of a few friends."

Amongst whom there are no counter-examples.

If we're asking questions about the population as a whole, then the views of one individual's group of friends tells us nothing. There might well be no counterexamples, but that's irrelevant.

If you want to find the population's views about a simple yes/no question, you could take a random sample. The sample doesn't need to be particularly large for the sample proportion to be a close approximation to the population proportion. It's not too hard to do the calculations.

But "me and my friends" isn't a random sample. Your friends are more likely to share your outlook than a random selection of the population. And if your friends date from your schooldays and you're talking about school experiences, they will share your experiences, too, and without further information ("research") there's no reason to believe that they are in any way representative.

Policy needs to be based on evidence.

prof.n


Hi Prof.n

At the university level, on the issue of fog you certainly have a point. there are a number of studies which de facto show the female of the species to be simultaneously more manipulative, and more successful at said manipulation in a largely male dominated environment. The isn't how the authors would present the research of course.

It wasn't I who made that point but I do concur.

Having said that , it is also the case that some women can be just as gullible as men.

We're all individuals.

In a no consequence regime the excuse would cut no ice. Excuses are NOT explanations , and even the best explanations don't CHANGE FACTS.

That applies to theories too - if the facts don't fit the theory, change the theory.

Moreover, obfuscate and you ran the risk of being accused of lying, which inevitably increased the penalty - considerably. (No wonder I'm no fan of empiricism). In a consequence based regime there is only one option - the right one- come clean and face the music. And that Jenny, I may be wrong, sounds to me pretty well how your headmistress ran your school.

I think you're right. Either way, she did a very good job and I'll be eternally grateful to her and my teachers for not holding me back because of my sex.

Alan Turing:

But "me and my friends" isn't a random sample. Your friends are more likely to share your outlook than a random selection of the population. And if your friends date from your schooldays and you're talking about school experiences, they will share your experiences, too, and without further information ("research") there's no reason to believe that they are in any way representative.

I accept that but "general trends" should not be used to formulate policy inappropriate to specific cases. In general, girls might be weaker than boys but if I don't ignore the evidence of my own eyes if I meet a girls who,s stronger than a boy of the same age. A general policy, whether or not based on evidence of the mean average differences between groups, is worse than useless when, in a specific case, the differences are reversed.

I have yet to see one piece of hard evidence that supports the proposition that caning is ineffective (whatever that's even meant to mean) with girls and "causes negative effects" (whatever they're supposed to be).

Lighting up a cigarette almost immediately after being caned for smoking would suggest to me the cane wasn't particularly effective. Yet another (male) poster here did exactly that while I (and every other girl I know who was caned for smoking) didn't. In those specific cases, the theory was clearly wrong but an inflexible "do not cane girls" policy doesn't allow for that.

Hi prof.n


(J)At my school, the cane was effective - on both boys and girls. I grant you it didn't stop me misbehaving completely but it did give me the incentive to try to avoid being caught. It had the same effect on boys too.

I don't doubt it gave you the incentive to try and avoid being caught.

It didn't give an incentive to BEHAVE, just to avoid detection!!!!! that says something about deterrence! Just think about it , that could give Paula a good argument....it doesn't modify attitude, simply makes behaviour more deceitful.........

That's true and it applies to boys too but, sometimes, the only way to avoid detection is to not commit the offence. Despite what you may infer, I was never caned for smoking - I got the cane for being caught (inter alia) smoking.


(J)Effectively, that's what it amounts to. If I got lines and I didn't do them, I got the slipper. If the slipper (or cane) were not options, would would I have got itsead? Nothing?

I may be wrong , but as I remember school the main issue in whether you 'did' a punishment probably came down to whether you respected the person who was disciplining you.OK sometimes you might have an element of fear, but hopefully it was a balance.

That's a good point. I did respect my teachers because they were fair and didn't just let us off. I only got lines or detention very rarely but if I did fail to do them it wasn't out of disrespect, or refusal to accept a punishment because I knew I'd get the slipper for not doing them.

I may be wrong , but I doubt they would have done. Anyone doing that would have in my mind, lost any semblance of honor ( such a big man to walk out! and ( sorry Jenny in those days!) on a woman too)

LoL! Apology accepted.

Jenny,

A word of advice , as you say empiricism is just that, and don't go down the track of making it more and more systematic, because it only leads to conservative ( small 'c') policy conclusions.

What I don't understand from reading the studies I have ( and I don't claim to have read them all) is this. How is it that in areas of reported high even excessive corporal punishment of girls ( eg religious communities in Ireland ; Scotland prior to 1982 ;parts of Utah ; South West Texas ; the enforced emigree orphans to Australisia come to mind), we are not finding literally hundreds and hundreds of damaged, obsessive, maladjusted women , far exceeding the number of men seeking help or under treatment?

There are a small number of reported cases of serious abuse. But the broad mass of the population seems unaffected.Even in Ireland where we are talking long term and serious , horrendous ,abuse of boys and girls, the numbers referring for treatment and support are small, ( except in a tiny number of cases where substantial compensation has been involved). The same is true in the Midland cases in England where one of my ex departments was involved,( and hence why I didn't want to comment on an aspect of that raised here previously). These are the really seriously abused, nothing at all in common with 'moderate cp'.

Cases for which extensive incarceration for the abusers should be mandatory, and , thankfully , in some cases ( but nowhere near enough) has been .

Why are so many unaffected or unconcerned, or is it like EIPTSD/ much ADHD, a definitional state?I'm NOT a clinical psychologist , but I'm looking for these answers?

Any answers?

prof.n

A word of advice , as you say empiricism is just that, and don't go down the track of making it more and more systematic, because it only leads to conservative ( small 'c') policy conclusions.

Advice gratefully accepted.

What I don't understand from reading the studies I have ( and I don't claim to have read them all) is this. How is it that in areas of reported high even excessive corporal punishment of girls ( eg religious communities in Ireland ; Scotland prior to 1982 ;parts of Utah ; South West Texas ; the enforced emigree orphans to Australisia come to mind), we are not finding literally hundreds and hundreds of damaged, obsessive, maladjusted women , far exceeding the number of men seeking help or under treatment?

That's what I'd like to know too. I've never seen any evidence of these so-called "negative effects". I accept that my own reactions and those of my friends and acquaintances are not necessarily representative of the population as a whole, I'd expect to be aware of a few examples from the thousands or millions of women who received reasonable CP when younger.

There are a small number of reported cases of serious abuse. But the broad mass of the population seems unaffected.Even in Ireland where we are talking long term and serious , horrendous ,abuse of boys and girls, the numbers referring for treatment and support are small, ( except in a tiny number of cases where substantial compensation has been involved). The same is true in the Midland cases in England where one of my ex departments was involved,( and hence why I didn't want to comment on an aspect of that raised here previously). These are the really seriously abused, nothing at all in common with 'moderate cp'.

Yes, even in cases of serious abuse, there doesn't seem to be significantly more women affected.

Cases for which extensive incarceration for the abusers should be mandatory, and , thankfully , in some cases ( but nowhere near enough) has been .

Why are so many unaffected or unconcerned, or is it like EIPTSD/ much ADHD, a definitional state?I'm NOT a clinical psychologist , but I'm looking for these answers?

Any answers?

An example of adjusting the facts to fit the theory perhaps? Some of the arguments put forward against CP for girls and women are ridiculous in the extreme. I've mentioned some in other posts and shown how ridiculous they are. If they cane is so ineffective on girls, why were we just as keen as the boys to avoid it? Did any girl, anywhere, say "So what? I'll only get the cane."? I very much doubt it. Perhaps these "negative effects" are what many people would call "positive effects" or, perhaps, it affects boys and girls in exactly the same way but the effects are called negative when seen in girls.

prof.n:

Firstly there never has been to my knowledge a opt out from the cane in Britain. The main reason is that the various Associations of school heads agreed on one thing . their castles : their rules. Parents should stay out of disciplinary matters. it is this intransigence that led directly to Scotland losing the right to belt, instead of the original proposal to allow parents to opt out....which was the requirement of the Court judgment.

Their argument against allowing parents to opt-out was that it would be unworkable. They claimed it would place them in an impossible position if two pupils committed exactly the same (serious) offence and they could cane one but not the other. This would be exactly the same situation as in those schools where girls were exempt from the cane and, as the two groups were roughly equal in size, had the highest probability of occurring.

This funny thought just occurred to me. I can picture the scene where a teacher, finding a group of smokers says "You boys, off to the Headmaster! Girls, finish your cigarettes and get back to class please."

Jenny ,

I take your point entirely,but I considered it differently.

In the United States the only way they have retained the paddle is by providing for opt outs. now this is a vexed subject, but it can reflect deeply held religious or political convictions. The requirement for this is , of course the situation where a student has a choice of options, but some students are prohibited from taking the paddle/cane etc.

There has therefore to be another 'equivalent punishment - and here lies the rub. Nevertheless i think the 'old' US penalty , still preserved in some jurisdictions of seven hours straight ( with lunch and comfort breaks) sitting still , doing nothing , and wasting time it a pretty awful alternative. And no school buses for the poor little darlings . Have you seen the Breakfast Club?

I actually think students are better doing lines or better again an essay, as the time period is severe enough.

I never experienced this , of course, but did once get a taste. A group of us had been discussing this at a folk night in the local town . the secretary of the club was Miss F, and she joined in.

A few days later my class 'acted up' in her lesson, and as a consequence she kept us back , only for about 20 minutes. But she imposed the American system. It was unbearable!Sit up straight , face the front and do nothing ( except breathe- that was compulsory!). At night she asked what we had thought. I told her if my friends had known why she'd done that , I would be swinging from the school flagpole.........and that for only 20 minutes....try seven hours!

prof.n

In the United States the only way they have retained the paddle is by providing for opt outs.

The UK government could have done the same.

I actually think students are better doing lines or better again an essay, as the time period is severe enough.

I think I've explained my objection to lines It's even more applicable to essays as a punishment. I think it tends be a disincentive to do well.

Imagine:
Monday - As punishment, you will write an essay on ......
Tuesday - Now, your homework is to read up and write an essay on .....

What were you being punished for on Tuesday? When you come to see essay writing as a punishment, what the Hell did you do wrong enough to have to write a doctoral thesis?

Hi Jenny,

Previously on this soap, the storyline was :-

In the United States the only way they have retained the paddle is by providing for opt outs.

The UK government could have done the same.


I agree entirely. Why we didn't ? Well because the Heads demanded that parents not have any control inside their schools. (I can remember a little notice on the primary school gates : No parents beyond this point without an appointment!). Their castle : their rules. that, plus the fact that where abuse occurred the establishment united to cover it up, instead of encouraging good practice and shaming bad.


I actually think students are better doing lines or better again an essay, as the time period is severe enough.

I think I've explained my objection to lines It's even more applicable to essays as a punishment. I think it tends be a disincentive to do well.


I see where you are coming from . Personally to sit doing nothing ( and no micro sized MP3) would drive me batty. Lines ditto.......

.
I've mentioned this before but, I only got one Saturday detention during my career, from my friend.....for failing a test ( We had individual marks based on your performance. I led the class and had to score 18/20. I was lazy and got about 14. ( 20% 'miss' and automatic detention. )). Anyway as I said elsewhere as the penalty for missing detention was 2 strokes I asked her ,cheekily, to cane me instead .

She refused , saying as it was laziness she personally would be prepared to cane , but the school said the cane should never be used for academic offences. If I failed to go , she would , of course cane me then. But she didn't think I would disrespect her request, I wasn't 'that type of guy'.

So we negotiated an essay : ( she normally set lines in Latin) . Why? because she didn't want me to blow a gasket on Saturday, and I preferred to keep my brain active. ....As it happened she was on rota duty that Saturday ( so at least I got a lift!) .She gave me the topic in an envelope. Could never forget it . 'Write an essay on why you shouldn't be here'.......The stupid games we play.

Dr D
Just a quick point, you ask on what I based my statement that the differential of offending between boys and girls that would invite caning as a sanction being about a third.

I have to say it was a guestimate based on forty years of following the debate very closely and also twenty years as a school governor dealing with disciplinary policy. However along comes information (to be found on this forum) that immediately before abolition in the UK, the Scots were made to provide information which gave a breakdown of application of the tawse to boys and girls. Guess what, it showed that out of a sample of 2000 students 57 per cent of girls and 80 per cent of boys had received the tawse in the previous two years.

A third? No far off correct then?


Oliver S

It is difficult to locate exact comments or phrases that have been used by a contributor on the forum. Forgive me if I was wrong but I seem to remember you making a comment about someone, maybe your grandaughter, being able to twist you around her little finger. A far from unique social reality which we (men) are all guilty of from time to time and is generally considered to be amusing. I was just trying to illustrate the problem(?) that we have.

I can't recall saying such a thing, but I can't with certainty I never have. But for the record, I don't believe young girls are easily able to manipulate me - they probably could when I was a young man.

Having said that we don't hold the same views and opinions, that is not quite true. We (the royal we) seem to simply have our priorities in a different order. The gender argument, as can be seen in the thread about old medical journals, shows has been with us for a hundred and fifty years and will no doubt still be with us well into this century! Where Jenny supports totaly equality with little or no deviance, my first choice would in fact be your second option(?). SCP should be available for both genders, with that fact well publicised. With an additional caveat in that there should also be no mandatory caning sanctions. This would allow for schools to make an informed choice of punishment. It should prevent most, if not all of the injustices talked about on this forum, which coincidentally also seems to have happend to Dr D earlier in life. By removing the mandatory element, it would also prevent scenarios where boys and girls who offend together, receiving different and possibly disproportionalte punishments. It may mean that many more boys than girls would be caned, but the one size fits all policy is as much of a no brainer as a totally discriminatory policy. (see my short reply in the "Beauty of Double Standards" thread)

I have no fundamental objection to the idea of caning being available as a sanction to use with girls. What I do disagree with is the uncritical acceptance of the idea based on nothing more than an ideological belief. If after all the pros and cons - all of them including the research based evidence, and, yes, including basic statements of philosophy or ideology, those involved with the education of girls want to make a case for corporal punsihment being used that's fine with me. But that case should not be based on simplistic political ideas - but on the whole body of the issues involved.

And, I, as somebody who is involved with the education of boys, want to be able to do exactly the same thing - to consider all the pros and cons of the idea of corporal punishment for boys and to be free to advocate what is their best interests, separate from any other issues. Do I particularly care if corporal punishment is available for girls - not particularly. What I don't want is decisions made concerning girls to be used to force us to make different decisions for boys.

Co-educational schools are a special problem. Frankly, I don't believe they're a good idea and the evidence on that is pretty clear. By their nature, they are always going to force compromises to be made, and those comprises generally don't wind up being in the best interests of boys or girls - but currently girls are given a higher priority and so they're not as badly disadvantaged as boys. If co-education is going to be made to work properly for boys and girls, it needs to accept there are real differences between boys and girls and that these differences may require different solutions to be implemented at times - sometimes a compromise is not the best achieveable solution. What should not be allowed to happen is that decisions taken in the best interests of one gender should not be forced on the other. Deciding that corporal punishment has a role to play for boy, and also that it has a role to play for girls is one thing. Deciding that because it has a role to play for boys, it must be used with girls regardless - or that because it doesn't work with girls, it must not be used with boys is something else entirely. Both of those approaches are not egalitarian - rather they involve sacrificing the needs of one sex for the sake of the other. Privileging one half of the population above the other.

Dr D, I still have difficulty with the realities of SCP in your school, where a "six of the best" can leave only transitory redness and show no marks the following day. An explanation of this and I assume there will be one, would be appreciated.

What does 'six of the best' mean? Historically, in my view, it typically meant one of two different things.

In some schools, "six of the best" meant six exceptionally hard strokes of the cane. In some schools, it simply meant six strokes of the cane, which were not in themselves unusual strokes. The first meaning is probably the 'purer' meaning and what most people think of when they hear the term used - but it wasn't always the reality. The term was used differently in different schools - but even when the second definition applied, there was still a cachet about the term in most cases - it meant something beyond a normal caning, whether the reality was all it was made out to be, or not.

Our 'modern' "six of the best" doesn't mean what that first definition says. But it also doesn't mean what the second means.

When I administer six of the best, I do not use appreciably greater force than I do with a normal caning. Why? Because legally speaking, that would be extremely unwise. But that doesn't mean the caning is identical to a 'normal caning of six strokes'. I use other methods to make it more severe in the sense of making it more unpleasant for the boy and therefore more feared.

The primary one of these is to increase the time gap between strokes. This has two effects - first of all it prolongs the punishment - three normal strokes of the cane are normally over in, say ten seconds or so (between first and third stroke). Six of the best takes close to a minute - double the strokes but six times as long thinking about what is happening to you and dealing with the pain. Secondly, it allows time for many of the target areas nociceptors (pain sensors) to fully discharge and 'reset' which increases the level of pain from each stroke beyond what it would be if fewer nociceptots are back online.

There really is no mileage in the full strength strokes that some Masters used to use. There is a limit to how much 'acute' pain a boy will feel during a caning, and a firm stroke will reach that level just as assuredly as a full strength blow. These firm strokes generally do not cause significant lasting marking. There's no absolute rule to that - sometimes there are marks. We don't regard those as particular problematic, but it's just as well if they don't happen.

The old full strength strokes did lead to lasting pain and discomfort - lasting days, even a week or so at times. If you consider that a good thing, then our modern canings don't meet that test. I don't think it's a good thing personally although I don't think it's generally likely to do any real harm - in my view, it is the acute pain at the time of caning that has any real result on behaviour. Chronic discomfort doesn't make a lot of difference to results.

Why so much activity on a thread? I think Jenny has brought this discussion into an area often in need of balance in estimable Forum (now & woman). As a new comer I never heard of Friends United but looking back on the woman who were subject to CP to me is a sign that there is an interests in real as in keep it real and yes Jenny is real and in real time communication.

Oliver S I think why there is a conflict between some members of this estimable Forum on some of the issues of his thread is because of age differentials. The 2000 figure of 87% of the boys and 50% of the girls parallels about 25% of the schools here in real time. Why is it the Malaysia is crying for the return of corporal punishment for girls? Why is it that in the 1970 (more girls not necessarily in lessening disparity) are on the receiving end in the declining numbers? My theory goes right back to the handbooks. Teachers want a "learning space" and that space is becoming smaller and smaller as the chaos of the outside world seeps in.

It really comes down to a matter of prevention. Prevention of violence as in guns and knives (metal detectors). Prevention of bullying where the law of the jungle has replaced codes of conduct. Why a need for so much protection today and not before? Think of the home and school as two cells separated by a membrane. Isn't that what the barriers evident at the very moment you enter a school building. Now let's walk down the corridor and lo and behold there are police officers on standby in case things get out of hand. Do you think I'm exaggerating? Think again.

Google sniff dogs or take a peek in any high school with > 2000 or more in even so-called safe cities? Can corporal punishment change one side of the membrane? Yes. If we didn't believe that school couldn't make a change for the better why teach? Now let's go down the corridor and look at the offices. Principal office burdened with useless paperwork and guidance counselors offices, a nurse's office monitoring the taking of pills prescribed by doctors who believe in biochemical solutions to curbing misbehavior and then look at the guidance counselors more aware of the diagnostic manuals than the knowledge of human nature. Do you think I'm exaggerating? Thinks again. Sadly the American Way

I accept that but "general trends" should not be used to formulate policy inappropriate to specific cases. In general, girls might be weaker than boys but if I don't ignore the evidence of my own eyes if I meet a girls who,s stronger than a boy of the same age. A general policy, whether or not based on evidence of the mean average differences between groups, is worse than useless when, in a specific case, the differences are reversed.

So Jenny, what would you base educational policy on?

Political ideology?

That doesn't work. It's what been happening in most of education for about thirty years now (on some issues longer) and it why mass education is in the mess it is in now.

If we had feasible ways of truly individualising education we'd never need to base things on general trends. But we don't have those ways. So research into general tendencies has to be the basis of policy. Otherwise you're going to wind up with educational policy that doesn't work for anybody at all.

Modern education is based on general trends. It's why we have chronologically based grades/years in schools, for example. We know that at least one in five students are a 'year ahead' of their chronological age in ability to learn and at least one in five students are a 'year behind' their chronological age, but there's no way we have the resources to properly test those children as individuals to work out which children they are (nine hours per student by qualified psychologists). General tendencies are the guiding principles of mass education - they may not be perfect (they most definitely are not, in fact) but they are the best we have.

You're Brer Rabbit refernce... you seem to think that teachers wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a girl who was aiming for a caning, and a girl who was aiming for suspension - if you have that little confidence in the insight of teachers, I can't see how you'd expect them to be able to tell which girls (or which boys) would and wouldn't be harmed by caning. And which would benefit from it, and which wouldn't.

Personally, I think experienced teachers can do that.

I have to say it was a guestimate based on forty years of following the debate very closely and also twenty years as a school governor dealing with disciplinary policy. However along comes information (to be found on this forum) that immediately before abolition in the UK, the Scots were made to provide information which gave a breakdown of application of the tawse to boys and girls. Guess what, it showed that out of a sample of 2000 students 57 per cent of girls and 80 per cent of boys had received the tawse in the previous two years.

Well, I won't argue with a man's guesstimate - but I am surprised at the figures you are citing. They are considerably at odds with other figures I've seen out of Scotland (from the Educational Institute of Scotland, and the Centre for Educational Sociology), and I'd be interested in the source (which I can't find in a search of the forum).

Scotland though is an unusual case - corporal punishment was used far more frequently in Scots schools than just about anywhere else.

Hi Doctor Dominum


I assume Oliver has probably taken the figures from corpun , they are posted there. I personally first came across them some years ago when doing some research on comparative education . The figures are correct both from the original source the Scottish Council for Educational Research (SCER)or similar acronym . I believe from memory . I checked some years ago when I read the same statistics whilst on a visit to SCOTVEC (NB the same figures presented slightly different in Margaret Stones second edition p 42). I like you was surprised, but cross checked ,and the stats are also reinforced by a survey quoted by the BBC from 1980 which showed in a two week period on an admittedly small population , nearly 33% of boys and 12% of girls were belted in a TWO week period. Frankly statistical checks and balances or not its pretty frightening........that's referred to in the Michael Burke programme archived on corpun....Also Michael is unlikely to have presented facts on this in error, as I understand he used to teach in Scotland!

My SO was not phased by these figures when I first discussed them . She said in her experience whole class belting was the stock in trade of some for offences so minor as 'causing a rumpus when the teacher left the room', and if no culprits own up..... Despite the public position several staff did use the belt for work related offences. of course there was no check , no written record.....and what is an academic offence ...no homework , no that behaviour.......

Hope that helps.......Strangely I was going to post on this later today but hadn't found space......

Jenny/ Doctor Dominum/Oliver/Everybody!!!

On a purely factual note , I discovered this in an automated trawl of records. thought you would be interested ( emphasis mine). .


A letter from the Scottish Education Department dated July 8, 1977 explains the problem:

" Education authorities must comply with the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. When these provisions were being enacted, ministers did not want to have the subject of corporal punishment in schools raised in debate and therefore decided that rules relating to the corporal punishment of children should not be exempted.


"Any rules which provide that boys should receive corporal punishment where girls do not would be illegal.

Another 'caught' extract, ( emphasis mine) .

The most significant difference was that teachers in Scotland were not required to keep a record of punishment, a practice almost universal south of the border. This meant that if a pupil was either unlucky or badly behaved, he/she could receive the strap several times in one day from different teachers. It was also not uncommon to experience mass belting. where for one reason or another a teacher would have the whole class lined up to be belted. The only occasion where a record of punishment was kept, happened in 1972.teachers in Edinburgh schools, primary and secondary were required to record all Corporal punishments for a survey. The total number of beltings in one term Topped the 10000 mark, and record keeping was discontinued.



And as for equality of opportunity ........





...........When a very severe tawsing was administered (up to 8 strokes), most boys managed to keep their hands held out for this painful ordeal. However very few female pupils could take such punishment without moving their hand away just as the tawse lashed down across her hand. If a girl would keep moving her hand away, the teacher would make her sit on a desk and pull the front of her skirt up so the top of her legs would be exposed. The hands were the held in the 'cross hands' position a few inches above her bare legs. If the girl moved her hands away the tawse would lash down across the top of her bare legs. In this position most girls managed to keep their hands in place.

Doctor Dominum:


So Jenny, what would you base educational policy on?

Anything you like, just don't make it so inflexible that you create the very situation headteachers dishonestly claimed they were concerned would happen - namely being faced with two pupils, having committed identical serious offences, and they could cane one but not the other.

I asked before what you would do if a boy and girl were caught smoking (for example) in your school? You claimed to have more than 20 ways of dealing with the matter. Now tell us what my headmistress should have done when five of us (2 girls and 3 boys) were in front of her for smoking. Personally, I think she made the right decision.

You're Brer Rabbit refernce... you seem to think that teachers wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a girl who was aiming for a caning, and a girl who was aiming for suspension - if you have that little confidence in the insight of teachers, I can't see how you'd expect them to be able to tell which girls (or which boys) would and wouldn't be harmed by caning. And which would benefit from it, and which wouldn't.

You might think you're able to and you might be right but, if the average teacher can't tell which pupils would benefit from and which would be "damaged" by the cane, I very much doubt they'd be able to tell if I was trying to get the cane or be suspended. They'd have to presume the more likely. What do you think that might be?

Doctor Dominum:

Scotland though is an unusual case - corporal punishment was used far more frequently in Scots schools than just about anywhere else.

It was also used a lot more on girls so there should be a significant number of emotionally "damaged" Scots women. Where are they?

1977. Scottish education Department survey. ( population unknown) quoted
On average 36% of 12-15 year old boys received the belt in a ten day period, and 21% received it more than once.......

Dr D
Many thanks for your considered reply about the physical effects of your modern version of six of the best. As the quality and quantity of pain received by a given force is entirely subjective, it is hard to disagree with your explanation.

Ah the Sex Discrimination Act 1975....now we see the harsh realities. Any SCP in Europe would have to comply with this as well as the blessing of parents. As I said before, there could never be a return to a one sided application of the cane in gender terms. A compromise on behalf of both genders would have to be acceptable in terms of the legislation and parents/guardians.

I know that not many agree with me, but I believe that it is because of the two elements above that we finally saw abolition in the UK. The authorities in general (with decades of social gender based conditioning!) could not bring themselves to condone SCP for girls on a much wider basis than the odd pocket (Jenny's School). Heads as explained above, did not want parental interference on a day to day basis which could cause an even worse situation of those that could be caned and those that could not.

The outposts of the empire must have similar legislation on their statute books. Maybe it is illegal already in the southern hemisphere (except for single sex schools, where SDA presumably does not apply). So I guess that Jenny's hypothetical case of girl and boy both guilty of smoking, what would Dr D do? He probably has little choice, as to discriminate is probably illegal, or if it isn't it will be soon.

As the thread title says.....back in 2009...

Oliver S

I didn't realize until a few hours ago what a large laboratory was sat on my doorstep. I refer of course to Scotland.

Lets look at the facts. It appears that Scotland , by a good margin, probably in the period 1950-1980+ beat more boys and girls per head of population, than in any other developed country.FACT

So many were 'belted' that the only authority that tried to record it gave up, whether overwhelmed or in despair , I know not which. If there were a close rival , it might be Ireland, where we have seen government report after report slating those who cared for the most vulnerable in our society.

So it is not surprising that within Scotland today are many leading centres of educational research that rhetorically condemn corporal punishment.

On this site I hope there are few if any who would stay silent in the face of abuse , or even excessive zeal. Nevertheless,it follows that sensible sane questions must be asked. For here we have an educational system which in other respects was often held as a model of good practice. A system that produced some high standards, and not just at Fettes

Yet something seems missing. If this picture is correct , and if modern theorists especially in the United states are correct,and , to be fair they are pretty consistent From New England to the Mayo , we should be facing an explosion of damaged adults, a whole generation at least decimated by the trauma of their experience.

Where are they? Sure there is substance and alcohol abuse, but more amongst those who grew up in the last twenty years than in the previous. For sure there is a slightly higher incidence of psychiatric illness , but its not that great, and there are other contributing factors, from /northerly location to unemployment, all of which have as strong a demonstrable relationship,

The issue of the belt is pretty taboo amongst the intelligentsia , and the chattering classes who inform policy in Edinburgh or London, but in the ordinary media there is a wealth of folklore, demonstrating, superficially at least no greater resentment or anger amongst the relevant populations than in the UK where , with notable exceptions, the cane was used far far more sparingly. Indeed the in the pages of the Scotsman and others, when these subjects are discussed there is as much support for the old system as there is anywhere else, with the same clarion calls, increasing violence, disrespect and the feral kids agenda being as strongly felt as elsewhere.

I have several searches underway, but I really have difficulty at the ,moment in identifying those weighty discussions about the damage of cp to its last generation, or better psychiatric/psychological health in the younger generations.Is this avoided as the unspoken, the untouchable?

Or is it that there is no such groundswell. for example it is easy to pick up research relevant to other peculiarly 'Scottish' issues , such as the false abuse cases in the Far North. Indeed if you read the old boys/girls literature of today from Scottish schools it is full of descriptions without hate or fear of the regime in the period 1950-80.

Where is a Human rights watch report? Where the support groups for the victims, where the clamour for justice , as Paula would have us want in the States. Is it all a huge ideological false consciousness? Remember in 1980 even the Catholic archbishop spoke in favour of the belt.

I'm not writing in praise of the Scottish system, its just that what you might expect to find, certainly is nor, superficially at least, present, so we must dig deeper. Nonetheless there seem very few veins of research which show either a population in denial, or the vast need for resources and the paraphernalia of 'intervention' to help the 'damaged' Or maybe those American theories fit neatly into our pre existing paternalistic, patriarchal ideological prejudices, as Jenny suggests?

There is something of a similar phenomenon in the South of the United States about paddling. Where community values clash with the conclusions of so called 'intelligent' North eastern social science block.General theory versus societal mores and social cohesion In the South they have a saying ' don't follow the girl , follow the money' Certainly that is what both litigants and professional witnesses have done, and created an EIPTSD industry,


I can't give you an answer that I'm satisfied with as yet, but there are a lot of questions....and a lot of scope for study , as this is one country where now you can't even smack a child withot the risk of the law..

Given what we have been discussing : particularly girl/boy behaviour patterns , I heard discussion of the new Waterloo road series by colleagues (it was on BBC1 last night).Ii hadn't seen it but caught it on I player, and for once it raised a few pertinent questions and a few smiles. And yes , although the storyline is 'photogenic' well some of it ain't that far fetched......

For your homework......How would you have dealt with the cat fight ; the mass battle ; and the sass/insolence and disrespect to the teaching staff?

So get a glass of vodka, your favourite Scotch or even Bacardi...and settle down .......


http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00nmv3h/Waterloo_Road_Series_5_Episode_1/

The American Way in 2009 is not just Red White and Blue but red States and blue atates. Blue states don't have CP and red states do. The exceptions only prove the rule. Now the blue states (left leaning moderate to left) see a need for federal or state government intervention for remedial action. To the South when they hear: I'm from the government how can I help you? The nine most dangerous words ever spoken.

The blue state think when you can't convince ignorant people that they are harming children than the government has the moral obligation to legislate with adversarial relationship that can only be arbitrated by lawyers often politicians themselves. After all every child should be treated the same regardless of place of geographical birth in their mind.

Now let's get back to CP. Every school has codes of conduct (let's call them land mines). Southern parents have landmines on their side of the walls that include corporal punishment. Parents don't paddle children school style because they can touch the bathing suit areas of their own until they become too hard on their hands when they often need it most. Parents read the code of conduct and it makes sense because student handbooks haven't changed much but there is a whole lot of conditions (they can smell a rat (lawyer) that didn't exists when they went to school.

Relative to the closing of the gender CP gap the disparity (IMHO) has to do with landmines (code of conducts) and students are detonators. To a certain extent tardies and truancy and contraband are marginally more boys than girls. Girls struggle to avoid landmines in dress codes as they begin to establish their own identity within their age group. Girls get the short end of the stick (no pun intended) because adults demonize a girl they consider too scantily attired.

The landmine that is most difficult for boys to avoid is "disruptive behavior" surrounding altercations. Pecking orders and gang behavior protect students among their own against bullying and teacher intervention is required more for the boys than the girls. Girls are catching up (Nashia) in violent behavior.

There are 300,000,000 people and I'm guesstimating counting religious school 300,000 students paddled. There is a lot of paddling going on more in the middle school than high school in 1,000 or so schools it is more than just a rare event. In 2009 if you zero in on those 1,000 schools you get a pretty good idea of the socio-cultural-religious authoritarian traditions. Fast forward to 2040 and when you try to picture the landscape it would seem CP will go out with the dinosaurs. But will it? If it stays legal it may swing (no pun intended) but when it's gone is gone for good like the UK.

Do you think it will come back in the UK within the next 20 years? I think the children paddled now will live long enoigh to see their children paddled but after that who knows? TWP are young enough to keep the tradition alive for awhile. Sadly all the anti-CP zealots have to do is win the votes of a few like minded people on the state and national level if they can preempt the local district to impose their wills on those who do not want to abolish CP. Society will have to hit bottom before they hit bottoms.

What I don't understand from reading the studies I have ( and I don't claim to have read them all) is this. How is it that in areas of reported high even excessive corporal punishment of girls ( eg religious communities in Ireland ; Scotland prior to 1982 ;parts of Utah ; South West Texas ; the enforced emigree orphans to Australisia come to mind), we are not finding literally hundreds and hundreds of damaged, obsessive, maladjusted women , far exceeding the number of men seeking help or under treatment?

Well, in the case of the 'enforced emigree orphans to Australisia', we in fact, do find very high numbers of women who have experienced significant psychological issues as a result of their experiences in that program. Much higher than the number of men (which is also unusually high but to nowhere near the same extent). I can't speak to ther other groups, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me if the same applied.

But I'd like to make an important about statistics and numbers relating to pscyhological issues, because a lot of people fail to realise how difficult it can be to identify serious issues from broad population analysis.

Let's just look at one issue. Serious depressive illness.

About 10% of people will suffer from a major depressive illness at some point in their life.

The potential negative effects of corporal punishment are 'dose dependent' to an extent. It is fairly unlikely a single incident will cause major problems but the more often it happens the more likely negative side effects will result - a risk that studies have shown is much higher for females than males. It's hard to quantify exactly, but for the same of argument let's say that experiencing 5 incidents of corporal punishment in childhood triples the chance of experiencing of a girl experiencing a significant depressive episode.

What percentage of girls are likely to receive corporal punishment at least five times. For reasons I hope to go into later, I have real problems with the likely accuracy of the 57% of girls belted in Scotland figure, but for the sake of argument right now, I'll use it. That's the chance of being belted once - the chance of being belted five times would probably be significantly lower. For sake of argument let's make it about a third - 20% of girls.

So 20% of girls have a 300% increased chance of experiencing a depressive episode on this model - what effect does that of on our 10% lifelong incidence rate?

It goes from about 10%-14% - not a massive increase. And that's assuming a pretty high rate of corporal punishment. If we use the Highfield figures for England from the 1950s which said just under 4% of girls had been caned, even if all those girls suffered an increased chance of depression, the number would go from 10%-10.8%

You would not expect to see obvious signs of this looking at whole populations.

That's what I'd like to know too. I've never seen any evidence of these so-called "negative effects". I accept that my own reactions and those of my friends and acquaintances are not necessarily representative of the population as a whole, I'd expect to be aware of a few examples from the thousands or millions of women who received reasonable CP when younger.

Jenny, you haven't seen any evidence because you haven't gone looking for it. It seems very obvious that you're not interested in looking for it. I've mentioned where it can be found a number of times.

Now, you're under no obligation to go looking for it. To you, this is a subject that doesn't really matter. Your views don't affect anyone in reality. Mine do - and potentially could affect more people than they do now. If I have to, at some stage, stand up in a court and try and make the case for corporal punishment, I do not want to be carelessly making a case that could harm students because I haven't bothered to study the issue as widely as I can.

Yes, even in cases of serious abuse, there doesn't seem to be significantly more women affected.

"there doesn't seem to be" - have you looked? I have. On one of the cases mentioned - that of child immigrants to Australia - I looked very hard indeed. Why? Because somebody very close and dear to me was one.

I was an advisor on the Lost Innocents report.

An example of adjusting the facts to fit the theory perhaps? Some of the arguments put forward against CP for girls and women are ridiculous in the extreme. I've mentioned some in other posts and shown how ridiculous they are. If they cane is so ineffective on girls, why were we just as keen as the boys to avoid it? Did any girl, anywhere, say "So what? I'll only get the cane."? I very much doubt it. Perhaps these "negative effects" are what many people would call "positive effects" or, perhaps, it affects boys and girls in exactly the same way but the effects are called negative when seen in girls.

You are confusing 'unpleasant' with 'effective'. They are not the same thing at all. Some teachers used to try and 'beat knowledge' into children. That was something the child wanted to avoid, but they didn't learn anything from it.

The negative effects the studies I have referred to discuss are not effects any sensible person would regard as positive nor are they effects that any sensible person would view differently in boys and girls.

Anything you like, just don't make it so inflexible that you create the very situation headteachers dishonestly claimed they were concerned would happen - namely being faced with two pupils, having committed identical serious offences, and they could cane one but not the other.

I'm afraid this answer baffles me. You ascribing dishonesty to headteachers for reasons I cannot fathom and I certainly would be surprised if you can demonstrate.

I asked before what you would do if a boy and girl were caught smoking (for example) in your school? You claimed to have more than 20 ways of dealing with the matter. Now tell us what my headmistress should have done when five of us (2 girls and 3 boys) were in front of her for smoking. Personally, I think she made the right decision.

I can't answer that - because while I know what I can do in this school, and I know resources I have available to me and I know the students who I am facing (or at least I can ask others who do), none of that is true when it comes to situation you're describing. I don't know what resources your Headmistress had available. I don't know what rules or policy constraints she was working under. And I don't know the students.

I also feel you're so intent on your 'preferred' solution that whatever I said, you'd offer reasons why it wouldn't work. And it's fair to say anything might not work so your reasons would be valid. That doesn't mean they would have applied. There's little mileage though in me getting involved in hypotheticals when you're in a position to view everything tried in the worst possible light with the greatest chance of failure - I'll just make the point though that is just as true of your preferred option - which instead you seem to view in the best possible light with the greatest chance of success.

I can play the odds - I can say (A) has a 90% chance of success and (B) only a 10% chance of success - and that is what I'd sensibly do as a teacher - but that doesn't mean it would work in any particular case.

You might think you're able to and you might be right but, if the average teacher can't tell which pupils would benefit from and which would be "damaged" by the cane, I very much doubt they'd be able to tell if I was trying to get the cane or be suspended. They'd have to presume the more likely. What do you think that might be?

Personally - if I had a student who failed to do lines in an environment where they knew the likely response was a caning, I'd consider it far more likely they were expecting and willing to face a caning, than a suspension. If the two outcomes were equally likely, it might be a hard call - but not in the situation being discussed here.

I know that not many agree with me, but I believe that it is because of the two elements above that we finally saw abolition in the UK. The authorities in general (with decades of social gender based conditioning!) could not bring themselves to condone SCP for girls on a much wider basis than the odd pocket (Jenny's School). Heads as explained above, did not want parental interference on a day to day basis which could cause an even worse situation of those that could be caned and those that could not.

Opt out provisions existed in schools here for a few years prior to abolition from state schools. They didn't seem to cause any significant problems, though I agree I wouldn't find them desirable.

The outposts of the empire must have similar legislation on their statute books. Maybe it is illegal already in the southern hemisphere (except for single sex schools, where SDA presumably does not apply). So I guess that Jenny's hypothetical case of girl and boy both guilty of smoking, what would Dr D do? He probably has little choice, as to discriminate is probably illegal, or if it isn't it will be soon.

Of course, I would always follow the law - and, yes, we do have laws here on sex discrimination.

Independent schools do have some exemptions from those laws. And can also apply for additional exemptions. There is no explicit exemption built into the law relevant to corporal punishment, however, I believe a co-educationalo school could make a case for an exemption based on the research evidence I've seen if it chose to do so. Why haven't they? Because independent schools don't attract official attention to our use of corporal punishment, and making such a case would do that.

Dr Dominum: You can cherry pick a theory that tickles your ear all you want but I'm standing square by Jenny on this one. Oliver S has not weighed in on this one. You would think our fellow life time Honorary Member of this estimable Forum would grasp this straw (studies) to spare those assaults upon those bathing suit areas. Her gender focus is upon gender burdens like men getting their jollies and women have their periods and getting pregnant and not relative merits. I would think they would have thought that up already. The next thing they will be doing is getting leads from you for their fodder.

Now to digress I haven't been given myself enough credit for my experiences. I was a catechetical teacher at the time our kids were in school. I used it as an opportunity to get to know their friends and teach Biblical history and world religions thereby avoiding anything that would give a Catholic outlook like their course books. They're still brain washing.

Corporal punishment was against the law in case you were interested but I threw a girl out my Confirmation class (Catholic Bar/Bat Mitzvah). The last straw was when she told me to ---- off when I told her to be quiet. She told her mother I was rude because I interrupted her. She was more to be pitied than censured and I would not have paddled her if I could because it would be a counseling situation. Don't get me wrong I know the difference between an explanation and an excuse.

The poor girl's mother was going from rehab to rehab while she was going from one foster family to another. A girl kept in touch with her through letters before long distance calls made on family phones and not cell phones My Space/Facebook (Meanwhile way back to 1999) wanted us to know that she would be praying for us on Confirmation day and be with us in spirit (quite a pun and she proabably didn't even know it).

Wouldn't the Sisters of No Mercy be horrified if they only knew.

Doctor Dominum

Well, in the case of the 'enforced emigree orphans to Australisia', we in fact, do find very high numbers of women who have experienced significant psychological issues as a result of their experiences in that program. Much higher than the number of men (which is also unusually high but to nowhere near the same extent). I can't speak to ther other groups, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me if the same applied.

Would this be due to enforced emigration or because they might have been subject to corporal punishment?

The potential negative effects of corporal punishment are 'dose dependent' to an extent. It is fairly unlikely a single incident will cause major problems but the more often it happens the more likely negative side effects will result - a risk that studies have shown is much higher for females than males. It's hard to quantify exactly, but for the same of argument let's say that experiencing 5 incidents of corporal punishment in childhood triples the chance of experiencing of a girl experiencing a significant depressive episode.

How much is "much higher"? If the effects are difficult to quantify, the numbers are not all that reliable. Also, what is the increase in real numbers? If I do two lines on a lottery ticket, I'll double my chances of winning the jackpot but I'm stil not very likely to.

If we use the Highfield figures for England from the 1950s which said just under 4% of girls had been caned, even if all those girls suffered an increased chance of depression, the number would go from 10%-10.8%

You would not expect to see obvious signs of this looking at whole populations.

Hardly a serious risk then. How do those figures compare with those of boys?

Jenny, you haven't seen any evidence because you haven't gone looking for it.

According to what you said, above, the evidence is hardly discernible. How hard does one need to look to find something that would have a high probability of occurring?

On one of the cases mentioned - that of child immigrants to Australia - I looked very hard indeed. Why? Because somebody very close and dear to me was one.

Enforced emigration always causes problems so you'd need to separate those from the effects of corporal punishment.

You are confusing 'unpleasant' with 'effective'. They are not the same thing at all. Some teachers used to try and 'beat knowledge' into children. That was something the child wanted to avoid, but they didn't learn anything from it.

Here you're talking about an abuse of corporal punishment, not a legitimate use of it. I would expect a similar effect if a child were unjustly punished in any other way.

I'm afraid this answer baffles me. You ascribing dishonesty to headteachers for reasons I cannot fathom and I certainly would be surprised if you can demonstrate.

Simple. They claimed that a situation where two pupils had committed identical serious offences but they could only cane one of them would be unworkable and would put them in an impossible position. That was exactly what did happen in those schools where they, themselves, had made half the pupils exempt from the cane and, as the two groups were roughly equal in size, had the highest probability of occurring. To then claim that allowing parents to define the groups would make the system unworkable is dishonest.


I also feel you're so intent on your 'preferred' solution that whatever I said, you'd offer reasons why it wouldn't work.

As you are on yours.

And it's fair to say anything might not work so your reasons would be valid. That doesn't mean they would have applied. There's little mileage though in me getting involved in hypotheticals when you're in a position to view everything tried in the worst possible light with the greatest chance of failure - I'll just make the point though that is just as true of your preferred option - which instead you seem to view in the best possible light with the greatest chance of success.

I can accept that but you should recognize that you're doing exactly the same with your preferred solution.

I can play the odds - I can say (A) has a 90% chance of success and (B) only a 10% chance of success - and that is what I'd sensibly do as a teacher - but that doesn't mean it would work in any particular case.

So what can you do when it doesn't? How much time are you willing to waste trying to find the "best solution" when you could just cane both of them and wait to see who lights another cigarette up first?

prof.n

For your homework......How would you have dealt with the cat fight ; the mass battle ; and the sass/insolence and disrespect to the teaching staff?

I know how my teachers would have dealt with it but they would never have let it get that bad in the first place.

Of course, the cat fight didn't happen and there were no girls involved in the mass brawl, nor were any girls disrespectful to their teachers because, as we all know, girls don't behave like that.

Dr Dominum: You can cherry pick a theory that tickles your ear all you want but I'm standing square by Jenny on this one.

I don't "cherry pick" theories and I find the suggestion that I do utterly offensive. To you, this seems to be some sort of game, or at best an intellectual exercise. For me it's a matter of professional ethics, professional responsibility, and professionalism in general. I don't "cherry pick" theories - and, far from 'tickling my ear', I don't actually like the implications of what the research is showing us on this issue. But I can't ignore data simply because I don't like it.

Oliver S has not weighed in on this one. You would think our fellow life time Honorary Member of this estimable Forum would grasp this straw (studies) to spare those assaults upon those bathing suit areas. Her gender focus is upon gender burdens like men getting their jollies and women have their periods and getting pregnant and not relative merits. I would think they would have thought that up already. The next thing they will be doing is getting leads from you for their fodder. sad.gif

Just because some people out there might choose to misuse gender related evidence (if they could understand it) isn't an excuse to ignore it or suppress that evidence.

And I am not talking about anything that has been 'thought up'. I'm talking about looking at what evidence exists and working how what it shows us.

Would this be due to enforced emigration or because they might have been subject to corporal punishment?

There are certainly other issues that were also face by many of these children, and some of those other issues negatively effected them as well. But you can isolate different effects from different issues if you know how to factor analyse data. Medical and psychological researchers do it all the time.

Most of these children, in fact, did not suffer significant negative effects as a result of their experiences. Because most of these children were actually treated very well as part of the resettlement program. A lot of people have been left with the impression that most were badly treated - not so - in a majority of cases, the program worked as intended and designed, and the intention was humanitarian in nature. There was a very significant minority whose experiences were not good - but they were a minority.

Where negative effects have developed, it wasn't just because they were sent here. It was to do with what happened to them.

The potential negative effects of corporal punishment are 'dose dependent' to an extent. It is fairly unlikely a single incident will cause major problems but the more often it happens the more likely negative side effects will result - a risk that studies have shown is much higher for females than males. It's hard to quantify exactly, but for the same of argument let's say that experiencing 5 incidents of corporal punishment in childhood triples the chance of experiencing of a girl experiencing a significant depressive episode.

How much is "much higher"? If the effects are difficult to quantify, the numbers are not all that reliable. Also, what is the increase in real numbers? If I do two lines on a lottery ticket, I'll double my chances of winning the jackpot but I'm stil not very likely to.

How much is much higher? Typically between 250% and 800% And the effects are not 'difficult to quantify' - they are 'difficult to quantify exactly'. That's not the same thing. I look at a stadium full of people, there's no way I can give you an exact number just by looking - but if I know the capacity of the stadium, I can certainly give you a decent 'range' for how many people are there.

What's the increase in real numbers? Basically, with the studies I've been talking about, they've found overall somewhere between a 40% and 70% that girls who experience corporal punishment will experience at least one negative outcome as a result of that corporal punishment. Some of the effects are more significant than others, but we're talking about issues going from being rare to being common, and some sort of negative result going from being quite unlikely to being quite likely.

The risks are statistically significantly higher than the health risks associated with smoking, or driving while over the legal limit. They are significantly higher that the risks aspirin creates for Reyes syndrome.

Hardly a serious risk then.

It is a serious risk. The only reason those numbers are low across the entire population is because corporal punishment of girls is schools was so unusual.

Using the Highfield figures - the most reliable figures we have on the prevalence of corporal punishment in school for any period in England - we find that about 35% of boys were caned at least once in their schooling - the figure was just under 4% for girls (3.84%) to be precise.

That 4% figure is the one I used above in calculating the 10-10.8% increase.

If girls had been caned at the same rate as boys, that 10% would increase to 17%.

Over large populations, we see only see small effects because of our rare corporal punishment was with girls.

Individually, what we're talking about here is approximately a TRIPLING of risk - that is a serious increase. And this is only potential negative effect - but to go from a 10% chance of depressive illness to a 30% chance of depressive illness is significant and serious.

For context - post partum depression reflects a 50% increase in the chance of depressive illness. That's enough for it to be treated as a major health issue. The risk associated with the corporal punishment of girls is at least six times higher than that.

According to what you said, above, the evidence is hardly discernible. How hard does one need to look to find something that would have a high probability of occurring?

The evidence is 'hardly discernible' when looking at large populations. I was responding to Prof. N's query as to why these effects aren't obvious when looking at large populations. That's not the same thing as being 'hardly discernible'. We don't just look at large populations to find out how prevalent or serious a health issue is.

An example - lung cancer. Lung cancer kills about 2-2.5% of people (percentage of total deaths each year caused by lung cancer). Across the whole human population, it's effect is hard to see. But it's quite easy to see when we start looking at health outcomes for smokers.

How do those figures compare with those of boys?

There is no increase in the incidence of depression in boys who experienced normative corporal punishment. In fact, there seems to be a slight decrease.

Enforced emigration always causes problems so you'd need to separate those from the effects of corporal punishment.

Actually, it doesn't - the majority of the child migrants who came to Australia didn't suffer significant ill effects. Quite a few of them regard it as the best thing that ever happened to them. Considering the type of life these children faced in England, when it was done properly it worked well.

But, yes, for the ones who experienced negative effects, corporal punishment was not the only cause of that. It was one cause among a number - but the thing is, we can separate those different causes to a great extent.

Here you're talking about an abuse of corporal punishment, not a legitimate use of it. I would expect a similar effect if a child were unjustly punished in any other way.

Define abuse - to me, using a form of punishment you know is likely to be harmful and ineffective comes very close to that line.

I also feel you're so intent on your 'preferred' solution that whatever I said, you'd offer reasons why it wouldn't work.

As you are on yours.

No - I'm not actually. The 'solutions' I support are not my preferred solutions. There's the ones the data and my experience say works. It's not the same thing at all. My position is not based on political theory or ideology - in fact, it's quite at odds to what I'd like.

So what can you do when it doesn't? How much time are you willing to waste trying to find the "best solution" when you could just cane both of them and wait to see who lights another cigarette up first?

I try something else. It's not wasting time if you're working towards a solution. I'm not always after the 'best solution' either. I'm just not going to start off with the ones that are likely to among the worst.

Dr. Dominum ,

An interesting response Doctor.

I've just been working on Scotland. Sociologically there is plenty of support to identify the nature of the school punishment system , and enough data to make comparisons with other locations. The great difficulty is there are few studies that have even identified in situ what we looking for .There are psychiatric studies galore , but none so far set up to identify cp as a causative factor in what are relatively small deviations for a norm in any case. Of course researchers may not have been looking, for ideological reasons........just try getting money from the research councils for anything with cp in the title!

Compare that with the blue states of the US.Lots of micro studies to show how cp leads inexorably to EIPTSD, but actually no studies of the schooling backgrounds....just case by case a la Paula.

In your previous posts you indicated that for females it might well be that a real congruence couldn't be found until say , five interventions of cp occur to the subject. Even to judge by your own boys school, there are few boys who are subjected to five or more canings in their career.I guess there will be far far fewer girls on that basis. In non exceptional regimes ( leaving the issue of the Scottish figures to one side ) it is going to be quite difficult to undertake any serious population studies, if , as you suggest only say, well lets be generous(!) no more than 10% of girls actually experienced the cane....

In my own field there are few gender specific studies at all in the last 30 years , again for largely ideological reasons, and quite a hysteria about the area in general. STOPP data was good, but stopped obviously years ago , and they were never strong in Scotland .....


Sorry AL I think this is no 100 , and I'm no illustrator!!!

Doctor Dominum


What's the increase in real numbers? Basically, with the studies I've been talking about, they've found overall somewhere between a 40% and 70% that girls who experience corporal punishment will experience at least one negative outcome as a result of that corporal punishment.

I fail to see how can you possibly say that a particular "negative outcome" resulted directly from receiving corporal punishment.

Some of the effects are more significant than others, but we're talking about issues going from being rare to being common, and some sort of negative result going from being quite unlikely to being quite likely.

So the "negative outcome" isn't even clearly defined. Perhaps Humpty Dumpty can help here.

That 4% figure is the one I used above in calculating the 10-10.8% increase.

Which was only based on the premise that a girl being belted (tawsed) five times tripled the chances of her experiencing a significant depressive episode. The tawse was used a lot in Scotland so the chances of a girl getting it at least five times is fairly high.

If girls had been caned at the same rate as boys, that 10% would increase to 17%.

Would it. This is all supposition.

Individually, what we're talking about here is approximately a TRIPLING of risk - that is a serious increase. And this is only potential negative effect - but to go from a 10% chance of depressive illness to a 30% chance of depressive illness is significant and serious.

That tripling comes from your supposition -
It's hard to quantify exactly, but for the same of argument let's say that experiencing 5 incidents of corporal punishment in childhood triples the chance of experiencing of a girl experiencing a significant depressive episode.

The only woman I know who suffers bouts of serious depression, went to a school where girls were exempt from punishment.


But, yes, for the ones who experienced negative effects, corporal punishment was not the only cause of that. It was one cause among a number - but the thing is, we can separate those different causes to a great extent.

These "negative effects" (however you wish to define them) could come from any one or more of a number of causes. Why blame CP, and only in the case of girls?

Define abuse - to me, using a form of punishment you know is likely to be harmful and ineffective comes very close to that line.

In the context, it was the use of any punishment (corporal or otherwise) on a child who was unable to learn as quickly as his or her teachers wanted.

It's not wasting time if you're working towards a solution. I'm not always after the 'best solution' either. I'm just not going to start off with the ones that are likely to among the worst.

In the hypothetical example I gave, how many times would you have caned the boy and let the girl off before you considered the possibility you were doing it the wrong way around? Would you ever get to the point where you caned the girl and let the boy off?

prof.n


In your [Dr Dominum's] previous posts you indicated that for females it might well be that a real congruence couldn't be found until say , five interventions of cp occur to the subject. Even to judge by your own boys school, there are few boys who are subjected to five or more canings in their career.

The problem of girls running out of control is far greater than any possible "negative effects" of giving them the cane. It kept us reasonably in line. OK, we still misbehaved but nothing like as much or as blatantly as girls and boys do today.

If only a few boys at Dr Dominum's school get the cane five or more times it's unlikely a girl in an ordinary UK school will get it that much. Some girls might get it two or three times but, once a few boys and girls have had it, the rest will probably toe the line.

Dr Dominum:

I have too much respect to have to remind you of all people that arguments by authority are the weakest irrespective of the prestige of the institutions or the alphabet of letters place at the end of their surname. I have never found you one to roll up your diplomas to make a cudgel out of them. I refer to the gender argument that really I prefer to stay out of because it wasn't initiated by me and I have become almost an amen corner. Hats off to Oliver S and Jenny for generating 100 posts in such a brief interval.

I hope your successor will bring a new generation into your institution. I hope a more multiperspectival person hired from a search committee as you have mentioned free from any cherry picking that you assured would not happen when I asked about the process previously. Remember Bob Dylan.

Dr Dominum when it comes to arguments you tolerate very little ambiguity and fail to recognize that a reasonable discourse doesnt always have clear winners and clear losers. I take the game/intellectual exercise comment as an out of character cheap shot not worth rebutting and quite frankly ill becoming of you.

I fail to see how can you possibly say that a particular "negative outcome" resulted directly from receiving corporal punishment.

I suspect that's because not a qualified psychologist or other health professional and so you don't understand how health research works.

In a strict sense, you are correct - we can't say it for absolute certain. But when we're talking about at least a dozen studies which we can analyse for data and the confidence for each of the studies is in the 95+% range, we can start saying things like: "Factor analysis shows us there is a .96 correlation" in study A, "a .97 correlation" in study B, "a .88 correlation" in study C.

When it's been studied over and over again, and we seem the same correlations. When new studies have been deliberately designed to eliminate other possible causative factors and we still see the same correlations. When we eliminate corporal punishment and look at possible causative factors, we lose the correlations - well, in those cases we can say with a very high degree of probability and confidence that we've identified causes.

Medical science only identified the physical reasons why cigarettes cause lung cancer about ten years ago. But we knew they did for at least thirty years before that (and many had strong suspicions fifty years ago). It's the same science. It's how we worked out exposure to UV radiation can cause skin cancer. How we worked out exposure to thalidomide in pregnancy can cause birth defects, and I could give hundreds of other examples. In some cases, we later work out the precise mechanisms and absolutely prove the theory. In most cases, they still haven't done that yet.

So the "negative outcome" isn't even clearly defined. Perhaps Humpty Dumpty can help here.

The negative outcomes are clearly defined in the studies. But you wouldn't know that because you haven't read them. It doesn't stop you claiming things aren't in them that are.

Which was only based on the premise that a girl being belted (tawsed) five times tripled the chances of her experiencing a significant depressive episode. The tawse was used a lot in Scotland so the chances of a girl getting it at least five times is fairly high.

First of all, no, it wasn't based on that premise at all. I did use that premise for looking at the tawse rate for Scotland, but that was a separate calculation. I didn't use that premise for this one.

If girls had been caned at the same rate as boys, that 10% would increase to 17%.

Would it. This is all supposition.

No, it's actually called arithmetic. And it's actually a fairly simple calculation (96x0.1+4x0.3) versus (65x0.1+35x0.3).

There are assumptions in the calculations certainly - but the difference in the numbers is arithmetical and I was illustrating how the number increases if a component is increased - it's no more supposition than 2x2 is twice 2x4).

And the assumptions are based on actual data from actual studies. There's not just suppositions, they're the best figures actual research gives us.

That tripling comes from your supposition -


It's hard to quantify exactly, but for the same of argument let's say that experiencing 5 incidents of corporal punishment in childhood triples the chance of experiencing of a girl experiencing a significant depressive episode.

No, that tripling is well within the range of what is shown in the data - actually close to the low end of the range. It's no more a supposition than saying the city of York has a population of approximately 200,000, or that Alpha Centauri is about four light years from earth. I looked it up and checked. Just as I just did for the population of York (I didn't need to look up the distance to Alpha Centauri).

It wasn't a number I made up - it was a number based on the data.

The only woman I know who suffers bouts of serious depression, went to a school where girls were exempt from punishment.

The only woman I know who died of lung cancer never smoked a day in her life. I guess that disproves that link.

But, yes, for the ones who experienced negative effects, corporal punishment was not the only cause of that. It was one cause among a number - but the thing is, we can separate those different causes to a great extent.

These "negative effects" (however you wish to define them) could come from any one or more of a number of causes. Why blame CP, and only in the case of girls?

Because we do factor analysis. And by doing that, we can identify which factors are the important factors.

Very simple case.

Say you've got 100 people, thirty of who have lung cancer. You ask the smokers to move to one side of the room, and the non-smokers to move to the other.

40 smokers, 28 of whom have lung cancer. 60 non-smokers, 2 of whom have lung cancer.

That's a very simplified version of a factor analysis approach. The ones we actually use are far more sophisticated, far more accurate, and have been validated by decades of medical and allied research.

Why blame corporal punishment? Because that's the factor that correlates with the data. Why only for girls? Because it correlates for girls, and it doesn't correlate for boys.

In the hypothetical example I gave, how many times would you have caned the boy and let the girl off before you considered the possibility you were doing it the wrong way around? Would you ever get to the point where you caned the girl and let the boy off?

I don't know how many times I'd have caned the boy. It's not a real case.

I know I wouldn't have let the girl off, whether I caned her or not.

If nothing better seemed to be working, at some point, provided it was available, the cane would become an option in dealing with the girl and I'd use it. How many things would I try? It depends on the girl. It depends on what other options I have available.

I have too much respect to have to remind you of all people that arguments by authority are the weakest irrespective of the prestige of the institutions or the alphabet of letters place at the end of their surname. I have never found you one to roll up your diplomas to make a cudgel out of them. I refer to the gender argument that really I prefer to stay out of because it wasn't initiated by me and I have become almost an amen corner. Hats off to Oliver S and Jenny for generating 100 posts in such a brief interval.

Actually, I'm quite happy to make use of my qualifications when I feel it's appropriate to do so. I am a Doctor of Educational Psychology and I'm not going to pretend that I don't think that matters when I'm discussing issues relating to education or psychology. I don't think it's sensible to do so.

I am perfectly well aware that a lack of qualifications doesn't mean somebody automatically doesn't understand the issues. But when a person shows no sign encountered research into these areas, I think pointing out what the research shows from the perspective who is trained to analyse it and is experienced in doing so is perfectly reasonable.

I hope your successor will bring a new generation into your institution. I hope a more multiperspectival person hired from a search committee as you have mentioned free from any cherry picking that you assured would not happen when I asked about the process previously. Remember Bob Dylan.

I'm obviously familiar with who he is, but for some reason, I've never had that much of an interest in popular music. I was a civil rights activist in the 1960s and 1970s, so I certainly encountered his work but never got into him. The important songs here are a bit later - I was only nineteen and From little things.... US culture has an influence on Australia, but I prefer the homegrown stuff myself most of the time.

My successor, I hope will be different from me. But I have to say, I'm very 'multiperspectival'. You see me discussing one issue here. One issue among hundreds I could discuss. Among dozens I do discuss regularly. I just don't discuss most of them here.

Dr Dominum when it comes to arguments you tolerate very little ambiguity and fail to recognize that a reasonable discourse doesnt always have clear winners and clear losers. I take the game/intellectual exercise comment as an out of character cheap shot not worth rebutting and quite frankly ill becoming of you.

Well I apologise if you found it offensive, because it wasn't intended to be, even though I did find your statement very offensive.

I don't see anything wrong with 'intellectual exercises'. I engage in them very regularly on a lot of topics, some of which I don't actually know a lot about, some of which I do. I spend a fair amount of my spare time involved in discussions of economics and speculating about what might happen if I was in charge of the Reserve Bank of Australia. It's interesting, it's rewarding, and I think it makes people think.

But I'm also aware that if I was in charge of the Reserve Bank of Australia, I wouldn't be anywhere near as free to experiment and explore ideas, because it would actually matter if I made mistakes. There is a difference.

When you're doing it in the real world and you have to think of real children, you need to be a lot more careful than if you're just talking about it.

Doctor Dominum

I'll reply to your other post later when I have a bit more time but, in the meantime, I'd like to give you something to consider.

When you're doing it in the real world and you have to think of real children, you need to be a lot more careful than if you're just talking about it.

I mentioned before that my boyfriend of the time and I both got the cane for being out of bounds (inter alia ) together. Why sort of emotional impact do you think it would have had on me, especially as it was my suggestion that we "disappeared" for a while, if he had been caned and I, purely for being a girl, were let off?

Do you think that might have had some "negative effects"?

Only just seen this interesting thread. A long way up this page Another_Lurker wrote, about Singapore:

You quote with confidence that
In fact any physical punishment of females of any age is against the law.
citing press reports on the excellent Corpun.com site as your authority. But is that really the situation? Singapore is not an open society and neither government nor its citizens tend not to give a great deal away about how things function. I think you are correct, but if I had to back that opinion up I too could only fall back on press reports. Not necessarily the most reliable source.

-- It's not just press reports. You may think Singapore is not an open society, but all its laws are available. Regulation No 88 under the Schools Regulation Act 1957 says:
1. No corporal punishment shall be administered to girl pupils.

The School Principals' Handbook, Section 19, backs this up, saying: "Under no circumstances should girls be subjected to corporal punishment."
All this has been on my site for years, at http://www.corpun.com/sgscr1.htm .

In addition to what is officially published in black and white, I have visited Singapore and over time I have collected a great deal of private evidence, admittedly anecdotal, but when many different bits of anecdotal evidence all agree with each other, it tends to become broadly believable.

My current understanding of the situation in the schools there is set out at some length at
http://www.corpun.com/rules2.htm#singsch and if I may be forgiven for quoting myself, as regards the subject of this thread I have written:

Occasionally the suggestion is raised in the public prints that CP be extended to girl students, who are seen in some quarters as getting out of hand. The government has firmly resisted this idea, pointing out that serious offences by girls are a small minority of the total. In any case, the idea doesn't ring true with most people at an emotional level, because corporal punishment, and particularly caning on the buttocks, has always been seen throughout the British world as overwhelmingly "a guy thing", as well as being arguably unsuited to the female physiology. And Singapore schoolboys themselves, in my experience, are among the last people to challenge the notion that males and females are different species. It does not seem to strike them as unfair that they might be caned while girls never will be. This is all of a piece with, for instance, the fact that all male Singaporeans, but no women, have to perform military service.

"Public caning" is noticeably more controversial in local opinion than corporal punishment per se. There is no evidence of any pressure to abolish the cane altogether. The opposition parties say they favour retaining it. It makes a good fit with Singapore's highly "masculine" vision of itself as a brave, tough, resilient, militarised society, much as Britain used to be but is no longer. There seems to be wide acceptance that caning is a fair, just and effective penalty, particularly for wayward schoolboys in the middle teens, and helps to maintain the enviably high levels of school discipline and educational achievement on which visitors to Singapore invariably remark.

Doctor Dominum

First of all, no, it wasn't based on that premise at all. I did use that premise for looking at the tawse rate for Scotland, but that was a separate calculation. I didn't use that premise for this one.

You said:
It's hard to quantify exactly, but for the same of argument let's say that experiencing 5 incidents of corporal punishment in childhood triples the chance of experiencing of a girl experiencing a significant depressive episode.

What percentage of girls are likely to receive corporal punishment at least five times. For reasons I hope to go into later, I have real problems with the likely accuracy of the 57% of girls belted in Scotland figure, but for the sake of argument right now, I'll use it. That's the chance of being belted once - the chance of being belted five times would probably be significantly lower. For sake of argument let's make it about a third - 20% of girls.

So 20% of girls have a 300% increased chance of experiencing a depressive episode on this model - what effect does that of on our 10% lifelong incidence rate?

It goes from about 10%-14% - not a massive increase. And that's assuming a pretty high rate of corporal punishment. If we use the Highfield figures for England from the 1950s which said just under 4% of girls had been caned, even if all those girls suffered an increased chance of depression, the number would go from 10%-10.8%

That's pretty clear that you started with the assumption that a girl being belted five times would triple the chances of her experiencing a significant depressive episode. You then accepted the 57% figure for the chance of a girl being belted once and assumed one third (20%) would be belted five times. You then calculated that there would be an increase from 10% to 14% of such girls experiencing a significant depressive episode. You then did the same calculation again using a figure of 4% of girls being, in this case, caned which showed an increase from 10% to 10.8%. That's all based on you initial assumption that being belted five times triples the chance of a girl experiencing a significant depressive episode.


And the assumptions are based on actual data from actual studies. There's not just suppositions, they're the best figures actual research gives us.

Which you admit:
It's hard to quantify exactly, but for the same of argument let's say that experiencing 5 incidents of corporal punishment in childhood triples the chance of experiencing of a girl experiencing a significant depressive episode.

In the hypothetical example I gave, how many times would you have caned the boy and let the girl off before you considered the possibility you were doing it the wrong way around? Would you ever get to the point where you caned the girl and let the boy off?

I don't know how many times I'd have caned the boy. It's not a real case.

It was real enough in some schools.

I know I wouldn't have let the girl off, whether I caned her or not.

Then what would you have done. As far as she would be concerned, anything other than the cane would be "let off". Lines or detention simply wouldn't be done. You could suspend/expel her I suppose but that would just be a holiday for her.

If nothing better seemed to be working, at some point, provided it was available, the cane would become an option in dealing with the girl and I'd use it. How many things would I try? It depends on the girl. It depends on what other options I have available.

At some point? In the meantime, you've wasted a lot of time trying to find other solutions and created a strong sense of injustice in the entire school. There's another problem for you to deal with.

Jenny: I'm no longer hearing the ice cracking because I think we have found common ground across the pond. Academic honors and years of teaching experience are all fine and dandy but your well founded sense of fairness and reasoning are precious commodities. I may still be opening doors but in more ways than you can imagine you have opened my mind and have filled our dining room table with lively discussion. And isn't that what this estimable Forum is all about? Jenny thanks for your thirty two postings.

That's pretty clear that you started with the assumption that a girl being belted five times would triple the chances of her experiencing a significant depressive episode. You then accepted the 57% figure for the chance of a girl being belted once and assumed one third (20%) would be belted five times. You then calculated that there would be an increase from 10% to 14% of such girls experiencing a significant depressive episode. You then did the same calculation again using a figure of 4% of girls being, in this case, caned which showed an increase from 10% to 10.8%. That's all based on you initial assumption that being belted five times triples the chance of a girl experiencing a significant depressive episode.

No, Jenny, it is not. I don't know how to make that any clearer than a simple basic statement.

The 10-10.8% figure was not based on the 'five times triple chance'. The calculation I did for the tawse in Scotland was, the calculation I did for the cane in England was not. Why? Because I was illustrating two different points - in the first case I was showing why you wouldn't necessarily expect to see a large increase across an entire population even with a high rate of corporal punishment. In the second case, I was showing that this is even more dramatically true (by removing a limiting factor) when there is a low rate of corporal punishment.

If I used the 'five times triple chance' assumption again, and the 'one third' guesstimate, rather than get a 0.8% increase (10%-10.8%.) I'd have got an increase of less than 0.3% - (10%-10.267%).

I did the arithmetic. I know what I used to calculate - and I said so.

You seem to have missed one of the sentences I wrote and you quoted. I can understand how - it's one sentence at the end of a few paragraphs. I'm going to take that one setence and put it here with the most important part of it in bold.

---

If we use the Highfield figures for England from the 1950s which said just under 4% of girls had been caned, even if all those girls suffered an increased chance of depression, the number would go from 10%-10.8%

---

'even if all those girls' - not one third. Not that proportion who had been caned five times. All those girls. All means all.

I'm a scientist and I'm a psychologist. I analyse numbers a lot. I know what I'm doing when I do it. Normally, I don't explain the arithmetic in detail because most people aren't interested in anything except the final number. In this case, I will demonstrate how I got the numbers I used.

Let D = (approximate) prevalence of lifelong depression in women (a figure whose range can be found in dozens of studies over the past five decades).
Let C = (approximate) prevalence of lifelong depression in women who received a particular 'dose' of normative corporal punishment (a figure whose range can be found in a number of recent studies)
Let P = (approximate) percentage of girls who received that 'particular' dose.
Let Q = (approximate) percentage of girls who did not.

Depressive illness rate will be DxQ+CxP

First calculation - baseline with no corporal punishment.

D=0.1, C=0.3, P=0, Q=100

(0.1x100)+(0.3x0) =
(10)+(0)=
10.

10%.

Second calculation - D=0.1, C=0.3, P=20, Q=80. This is the one I used for tawsing in Scotland, based roughly around the '57%' of girls tawsed figure, which I don't agree with, but for the sake of argument I will use in this calculation) and assuming the 'dose' is five incidents (which is within the range), guessing (and this particular one is a guess, because we don't have data) that about a third of girls who experienced a tawsing might reach the dose of five. I have no problem making such a guess in this case, because I'm illustrating a point about how dramatic effects for individuals may not cause dramatic effects across entire population statistics, not claiming the final calculation is an accurate one.

(0.1x80)+(0.3x20)=
(8)+(6)=
14.

14%.

Third calculation - D=0.1, C=0.3, P=4, Q=96. This was the one using the English Highfield data which states about 4% of girls were caned. In this case, I didn't modify the P number by a third because the point I was making was that if the rate of corporal punishment is low, EVEN if 100% of those punished were negatively effected, you'd still only see a tiny effect across statistics for a whole population.

(0.1x96)+(0.3x4)=
(9.6)+(1.2)=
10.8.

10.8%.

Fourth calculation - D=0.1, C=0.3, P=1.33, Q=98.67. This is the calculation, I've done above which is the calculation you seem to assume I did earlier by assuming I was still using the 1/3 'five times triples' number even though I said I wasn't.

(0.1x98.67)+(0.3x1.33)=
(9.867)+(0.4)=
10.267.

10.267%.


And the assumptions are based on actual data from actual studies. There's not just suppositions, they're the best figures actual research gives us.

Which you admit:
It's hard to quantify exactly, but for the same of argument let's say that experiencing 5 incidents of corporal punishment in childhood triples the chance of experiencing of a girl experiencing a significant depressive episode.

When I say it's hard to quantify exactly, I mean the data says the increased risk is between 250% and 800%, and the dose is between 3 and 10.

As it is somewhat difficult to do calculations involving ranges like this, in both cases, I selected numbers that were easy to work with near the lower part of the ranges.

You want me to do the calculation with ranges - I can. I've just set up a spreadsheet in which I can plug in any number within the ranges easily. But that just makes this much more complicated, and doesn't change the underlying point.

I don't know how many times I'd have caned the boy. It's not a real case.

It was real enough in some schools.

No, similar cases are real. In a real case, though, I'd have far more information than a hypothetical case gives me.

In some cases, I'd cane a boy once and never do it again, either because it worked, or because it clearly wasn't going to. In some cases, I'd cane him again. And maybe again. In a real case, I'd know more about what is going on than I do with a hypothetical.

Then what would you have done. As far as she would be concerned, anything other than the cane would be "let off". Lines or detention simply wouldn't be done. You could suspend/expel her I suppose but that would just be a holiday for her.

I'm sorry, but not all girls think 'lines' and 'detention' are being let off. Some do, yes, certainly. But with some those are effective approaches. This is my point - you're trying to create a hypothetical scenario deliberately designed to feed into your view of how the world should work based on only your own beliefs and experiences.

I could just as easily be having this discussion with a woman who claimed she was stopped from smoking because a teacher "gave me a lollipop and a pat on the head". Or, perhaps, more realistically, "made me smoke the entire packet". Or "beat me around the head with a clothes brush."

It wouldn't make any of those things valid or sensible approaches.

Caning isn't quite in that league in my view. I think it can be valid and sensible. But you're trying to create a scenario where you won't consider any other approach as valid.

Lines can be. Detention can be. Suspension can be. Expulsion can be. And, yes, caning can be.

At some point? In the meantime, you've wasted a lot of time trying to find other solutions and created a strong sense of injustice in the entire school. There's another problem for you to deal with.

No - it's not wasted time if it's leading towards a solution. If you expect teachers to instantly make the right choice the first time every time, you're being completely unrealistic. And all that type of unrealistic standard does is cause problems.

Also, your assumption that there'd be a strong sense of injustice is not one I believe is likely in most schools. Children do NOT generally think teachers are being unjust when policies are differentiated based on the needs of the child with different approaches for different kids. What you are advocating - an approach based on identical treatment regardless of differences is the type of approach most likely to create resentment in a school. And it's likely to create injustice, not eliminate it.

You remind me of the people who insist we shouldn't allow 12 year olds who can do Calculus to attend senior mathematics classes, but should instead force them to sit in classes doing basic algebra they learned three years ago - and that is likely to make them happier, rather than bored witless.

Doctor Dominum


The 10-10.8% figure was not based on the 'five times triple chance'. The calculation I did for the tawse in Scotland was, the calculation I did for the cane in England was not.

Thank you for showing your working.

And the assumptions are based on actual data from actual studies. There's not just suppositions, they're the best figures actual research gives us.

Even the best figures available are not necessarily the correct ones.

In some cases, I'd cane a boy once and never do it again, either because it worked, or because it clearly wasn't going to. In some cases, I'd cane him again. And maybe again. In a real case, I'd know more about what is going on than I do with a hypothetical.

So the cane would be towards the top of your list of options - but only for a boy?

I'm sorry, but not all girls think 'lines' and 'detention' are being let off. Some do, yes, certainly.

I've yet to meet one who doesn't - especially when no action will be taken if she doesn't do them.

Caning isn't quite in that league in my view. I think it can be valid and sensible. But you're trying to create a scenario where you won't consider any other approach as valid.

I'm willing to consider any approach valid so long as it doesn't unfairly discriminate.

Also, your assumption that there'd be a strong sense of injustice is not one I believe is likely in most schools. Children do NOT generally think teachers are being unjust when policies are differentiated based on the needs of the child with different approaches for different kids.

Children do not see punishment as meeting their needs, they simply see it as a penalty for doing something they shouldn't. When a child escapes punishment because of her sex or race or hair colour or any other irrelevant factor, it causes resentment which, eventually, will boil over.

What you are advocating - an approach based on identical treatment regardless of differences is the type of approach most likely to create resentment in a school. And it's likely to create injustice, not eliminate it.

No, I'm advocating justice itself. Justice is not created, it just is, and it's served (or not as the case may be).

You remind me of the people who insist we shouldn't allow 12 year olds who can do Calculus to attend senior mathematics classes, but should instead force them to sit in classes doing basic algebra they learned three years ago - and that is likely to make them happier, rather than bored witless.

It should be obvious I'm the type who would insist that a boy with a flair for embroidery be allowed to develop his talent and not forced to do football instead just because of his sex.

Hi Jenny ,

Just been re reading the last few posts on this thread and your position vis a vis Dr. Dominum's is now clear , and , far less nuanced than when these posts started. Therefore I wondered if I could ask you to clarify a couple of points which might make the grounds absolutely clear? I've directed the questions at your answers, but of course, Doctor Dominum might wish to make his position clear in relation to yours.

You write :

I'm advocating justice itself. Justice is not created, it just is, and it's served (or not as the case may be).

What is justice in the school situation ? Is it an abstract group of principles? Or is it something , tangible and concrete and , if so, how do we recognise it ? Further , what is its aim?


About caning you and Dr. D. joust as follows :-

(Dr. D)Caning isn't quite in that league in my view. I think it can be valid and sensible. But you're trying to create a scenario where you won't consider any other approach as valid.

(J) I'm willing to consider any approach valid so long as it doesn't unfairly discriminate.


What other approaches would you consider as also in your 'toolkit' apart from the cane/slipper? Why might they be useful given your criteria?


You say :

Children do not see punishment as meeting their needs, they simply see it as a penalty for doing something they shouldn't.

OK , so how do you judge if the penalty is effective? What if the penalty still leads to recidivism? Does that matter a jot if 'justice' has been served? What is the main purpose of the penalty ? To deter? To reform? To punish without reference to the first two? Or something else?

Finally to draw these issues together What is the purpose of your disciplinary regime, is it directed at the offender, the whole student population, or just as a deterrent? If you believe , as I think you do in an important role for deterrence, is that sufficient? does it matter whether the 'offender' admits guilt , and is it important that they WANT to reform?

Or is social control sufficient?

No trick questions! I'm just interested is seeing where your impetus and drive for justice originates.

Hi prof.n

You asked:
What is justice in the school situation ? Is it an abstract group of principles? Or is it something , tangible and concrete and , if so, how do we recognise it ? Further , what is its aim?

I suppose a simple definition of "justice" is "fair play" and is far more a set of principles that anything tangible. As to how we recognize it, ask the man on the Clapham omnibus. I see "fair play" as what happens when all parties are granted the same opportunities: how they make use of those opportunities is up to them. Injustice is what happens when a person or group of people are denied an opportunities or deliberately treated less favourably through no fault of their own.


What other approaches would you consider as also in your 'toolkit' apart from the cane/slipper? Why might they be useful given your criteria?

Sometimes, just explaining the reason for a rule is enough. Punishment is a form of justice (quid pro quo if you like) so it's important that the punishment itself is just. Justice is not served by heaping more injustices on top of the first. I would consider each "offence" and take all relevant factors into account before deciding how to proceed but, as justice must be seen to be done, I would ignore subtle differences that wouldn't be clearly relevant in the eyes of the offenders.

OK , so how do you judge if the penalty is effective?

A low rate of recidivism.

What if the penalty still leads to recidivism? Does that matter a jot if 'justice' has been served?

Possibly not. If a child sees a penalty as "a price worth paying" for what she or he wants to do, then perhaps the price is too low but it remains a price to be paid. Consider smoking. If I want to smoke I have to pay a price of about £5 - £6 (?) per packet. There's also the potential risk to my health which can be seen as another price to be paid. Nevertheless, many people still choose to smoke. When I was at school, cigarettes were quite a bit cheaper in financial terms but there was potentially the additional price of getting the cane. Quite a few of us considered it a price worth paying.

What is the main purpose of the penalty ? To deter? To reform? To punish without reference to the first two? Or something else?

I think it's primarily to deter: both the recipient and others. If there were no penalties for breaking the rules, there would be little point in having them. Many rules are obeyed, not because of the penalty for not doing so but because most people accept them as a framework to work within. If punishment doesn't deter or reform, it does at least show that the rules cannot be broken with complete impunity. All rules impose constraints on individual freedoms. Why would anyone accept those constraints when others are completely free to ignore them?

Finally to draw these issues together What is the purpose of your disciplinary regime, is it directed at the offender, the whole student population, or just as a deterrent? If you believe , as I think you do in an important role for deterrence, is that sufficient?

Deterrence is one factor but I think encouraging the offender to accept rules is more important.

does it matter whether the 'offender' admits guilt , and is it important that they WANT to reform?

Admitting guilt shows that they accept they were wrong. I think they deserve credit for that alone because they're not attempting to escape the consequences of their actions. If they want to reform, so much the better and they should be given help to achieve that aim.

Or is social control sufficient?

That's sounds a bit too authoritarian for my liking although I suppose it's a valid description. Rather than control, I see discipline as a way of functioning: a disciplined mind can achieve more than an undisciplined one and I believe the same applies to society.

No trick questions! I'm just interested is seeing where your impetus and drive for justice originates.

I don't really know where my drive for justice comes from. I suppose it's from seeing how much damage injustice can do.

Hi Jenny just a couple of points and a comment. Oh! and thanks for taking the time and effort top answer.......

OK , so how do you judge if the penalty is effective?

A low rate of recidivism.


Classically the cane has been used for many major 'crimes' including smoking ( I guess you'll agree ). cutting classes, etc., These are areas of high recidivism.I agree it can work, but is most effective at middle level offences, where it is sharp and nasty, and does deter most students. If it has a deterrent effect with major issues its the 'pour encourager les autres' effect, so prevention not recidivism. But it plays a role for those students who , because of it don't smoke.


If a child sees a penalty as "a price worth paying" for what she or he wants to do, then perhaps the price is too low but it remains a price to be paid.


So raise the tariff until it IS effective or try other sanctions......compare say bthe cane to , I don't know, say, 600 or more lines!I would have found that deadly , I think on one occasion nearly lost the will to live......... ?

Rather than control, I see discipline as a way of functioning: a disciplined mind can achieve more than an undisciplined one and I believe the same applies to society.

We are at one on this.



Justice to me is a difficult subject. what may be justice to a group as a whole may be unjust to me .....you are certainly not a utilitarian , ( to refer to the other post)but as to whether t you raise equality to a height very few can achieve......?

Back to the specific topic.

We all support equality of treatment. But then, we're all against sin, and in favour of motherhood and apple pie.

Which might lead you to believe that, actually, I'm not in favour of equal treatment. And, indeed, I'm not. But then nobody else is, either!

What I do support, and what I'm sure most people support, is the principle that if you treat people differently then there should be a good reason for it. And you might think that this is just a pedantic quibble, but I believe that it's good to be clear about such matters.

Now to the substantive issue. Should boys and girls be treated differently with regard to corporal punishment? We've had acres of discussion about this, so here's my tuppenceworth:

Boys and girls differ in either the comparative effectiveness of corporal punishment, or in their tendency to good behaviour derived from other causes. Is either of these possibilities a sufficient reason to treat boys and girls differently?

So that's a statement, followed by a question. I don't want to answer the question at this stage; instead I want to talk about the statement, which might be quite controversial. To be more precise, the statement should have been qualified as "English boys and girls in the 1960s"; but even then, you might feel that you wanted to disagree with it.

And yet it's true. The evidence for it is overwhelming.

For consider this. In the 1960s there was much more corporal punishment of boys than of girls in England. That might not have been the case in some individual schools, of course. But in many areas, it was mandated by local authority policy for the state schools under LEA control, and over the country as a whole it was certainly true.

And in the 1960s there was more bad behaviour by boys than by girls. I don't remember any newspaper reports about girl gangs in those days. Nor were there many campaigns to cane girls more because of the trouble they were causing; the few cases where schools modified their policy to allow caning or belting of girls tended to make the newspapers.

So now we have a population (schoolchildren in the sixties) divided into two groups, boys and girls. A proportion of children in each group misbehaves; and a proportion is caned. More boys than girls misbehaved; and more boys than girls are caned. So more caning leads to more misbehaviour? Or less caning leads to better behaviour? Could that possibly be true?

Now if boys and girls were equally likely to misbehave, and if caning were equally effective on boys and girls, then you'd be forced to accept that conclusion.

But it's implausible, don't you think, that more caning leads to more misbehaviour?

And if you don't accept that conclusion, you're forced to reject the hypothesis. It can't be the case both that boys and girls are equally likely to misbehave, and that caning is equally effective on boys and girls. One or other (and possibly both) of those assertions must be false.

So that's a difference between boys and girls. And now back to the question: does it warrant different treatment?

Hi prof.n


Hi Jenny just a couple of points and a comment. Oh! and thanks for taking the time and effort top answer.......

Not at all, thank you for asking my opinion.


Classically the cane has been used for many major 'crimes' including smoking ( I guess you'll agree).



cutting classes, etc., These are areas of high recidivism.

With smoking, I agree with Ketta, very little seems to work. I got the cane on three different occasions for it and it still didn't stop me, it just made me even more careful not to get caught again: clearly not careful enough though. I believe it stopped, or seriously discouraged, one or two smokers but it didn't deplete our ranks very much. Before anyone jumps in to point out that this proves the cane is ineffective on girls, I'd like to say that it stung my bum just as much as any boy's and it didn't deter boys either. Also, the "one or two" I just mentioned tended to be girls.

I agree it can work, but is most effective at middle level offences, where it is sharp and nasty, and does deter most students.

I certainly see your point but I have difficulty reconciling what most consider a serious (not necessarily severe) punishment (the ultimate deterrent) with a middle level offence.

If it has a deterrent effect with major issues its the 'pour encourager les autres' effect, so prevention not recidivism. But it plays a role for those students who , because of it don't smoke.

That, I think, comes back to my point about justice being seen to be done and satisfying those who keep within the rules that others can't flout those rules with impunity.

.....compare say bthe cane to , I don't know, say, 600 or more lines!I would have found that deadly , I think on one occasion nearly lost the will to live......... ?

That wouldn't work with me, I simply wouldn't do them. That might mean I'd have to suffer a "good telling off" instead but I reckon I could survive that.

Justice to me is a difficult subject. what may be justice to a group as a whole may be unjust to me

I disagree. An individual example of justice might not work to your immediate advantage but that doesn't make it unjust. True justice can mean those at the top having a little less so those at the bottom can have a little more.

.....you are certainly not a utilitarian , ( to refer to the other post)but as to whether t you raise equality to a height very few can achieve......?

Equality is easy to achieve, just ignore discriminatory factors. Years of conditioning may make it difficult to overcomes one's own prejudices but it's not impossible. When considering any situation involving peoples from different groups, ask yourself if your opinion would remain the same if the groups were reversed and, if it wouldn't, ask yourself why?

To use an example in keeping with this forum, some people see nothing wrong with a school policy of not caning girls, only boys. Would their opinion change if the policy were one of only caning girls and not boys? If so, why?

Hi Alan Turing

What I do support, and what I'm sure most people support, is the principle that if you treat people differently then there should be a good reason for it.

I agree. If there's a good reason for it. It would be clearly unfair to expect a wheelchair bound person to walk.


Boys and girls differ in either the comparative effectiveness of corporal punishment, or in their tendency to good behaviour derived from other causes.

Do they? My teachers didn't seem to think I was a little angel and there were plenty of boys better behaved than I or, even, most other girls.

Is either of these possibilities a sufficient reason to treat boys and girls differently?

Of course not. Surely we should be looking at punishing an individual for her or his crimes, not half the population for the crimes of a few members of that half.

In the 1960s there was much more corporal punishment of boys than of girls in England.

Agreed.

And in the 1960s there was more bad behaviour by boys than by girls. I don't remember any newspaper reports about girl gangs in those days.

Lack of reports is not the same as lack of events. Misbehaviour by girls and women is often played down. Certain things are considered totally unacceptable when done by men but acceptable when done, even more extremely, by women. All the evidence shows that men are just as likely (slightly more in fact) as women to be victims of domestic violence. How many reports of "husband beating" have you seen?

Nor were there many campaigns to cane girls more because of the trouble they were causing; the few cases where schools modified their policy to allow caning or belting of girls tended to make the newspapers.

"Sugar and spice" factor again. If those people who objected to girls being caned were told what other girls and I got up to when we were at school, but were not told we were girls, they'd most definitely be calling for us to be caned or birched.

So now we have a population (schoolchildren in the sixties) divided into two groups, boys and girls. A proportion of children in each group misbehaves; and a proportion is caned.

Agreed.

More boys than girls misbehaved;

Not in my experience. Different types of misbehaviour could be more common in one group that another but the overall levels were about the same.

and more boys than girls are caned.

Agreed.

So more caning leads to more misbehaviour? Or less caning leads to better behaviour? Could that possibly be true?

Now if boys and girls were equally likely to misbehave, and if caning were equally effective on boys and girls, then you'd be forced to accept that conclusion.

If your premise that boys are more badly behaved than girls were true, That would be a logical conclusion. Of course, that effect might only be seen in boys.

But it's implausible, don't you think, that more caning leads to more misbehaviour?

No more so than the suggestion that the cane doesn't work on girls. Believe me, it does - very effectively.

And if you don't accept that conclusion, you're forced to reject the hypothesis. It can't be the case both that boys and girls are equally likely to misbehave, and that caning is equally effective on boys and girls. One or other (and possibly both) of those assertions must be false.

Not if you define misbehavior in terms of the action taken in response to it. Which is worse, bunking off school for a day or burning a classroom down? If you base the seriousness of the offence on whether the offender gets the cane, then the boy who bunked off and got the cane for it will have committed a more serious offence than the girl who burned down the classroom and just got a "telling off".

Hi Alan Turing,

Such a complex set of assumptions, not surprising from the head of hut 8.So I'm not going to apologise for the length of this reply.

Yes , late 1950's early 60's sociology has a lot to apologise for , rather like early rock and roll. One of those apologies should be than the dominant functionalist analysis of the time swallowed whole chucks of social problematic as fact. At least we are not in the States where early sociologists first reinforced racist beliefs and gave us us thought out social policy like busing.....but I digress.

Educational sociology in those days tended to satisfy itself by observing 'self evidences '. Yes an analysis of school punishment books would show more boys caned for more offences than girls. Yes more boys were observed being punished at all levels of seriousness in the schools......but did that 'I-am -a -camera ' sociology tell us anything ...no it didn't.

Why not? Because it was uncritical, unthinking , small town 2+ 2.5 family white picket fence ideology! Sociology was young and like the alchemists of old they thought the way to riches could be short cut! But it had grown up in McCarthyite America, with a narrow tunnel vision and an either more naive belief in the value freedom of the middle class lil' home in the mid west.

I was first excited by sociology when I was about 15. i didn't know it as sociology then , but it was used by my friend to try to explain to me how to get out of a pickle of my own making. I'd had a holiday essay set in History , on Peterloo. now I won't bore you with the details but basically I asked Jackie if I could borrow a couple of books from her collection to augment my text book. Of course she said yes, and left me to choose......I picked out one which really impressed me. ( I actually picked it because I read science fiction and it was published by Victor Gollancz which had a well known sci-fi list). the book? 'The making of the English working class' by Edward Thompson. I thought it wonderful. but when I came to write the essay , late of course at that age, I got confused......I had to unlearn much of that I trusted as fact , was , in reality , just one opinion.....

You see the text book told me the facts....but Thompson also told me the facts....and they were different! the text book told me many of the same events as Thompson, but they drew two completely different pictures....My first meeting with Humpty Dumpty!So i had to learn how to assess and argue partial cases, and the best 'show you how' books she had....sociology!

And that's what made me interested , eventually, in social science. you have to look behind the obvious.

However to return to educational sociology....in the 50 and 60's data was accepted at face value , which made all sorts of misreadings......culturally specific, accepting 'official statistics' (the worst of the lot) , doing no participant observation, simply observing through the teachers eyes......never or rarely interviewing the kids......failing to see the school as part of a ideological state presence which reinforced certain assumptions on patriarchy, gender roles, race and ethnicity, class divisions....like a chemistry laboratory before modern analytical techniques, the answers were superficial. You mentioned the media....many studies used the media without any understanding about what makes the media tick........


The same errors led to the targeting of 'ethic/black' crime in the 70's and the SUSS laws......then stop and search. We tend to learn too much from a partial view of history..... What is recorded is different from what is happening , which is different again from social perception.

So rereading where you are coming from ...OK but don't think it is even a partial truth....that ground is so damaged by the intellectual warfare of a previous era....


Like antiques, with information of that era...look to its provenance.

Hi A_L,

I was thus unable to post the item I had prepared, as it had substantial graphics content which was inaccessible until I completed a hardware rebuild. It still is inaccessible, because I hate having to mess with hardware, so I'm still using my standby machine.

I hope you're not waiting for a woman to fix it for you. Men are just as capable as we if they put their minds to it.

And the assumptions are based on actual data from actual studies. There's not just suppositions, they're the best figures actual research gives us.

Even the best figures available are not necessarily the correct ones.

True enough. But in this case we have pretty consistent figures going back to the 1970s (arguably to the 1950s) from a range of different types of studies and importantly studies with different agendas. If the figures were incorrect, we shouldn't see such consistency of results.

I've also been able to examined the methodology of a number of the studies looking for reasons to doubt them. I can't find anything significant.

So the cane would be towards the top of your list of options - but only for a boy?

When it comes to smoking, yes, the cane is near the top of my list of options for boys, but that's in large part because of legal considerations. If it was solely up to me, it wouldn't be as high up the list as it is.

If I was routinely punishing girls, it would be near the top of the list for the same reason. But smoking is also a somewhat atypical case - the dangers associated with smoking are high enough that they would more than outweigh the other dangers seen in the studies I'm referring to. That is unusual, though - in fact, I can't immediately think of any other situation where that is the case.

I've yet to meet one who doesn't - especially when no action will be taken if she doesn't do them.

I've met dozens who do.

I'm willing to consider any approach valid so long as it doesn't unfairly discriminate.

An interesting term - 'unfairly discriminate'. Is that mere tautology or do you accept that such a thing as 'fair discrimination' is possible?

Children do not see punishment as meeting their needs, they simply see it as a penalty for doing something they shouldn't. When a child escapes punishment because of her sex or race or hair colour or any other irrelevant factor, it causes resentment which, eventually, will boil over.

Actually, most children are, by the time they are of secondary school age, perfectly capable of understanding the theory behind punishment and the fact is that they can most certainly see it as something that meets their needs. Certainly most of the boys I teach, even those as young of 12, have no difficulty with this concept and on this, I see no reason to suppose girls would be any different.

To an extent, I agree with the second part of your statement. But there are two assumptions in it that I believe are unwarranted assumptions - once again you use the term 'escapes punishment' which does not reflect reality if an alternative penalty is applied - and whether you see these punishments as 'real' or not, I can assure you most students do - and secondly you talk about 'irrelevant factors'. My point is that gender (or sex) is not an 'irrelevant factor' in this case. You may disagree, certainly - but I think your assumption that everybody else agrees with you is way off. Most children certainly believe sex/gender is relevant, and so do most educators.

No, I'm advocating justice itself. Justice is not created, it just is, and it's served (or not as the case may be).

I'm sorry, but justice isn't something that 'just is'. It's something a great many people have actually had to fight to achieve over the decades and as one of those people who committed themselves to fighting for it at times, let me just say that your perception of it is nothing like mine.

It should be obvious I'm the type who would insist that a boy with a flair for embroidery be allowed to develop his talent and not forced to do football instead just because of his sex.

I'm sure that's true, but it certaintly isn't obvious to me.

And frankly, I don't see anything wrong with making a boy play football. I don't see anything wrong with allowing him (or for that matter forcing him) to do embroidery either. Education isn't just about what kids want to do. It's about giving them what they need and letting them access it as well.

Doctor Dominum


When it comes to smoking, yes, the cane is near the top of my list of options for boys, but that's in large part because of legal considerations. If it was solely up to me, it wouldn't be as high up the list as it is.

If I was routinely punishing girls, it would be near the top of the list for the same reason. But smoking is also a somewhat atypical case - the dangers associated with smoking are high enough that they would more than outweigh the other dangers seen in the studies I'm referring to. That is unusual, though - in fact, I can't immediately think of any other situation where that is the case.

I use smoking as an example because it's a type of misbehaviour that's both considered serious and is common to boys and girls at roughly equal levels.

You said earlier:
I'm sorry, but not all girls think 'lines' and 'detention' are being let off. Some do, yes, certainly.

I replied:
I've yet to meet one who doesn't - especially when no action will be taken if she doesn't do them.

I've met dozens who do.

That seems to support what I said. Did you mean to say you've met dozens of girls who think getting 'lines' and 'detention' is being 'let off'?

An interesting term - 'unfairly discriminate'. Is that mere tautology or do you accept that such a thing as 'fair discrimination' is possible?

"Unfairness" and "discrimination" are two very different things. When considering who to employ, for example, it's quite fair to discriminate between those who are capable of doing the job and those who aren't.

Actually, most children are, by the time they are of secondary school age, perfectly capable of understanding the theory behind punishment and the fact is that they can most certainly see it as something that meets their needs.

When a child says he or she understands why they are being punished, I very much doubt it's because they understand the theory. It's more likely they're just agrreing with you to avoid further punishment.

Certainly most of the boys I teach, even those as young of 12, have no difficulty with this concept and on this, I see no reason to suppose girls would be any different.

But girls are different in that respect, aren't they?

To an extent, I agree with the second part of your statement. But there are two assumptions in it that I believe are unwarranted assumptions - once again you use the term 'escapes punishment' which does not reflect reality if an alternative penalty is applied - and whether you see these punishments as 'real' or not, I can assure you most students do - and secondly you talk about 'irrelevant factors'.

If a group of us were in trouble, facing the Headmistress', and the boys were just "told off" but we girls were caned, I would have thought the boys had been let off - and I'm sure they would have too. I would have thought the same if the dark haired ones were caned and the light haired one got a telling off. That's what I mean by "irrelevant factors". The only relevant factors are the seriousness of the offence and the culpability of the offenders.


My point is that gender (or sex) is not an 'irrelevant factor' in this case. You may disagree, certainly - but I think your assumption that everybody else agrees with you is way off.

That's where we definitely disagree.

Most children certainly believe sex/gender is relevant, and so do most educators.

No, children have been taught or brainwashed into believing that. Just as earlier generations were taught that women were feeble and feeble-minded creatures incapable of making decisions or taking responsibility for themselves. As such they couldn't be held responsible for their actions and needed a man to tell them what to do. Some men still think that's true.

I said earlier:
It should be obvious I'm the type who would insist that a boy with a flair for embroidery be allowed to develop his talent and not forced to do football instead just because of his sex.

I'm sure that's true, but it certaintly isn't obvious to me.

And frankly, I don't see anything wrong with making a boy play football. I don't see anything wrong with allowing him (or for that matter forcing him) to do embroidery either. Education isn't just about what kids want to do. It's about giving them what they need and letting them access it as well.

I wasn't talking about forcing a child to undertake an activity he or she doesn't want to. My objection is to forcing a child to conform to stereotypes. It's just the same as preventing girls from studying physics or engineering because they're "boys' subjects".

Hi Jenny. The non-serious bit first. You said of my computer hardware problem:

I hope you're not waiting for a woman to fix it for you. Men are just as capable as we if they put their minds to it.

You would have got an email with my location and the times you could get access to the machine, but fortunately my (male as it happens) hardware guru returns from holiday this weekend and I'm hoping to persuade him to put everything back together. It's not that I can't, it's just that as a system programmer one feels that such tasks are beneath one's dignity! And besides, he's really good, not only is he Microsoft certified on lots of useful application programmes, he can also take PCs to bits and reassemble them while they are actually running without them even noticing, so clearly he's far better fitted for the task than me!

Now the serious bit. I don't want to intrude into your discussions with Doctor Dominum, but your statement above that

Just as earlier generations were taught that women were feeble and feeble-minded creatures incapable of making decisions or taking responsibility for themselves. As such they couldn't be held responsible for their actions and needed a man to tell them what to do.

is the most recent of several statements in that vein that you've made here. I'm 67, and I can't remember a time when women were so treated. Looking back to women who were old when I was young, grandmothers, great aunts etc., they certainly showed no signs of having experienced that problem. Quite the contrary in fact, in most cases their men folk were well and truly under the thumb! With them we're back to women born in the 1870s/1880s, around 130 years ago. How far back are you going to find this period when women were subjected to the conditions you quote?

Another_Lurker


Hope you get your computer fixed OK. I'm not all that familiar with M$ products so your man is probably better suited to the job than I.

I said:
Just as earlier generations were taught that women were feeble and feeble-minded creatures incapable of making decisions or taking responsibility for themselves. As such they couldn't be held responsible for their actions.

is the most recent of several statements in that vein that you've made here. I'm 67, and I can't remember a time when women were so treated. Looking back to women who were old when I was young, grandmothers, great aunts etc., they certainly showed no signs of having experienced that problem. Quite the contrary in fact, in most cases their men folk were well and truly under the thumb! With them we're back to women born in the 1870s/1880s, around 130 years ago. How far back are you going to find this period when women were subjected to the conditions you quote?

I was referring more to the attitudes of some men rather than the actuality. Our mothers would have had more difficulty opening a bank account than our fathers, regardless of their relative incomes. Even in recent times, women have been considered incapable of managing their own affairs. We are often told "nothing to worry your pretty little head about" by insurance or double-glazing salesmen. (OK, they're not worth bothering about anyway.) When I'm out with male colleagues, perhaps visiting clients, I'm often considered by others to be my sub-ordinate's assistant - just because I'm female. If I take a male client out to lunch, the waiter gives him the bill! A male sub-ordinate has even been asked to "ask your assistant (me!) to photocopy these please". I would have been embarrassed for almost any other man with me but luckily we'd worked together for quite a while and were on the same wavelength. So I gave him a wink, took the documents and trundled off. He was then able to answer the next question with "I don't know, I'll have to ask my boss when she gets back from the photocopier." I don't know much about photocopiers, apart from how they work, so it took me quite a while to get back.

I use smoking as an example because it's a type of misbehaviour that's both considered serious and is common to boys and girls at roughly equal levels.

Which is reasonable reason to use as an example, but isn't a reason to use it as an exemplar. It's an atypical offence in many ways, even though it's a common one.

You said earlier:
I'm sorry, but not all girls think 'lines' and 'detention' are being let off. Some do, yes, certainly.

I replied:
I've yet to meet one who doesn't - especially when no action will be taken if she doesn't do them.

I've met dozens who do.

That seems to support what I said. Did you mean to say you've met dozens of girls who think getting 'lines' and 'detention' is being 'let off'?

No, I mean exactly what I said - your statement referred to 'one who doesn't', my response referred to the opposite - those who do.

I've met dozens of girls who regard detention and lines as effective punishment. I've met some who don't, as well, but less of them than the former.

"Unfairness" and "discrimination" are two very different things. When considering who to employ, for example, it's quite fair to discriminate between those who are capable of doing the job and those who aren't.

Indeed - and it's also fair to discriminate between two different groups when you have a considerable body of evidence that they, as groups, react different to particular types of approaches in teaching.

When a child says he or she understands why they are being punished, I very much doubt it's because they understand the theory. It's more likely they're just agrreing with you to avoid further punishment.

I don't doubt it. Neither as a highly experienced teacher nor as a highly qualified one. I believe I'm pretty good at telling what children are thinking, and I'm certainly very good at telling if they are being dishonest with me. I don't think you give children enough credit as regards how sophisticated their thinking is on issues of punishment and discipline. A lot of people don't.

Certainly most of the boys I teach, even those as young of 12, have no difficulty with this concept and on this, I see no reason to suppose girls would be any different.

But girls are different in that respect, aren't they?

No. I just made that quite clear - "on this, I see no reason to suppose girls would be any different." I'm baffled that immediately after you've quoted me saying that, you're suggesting my views are completely the opposite of what I have just said they are. I can understand you disagreeing with me - but I can assure you, I rarely disagree with myself.

If a group of us were in trouble, facing the Headmistress', and the boys were just "told off" but we girls were caned, I would have thought the boys had been let off - and I'm sure they would have too. I would have thought the same if the dark haired ones were caned and the light haired one got a telling off. That's what I mean by "irrelevant factors". The only relevant factors are the seriousness of the offence and the culpability of the offenders.

I agree - if a group of boys and girls were both facing a teacher in authority for the same offence and boys just got "told off" while girls were caned, you'd be right to feel they'd been let off. I agree, also, that the same would be true if the genders were reversed.

But that's a scenario that has no real relevance to what we're discussing here. I am not talking about students getting let off.

Also - your view that the only relevant factors are the serioudness of the offence and the culpability of the offenders is overly simplistic. There are a lot of other potentially relevant factors - including gender. You see to want to dismiss from consideration any factor you find politically unpalatable - well, I'm sorry but Jenny's political beliefs are not the defining principles behind running a school.

Treating gender as if it is irrelevant in a school environment causes immense harm to the education of boys and girls. It doesn't lead to anything approaching equality - it perpetuates inequality. It doesn't lead to justice - it perpetuates injustice. A gender blind approach simply doesn't work in education.

No, children have been taught or brainwashed into believing that. Just as earlier generations were taught that women were feeble and feeble-minded creatures incapable of making decisions or taking responsibility for themselves. As such they couldn't be held responsible for their actions and needed a man to tell them what to do. Some men still think that's true.

No, it's not brainwashing. Not unless we're someone brainwashing infant monkeys. Gender differences, very similar to those we see in children can be seen in them as well.

And somebody else has already mentioned this - as a man in his seventies, I can't recall ever being taught that 'women were feeble and feeble-mindred creatures incapable of making decisions or taking responsibility for themselves. There were certainly sexist ideas around, but these ones aren't even close to being recent.

I wasn't talking about forcing a child to undertake an activity he or she doesn't want to. My objection is to forcing a child to conform to stereotypes. It's just the same as preventing girls from studying physics or engineering because they're "boys' subjects".

I disagree with forcing children to conform to stereotypes as well. I just also object just as strongly to telling them there's anything wrong with them just because they happen to match the stereotype.

prof.n:

I was quite a fan of E P Thompson in an amateur sort of way, starting with his involvement in the rumpus at Warwick; I also still have a copy of "Writing by candlelight" somewhere. And yes, you're quite right that we view history through spectacles of a particular colour: Shakespeare as a Tudor apologist, anyone? But I'm relieved to see that you agree that there is an underlying reality, and I hope you think it's possible to edge towards it through the swirling fog.

I've made two claims. The first is that, in England in the 1960s, many more boys than girls were caned (or otherwise given corporal punishment). The establishment view could be obtained by checking punishment books, and surely that would support my contention. Now you would say that the establishment view doesn't reflect reality, and I'm sure that's right: probably the punishments recorded officially were in the minority. But could the reality be that more girls than boys were punished? Surely not. I don't believe that there's any evidence at all that that could be the case -- do you know of any? And are you seriously claiming that this might be true?

Now certainly my second claim is more contentious. I reckon that, overall, more bad behaviour can be attributed to boys than to girls. I've suggested some reasons in support of this. Now it might be the case that I'm mistaken, and that there really isn't much difference between boys and girls in this respect. But could it really be the case that girls were worse than boys? Is there any evidence to suggest that this might be true?

Now: consider my argument. I require only that, in one respect, boys are worse than girls, provided that, in the other, they are much the same. So if -- in reality -- more boys than girls were caned, and if -- in reality -- the behaviour of boys and girls was much the same, then my argument still follows through. (You could draw up a truth table if you're not convinced.)

But perhaps you still don't agree?

Jenny:

I've said before that I'd prefer not to dissect a structured argument into individual sentences, and then comment on each sentence: the reason is simply that, in a structured argument (as opposed to a sequence of disjoint assertions) each sentence is intended to be taken in the context of the previous sentences, and a comment on an individual sentence loses that context. Still, you've chosen to comment in that way, so I'll respond in the same way. (And of course your comments are disjoint assertions, so I'm justifying in responding in that way! )


Boys and girls differ in either the comparative effectiveness of corporal punishment, or in their tendency to good behaviour derived from other causes.

Do they? My teachers didn't seem to think I was a little angel and there were plenty of boys better behaved than I or, even, most other girls.

My statement was a claim which would be justified by a subsequent argument. That's another reason why commenting on individual sentences isn't the most helpful way to proceed. I note that your comment is an anecdote: but, even so, technically speaking it doesn't contradict my claim. You can have "plenty" of boys better behaved than most girls, but still, overall, have girls being better behaved than boys. If you don't believe me, I'll provide quantitative examples. (Remember, I'm a mathematician. I can do that.)


Is either of these possibilities a sufficient reason to treat boys and girls differently?

Of course not. Surely we should be looking at punishing an individual for her or his crimes, not half the population for the crimes of a few members of that half.

I'm sorry, what's that all about? Who, anywhere, has suggested punishing "half the population"? Yes, we should punish an individual for her or his crimes. Who has suggested anything different? It's the nature of the punishment which is under discussion.


And in the 1960s there was more bad behaviour by boys than by girls. I don't remember any newspaper reports about girl gangs in those days.

Lack of reports is not the same as lack of events. Misbehaviour by girls and women is often played down. Certain things are considered totally unacceptable when done by men but acceptable when done, even more extremely, by women. All the evidence shows that men are just as likely (slightly more in fact) as women to be victims of domestic violence. How many reports of "husband beating" have you seen?

1. Certainly lack of reports is not the same as lack of events. But you can't extrapolate from that to say that lack of reports implies the presence of events!

2. I'm talking about boys and girls, not adults. "Husband beating" is an irrelevant aside.


Nor were there many campaigns to cane girls more because of the trouble they were causing; the few cases where schools modified their policy to allow caning or belting of girls tended to make the newspapers.

"Sugar and spice" factor again. If those people who objected to girls being caned were told what other girls and I got up to when we were at school, but were not told we were girls, they'd most definitely be calling for us to be caned or birched.

Well, perhaps you should have been birched! But you're talking individual instances again. Why do you think -- that is, what evidence do you have -- that you're typical?


More boys than girls misbehaved;

Not in my experience. Different types of misbehaviour could be more common in one group that another but the overall levels were about the same.

Well my experience is different, so we cancel each other out. That's the trouble with anecdote.


So more caning leads to more misbehaviour? Or less caning leads to better behaviour? Could that possibly be true?

Now if boys and girls were equally likely to misbehave, and if caning were equally effective on boys and girls, then you'd be forced to accept that conclusion.

If your premise that boys are more badly behaved than girls were true, That would be a logical conclusion. Of course, that effect might only be seen in boys.

But if the effect is only seen in boys, that's just my conclusion: that caning has a different effect on boys and on girls!


But it's implausible, don't you think, that more caning leads to more misbehaviour?

No more so than the suggestion that the cane doesn't work on girls. Believe me, it does - very effectively.

Where have I suggested that caning doesn't work on girls? My point is that the implication "more caning means worse behaviour" is implausible. You reckon that it's effective on girls (despite, yourself, being a shining counterexample! ) -- and that supports my point, too.


And if you don't accept that conclusion, you're forced to reject the hypothesis. It can't be the case both that boys and girls are equally likely to misbehave, and that caning is equally effective on boys and girls. One or other (and possibly both) of those assertions must be false.

Not if you define misbehavior in terms of the action taken in response to it. Which is worse, bunking off school for a day or burning a classroom down? If you base the seriousness of the offence on whether the offender gets the cane, then the boy who bunked off and got the cane for it will have committed a more serious offence than the girl who burned down the classroom and just got a "telling off".

Please read what I have written. It is a statement, using particular instances, of the general logical formula "A implies B; but we see not-B; therefore not-A". Are you denying this? Seriously?


******

Now don't get me wrong: I don't have an axe to grind. Emotionally, I'd probably support the idea of whacking naughty girls' bottoms. But this is about reasoned argument, and I've presented a reasoned argument for a specific difference between boys and girls which might be relevant to the discussion. Of course I could be mistaken, and if so then I'll be happy to accept that I'm wrong. But to counter a reasoned argument, you nead a reasoned counter-argument. There hasn't been one yet.

Hi Alan Turing,

Interesting. No , naturally I accept more boys than girls were punished - that's an underlying truth......what I do worry about is the extent to which these official records reflect reality.

Lets look at a parallel example. If you take the official crime statistics , say , for cannabis use , or assaulting a police officer in the late 60's you might draw the conclusion that most offenders were in the first case were young working class males, with a greater than average preponderance of black working class males in case two. This is what the figures tell you .

If you consider charges as opposed to convictions this is a little less obvious ( middle class defendants get , on the whole better lawyers), .More working class black youths got stopped by the police , and hence had the possibility to 'assault a police officer' ; middle class youths tended even then to be 'let off' small cannabis offences, which others might be prosecuted for.....this is just a skim over some possibilities, I'm not going back to source to quote figures , but I'm sure you follow the idea. ...actually cannabis use was much more a middle class than working class pastime.....and whilst in state schools the police were nearly ale ways called, not in the Public school sector......ditto many universities, officially or otherwise, didn't want police involvement......

Now as to the real situation on the ground. This is complicated further . Teachers have ingrained assumptions , as Jenny has indicated correctly in my view ( and there are good studies to demonstrate this) of the sugar and spice factor.....Further thresholds for male and female misbehaviour, such that it merited punishment have been frequently seen to be incongruent....you only need to do a few hours observation of real teaching to see that. Again in one of my universities it was demonstrated that in the 1980'females were treated far more leniently ( by both male and female staff) over missed deadlines, than were male students.

I wouldn't demur from the proposition that the propensity for bad behaviour was equal.Evidence for this comes from anthropological studies of maternal society and conjoint social; organisations, where the propensity to patriarchal power relations is reversed or neutralised. (It's very appropriate to consider this today , only a couple of days after perhaps the greatest proponent - Claude Levi Strauss died) Of course that doesn't mean they WILL act in this way, because in any case socialisation and ideological frameworks operate upon them and their 'expectations' as much as with teachers or come to that boys! That's where I would start from in the absence of credible evidence to the contrary,but perception is very important and obscures the rationale for action. Let me give you one terrible example.

When I did a teaching certificate ( Higher and further ed) as an in service provision at university , I made a formal complaint about the attitude of one lecturer who told an audience of higher education lecturers that 'Afro Caribbean students tended to be lazy' whilst ' SE Asian students were on the whole hardworking , but uninspired' . There was lots more in the same vein, but not , of course backed up by research, just 'his observation'. How many teachers had been infected by this prejudice down the years? I shudder to think, but it is true that where there were pockets of Afro Caribbean boys in schools , the rate of caning in some areas was exceptionally high. Why? Teachers will tel you Afro Caribbean lads learn better that way !

Now to turn to the second point. If the statistics recorded are unreliable, and let us say that girls and boys have an equal propensity to misbehave , even if socially and ideologically we are conditioned to reject this proposition......then the REAL test of the effectivity of caning must lie in recidivism.

If each child caned, is equally guilty of their offence, and has initially an equal propensity to commit that offence ( that within the individuals not even the social group as a whole), then effectivity will be primarily seen in the re-offending rate, and the deterrent effect on the individual and , possibly the group. I not aware of many studies actually taking this approach, more have used official statistics and aggregated results at the social level . These all have inherent ethnographic bias within them .

Even here there are causal difficulties. I would say, for example that caning was effective in my case....e.g. after my first offence I didn't re offend. That's the OBSERVSATION, but does it actually demonstrate that. Not necessarily, it might well be that what stopped my re offending ( or as it was put to me at the time caused an attitude adjustment, was not the caning but my subsequent social acceptance in the group. Levi Strauss would certainly say so. So the power lay not in the action but in its social symbolism. My choice didn't take place in a vacuum.....but in the social milieu surrounded by my classmates. In this respect miss F almost gave the game away with her remark in the subsequent meeting about the 'listing' issue that' All I did was help this cat cut his claws and take his rightful place in the pride'.

There are very few social and psychological interventions that we understand the mechanisms of action well enough to prove unilinear causality. We can prove congruence, but that is a less powerful level of proof.

My personal view is that in social 'science' the scientific method is very limited. in applicability. Pure maths is a elegant systematic application of logic, the hard sciences have a rigorous method ( albeit systematic empiricism , which by its nature is underscored by philosophical limits) , the biological sciences less so.

The chain of causation in social science is too weak ,( if you like the chain of custody of the evidence is ideologically suspect) , for it to be a science of any sort- and I wouldn't hold out that promise.

Its explanatory power lies within meta-theory and it has its own epistemology , which has more in common with dialectics and rhetorical arguments than with scientific 'demonstration'. We make the mistake in the current age in seeing the hard sciences as equated with knowledge per se. This is a false analogy . For knowledge has different levels of questioning and different systems of demonstration. Knowledge takes many forms and not all are united in Popperian division.But that brings us to a much wider argument...........

Doctor Dominum


I use smoking as an example because it's a type of misbehaviour that's both considered serious and is common to boys and girls at roughly equal levels.

Which is reasonable reason to use as an example, but isn't a reason to use it as an exemplar. It's an atypical offence in many ways, even though it's a common one.

In what ways is it atypical?

I've met dozens of girls who regard detention and lines as effective punishment. I've met some who don't, as well, but less of them than the former.

Do they include those who know no further action will be taken if they simply refuse to do them?

No. I just made that quite clear - "on this, I see no reason to suppose girls would be any different." I'm baffled that immediately after you've quoted me saying that, you're suggesting my views are completely the opposite of what I have just said they are. I can understand you disagreeing with me - but I can assure you, I rarely disagree with myself.

If, as you claim, girl and boys react differently to corporal punishment, it's reasonable to assume they see being punished differently too.

I agree - if a group of boys and girls were both facing a teacher in authority for the same offence and boys just got "told off" while girls were caned, you'd be right to feel they'd been let off. I agree, also, that the same would be true if the genders were reversed.

But that's a scenario that has no real relevance to what we're discussing here. I am not talking about students getting let off.

But that is exactly what happened in schools with a policy of not caning girls. A mixed group would be caught committing a serious offence. All would be equally guilty and culpable. Those of one sex would be caned are those of the other would be given detention. Those given detention would simply say "stuff you" (or words to that effect) and not bother turning up for detention knowing that, not matter what, they would not get the cane. Declan has given an example of the girls being let off and the boys punished when the whole mixed class was equally guilty.

Alan Turing


I prefer to comment on specific points made but I do try to keep things in context. I'm sorry if I fail in that.

I'm sorry, what's that all about? Who, anywhere, has suggested punishing "half the population"? Yes, we should punish an individual for her or his crimes. Who has suggested anything different? It's the nature of the punishment which is under discussion.

My "punishing half the population" refers to the practice of punishing individual members of half the population, for their individual offences, differently from members of the other half when they commit identical offences. That means the punishment an individual receives for a particular offence is based partly on which half of the population the offender is a member of. The individual offender from group Y, for example, might be less culpable than another individual offender from group X but receives a harsher punishment merely for being a member of group Y.

1. Certainly lack of reports is not the same as lack of events. But you can't extrapolate from that to say that lack of reports implies the presence of events!

I didn't say it did. I only said that lack or reports is not evidence of lack of events.

2. I'm talking about boys and girls, not adults. "Husband beating" is an irrelevant aside.

Not at all. The principle is exactly the same - offences committed by girls and women are far more likely to be overlooked - hence the lack of reports od "girl gangs".

Well, perhaps you should have been birched! But you're talking individual instances again. Why do you think -- that is, what evidence do you have -- that you're typical?

It doesn't matter if I'm atypical. I can get away with more because I'm presumed to meet the prejudiced view of a typical member of my sex. How many times have you heard the argument that "girls shouldn't be caned because they don't commit the type of offences for which boys are caned"? Even if that were true (which it isn't) that's no reason to excuse the atypical ones. The typical person doesn't commit murder so should we, likewise, excuse the few atypical ones who do?


Where have I suggested that caning doesn't work on girls? My point is that the implication "more caning means worse behaviour" is implausible. You reckon that it's effective on girls (despite, yourself, being a shining counterexample! ) -- and that supports my point, too.

You stated that a particular logical conclusion from certain evidence was -

implausible, don't you think, that more caning leads to more misbehaviour?

So I simply pointed out that it was no more implausible than the suggestion made by Dr Dominum that the cane doesn't work on girls. As for my being a shining counter-example, maybe I'm atypical as you suggested Furthermore, if you believe the level of corporal punishment given to boys is a measure of their offending rates, it can't be very effective on them either. Whenever I got the cane, I always tried to avoid getting it again, at first by behaving myself and then, because I've always been something of a rebel, just by trying to avoid being caught. I believe that's a fairly typical sequence of events common to both girls and boys. It's just drawn out longer in some than in others.

Doctor Dominum/ Jenny ,


I like to start where Dr.Dominum left off ;-

And frankly, I don't see anything wrong with making a boy play football. I don't see anything wrong with allowing him (or for that matter forcing him) to do embroidery either. Education isn't just about what kids want to do. It's about giving them what they need and letting them access it as well.

Generally in English Schools if you can persuade students all well and good, but if you can't ......well you can't MAKE them do anything.....without a hierarchy of effective sanctions and you haven't got those .....

I've met dozens of girls who regard detention and lines as effective punishment. I've met some who don't, as well, but less of them than the former.

This doesn't really answer the question. Jenny's point was of course what happens if you give a detention or lines, and the student KNOWS that if they don't do them you are pretty powerless. What do you do ? You can suspend them, but that's failure and maybe exactly what they want......no use giving more of the same they still won't turn up, surely what this all revolves around is that most students have some respect for the teacher they are dealing with. It to do with Authority not power, obligation not rights.

The basis if English education was premised upon English enlightenment philosophy....but it had a back up of brute force,,,,the cane, as Matthew Arnold knew well!The issue isn't pure utility.....its far more subtle.

Why, for example, in the incident I described before, when I was facing a three hour detention, and skipping that would have only led to two stokes of the cane ( which I had pleaded for in lieu , and been refused because mine was a 'academic' offence, for which the cane was not allowed) did I not skip the detention? It would have been the logical decision......

Well precisely because of what had been said to me ' You could (skip) but I'd be disappointed because I don't think you are that type of student, and I believe we have mutual respect....'. I accepted the penalty for laziness, and would have taken the cane, but I felt it disrespectful to the teacher concerned to be punished for 'skipping her punishment' ( which was deserved) rather than for the laziness we agreed upon.

Now that's all to do with obligation and authority.Or acting adaptively not rationally. The rational thing would have been to skip and taken the cane which was the deal I would have preferred. I just didn't want to be lectured on the Tuesday how disappointing my choices had been.....and be categorised like that! An adaptive response.

What Jenny is discussing is Power and Rights. Obligation and authority implies mutuality of purpose. Power and Rights do not.

None of her friends had respect for the 'no smoking ' rule, it wasn't an issue of honour or disrespect. It was seen as a a petty restriction, a rule for rules sake, which meant no opprobrium for the individuals caught. Humiliation yes, pain yes, but peer disapproval, no way! In these circumstances it is all about ultimate power, and if there is no deterrent above and beyond the punishment given, don't expect compliance.

Take it one stage further. If a mixed group of boys and girls were to be punished differentially ( lets a say cane the boys, tell off the girls and give lines), now what if the boy refuses the cane, do you give the lines or suspend? If the girl doesn't do the lines ....well if you suspend the boy for refusing the cane , you will presumably suspend the girl for an equivalent period? ????

One rather different point. In single sex schools there is much evidence that Girl's school use shame and humiliation more than boys schools, they also use mixed punishments more. This can change the nature , psychologically of the cane. In my school there was a clear notion, explicitly stated to me on my first occasion that their 'wipes the slate clean' and we go forward.

The same cannot be said if there is a adjunct of shame and humiliation attached to the punishment. the waiting before punishment ( typical in girls schools) and the censorious approach of some teachers to those who were punished, keeping a 'record' to use the offence over and over again...... plus sarcasm. All of these provided a very different psychological backcloth to the punishment.Again these longer term effects , particularly if repeatedly experienced could well do psychological damage, just like the nursery tales of the bogeyman did in England at the time of Napoleon ( and that's well documented in social anthropology!).

See what I'm arguing is that there is a false premise in this argument. Crime and Punishment never takes place in vacuum. The response depends on the players , their mutual respect ( or lack of ) , the type of offence and the framework within which is operates. the normative expectations of the players, and the normative values of their peers. .

In a school a child does not act in accord with rational expectations theory , but rather with adaptive ( normative) expectations theory. One factor which bulks differently in every decision is whether there is a penalty down the line which is feared.It will never come into play for most students most of the time....but for a few it may be crucial.

Just thoughts.......

'It is almost impossible to exaggerate the proneness of the human mind to take miracles as evidence, and to seek for miracles as evidence.'

Matthew Arnold

prof.n


What Jenny is discussing is Power and Rights. Obligation and authority implies mutuality of purpose. Power and Rights do not.

None of her friends had respect for the 'no smoking ' rule, it wasn't an issue of honour or disrespect. It was seen as a a petty restriction, a rule for rules sake, which meant no opprobrium for the individuals caught. Humiliation yes, pain yes, but peer disapproval, no way! In these circumstances it is all about ultimate power, and if there is no deterrent above and beyond the punishment given, don't expect compliance.

That's pretty much why simply being "told off" by a very disappointed headmistress, whom we all respected, when some of us had misappropriated stationery we had been entrusted to deliver, had a much greater effect than the cane ever could. I have never done anything like that since and, for as long as I knew them, I wasn't aware of any of the others doing so either. If we had been caned, which we all expected and accepted we deserved, the major effect would more likely have been our taking more care to not get caught doing it again.

Take it one stage further. If a mixed group of boys and girls were to be punished differentially ( lets a say cane the boys, tell off the girls and give lines), now what if the boy refuses the cane, do you give the lines or suspend?

Obviously you give him the lines because you've already decided they're equivalent to the cane so there's no difference. Unless, of course, you were intentionally being unfair when awarding the punishments.

If the girl doesn't do the lines ....well if you suspend the boy for refusing the cane , you will presumably suspend the girl for an equivalent period? ????

Well, the equivalent as you've already decided, is the cane. If you're not prepared to give her the cane, you'll have to suspend her instead but that's an admission that the lines and the cane were not equivalent in the first place.

Jenny:

You're still having difficulty addressing the specific argument I made in my original post. Let me just comment on three of your observations.

My "punishing half the population" refers to the practice of punishing individual members of half the population, for their individual offences, differently from members of the other half when they commit identical offences. That means the punishment an individual receives for a particular offence is based partly on which half of the population the offender is a member of. The individual offender from group Y, for example, might be less culpable than another individual offender from group X but receives a harsher punishment merely for being a member of group Y.

OK; now this is an example of the logical fallacy "petitio principii", or "begging the question": that is, assuming during the course of your argument that which you wish to prove.

I had asked: "Is either of these possibilities a sufficient reason to treat boys and girls differently?" In your response you're assuming there is no reason to treat boys and girls differently, and then trying to use that as a justification for not treating boys and girls differently. It's a circular argument.

***********

Next: I said "Nor were there many campaigns to cane girls more because of the trouble they were causing", and you replied "If those people who objected to girls being caned were told what other girls and I got up to when we were at school, but were not told we were girls, they'd most definitely be calling for us to be caned or birched." I asked why you thought you were typical, and you replied

It doesn't matter if I'm atypical.

Oh yes it does, in the context of the point under discussion. If you want to claim that there would have been lots more campaigns to cane girls at school had the public known more of their nefarious activities, then showing that you're typical is precisely what you need to do.

***********

Finally: I said "But it's implausible, don't you think, that more caning leads to more misbehaviour?" and you replied "No more so than the suggestion that the cane doesn't work on girls. Believe me, it does - very effectively." You then followed this up with

So I simply pointed out that it was no more implausible than the suggestion made by Dr Dominum that the cane doesn't work on girls.

So now you've told me where the suggestion came from. But you're still avoiding the issue. Here's the assertion: "more caning leads to more misbehaviour". Do you think that is plausible, or implausible? Comparing it to the plausibility of a different assertion doesn't answer that question. My view, as I stated, is that this is implausible.

***********

Well, I'm sure we could go on for a long time like this, and I'm happy to do so if you have the energy. But I must say that prof.n's most recent post is fascinating, and maybe that should now lead the discussion in this thread.