BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Smacking Children

 
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
 
Ganesh
02:24 / 18.12.05
Smacking clearly isn't an action without a reaction.

True, but no aspect of child-rearing is. The more I learn about aetiology of psychological difficulties, the more I recognise that there's no 'right way' to bring up one's children. Smacking one's children from time to time may lead to consequences. Not smacking one's children from time to time may lead to consequences.
 
 
Smoothly
02:47 / 18.12.05
There might not be a right way to bring up a child, but I don't suppose you imagine that means that every option should be available. So it becomes a matter of deciding what measures come off the table and what stay on. And as a matters of policy, smacking remains controversial.

Since we can never know in totality of the implications of either no children being spanked or all children being spanked, we have to form a view by other principles. We have to set social boundaries that we believe will, overall, do less harm than good. (BTW, when I talked about action and reaction, I meant on the adult, in case that was ambiguous. I wonder if there's any truth to the notion that 'This will hurt me more than it'll hurt you'. Would it be worse to have a society unsmacked children or a society of adults who are told it is acceptable to hit people half their size?)
 
 
Ganesh
03:21 / 18.12.05
... we have to form a view by other principles...

... which then requires that "we" define ourselves ('society' generally, those Government ministers who rule upon such things?) and also that we are transparent about the principles upon which we form our view. Those of us who have a 'gut reaction' to the idea of smacking children but who have never raised children are perfectly entitled to hold a viewpoint - but those who have are perhaps more entitled.

Is anyone up to speed with actual evidence bases here? What are the long-term consequences of occasionally smacking one's child?
 
 
Smoothly
03:48 / 18.12.05
Some interesting evidence here:

Although the Swedish anti-spanking law was intended to reduce child abuse, the best empirical study since then indicated that the rate of child abuse in Sweden was 49% higher than in the United States one year after the anti-spanking law was passed. Does this mean that the anti-spanking law increased the rate of physical child abuse in Sweden? Deley's (1988) retrospective data indicates that the Swedish physical child abuse rate was 21% of the USA rate in the 1960s and 1970s. This suggests that the anti-spanking law not only failed to achieve its goal of reducing child abuse, but that the child abuse rate increased from 21% to 149% of the equivalent USA rate, a seven-fold increase relative to the decreasing rate in the United States.

Doesn't look at other possible kinds of consequences, but still.
 
 
Lilly Nowhere Late
06:40 / 18.12.05
Or does the above only reflect the imbalance of reporting? Who knows?
When I was a child my mom smacked me rather regularly. It was her immediate reaction to most of my infractions and irritations. I know I've had times in my life that I thought about it a lot and felt quite sour towards my mother. It fades away over time and I feel I know a lot more about her and her motivations and reasoning so that now I hold nothing against her. Still, with my own 4-year old, I try to never strike out at her no matter what. This often means that I leave the room and collect myself during disputes with the little minx to avoid knocking her head off. It's a physically painful for me, I've been sick over the rush of fury and frustration literally. Sometimes I wonder how we'll ever get through the next dozen or so years without physical violence. I marvel at a couple of women I know who are simply magic with children and never even get to the arguing stage nevermind smacking. I have at least one self session per day when I internally scold myself for being such a crap mom. Still, I'm at least glad to know that as bad as it gets so far(of course the good is better than the bad too)we don't do smacking in my house.
 
 
Ex
09:33 / 18.12.05
I'm rather with Ganesh, in that if I think about 'hitting a kid' then it's entirely in isolation from any understanding of what raising a child involves. That doesn't mean I can't have an opinion, but it's going to come from a particular viewpoint.
For example, I recently watched someone looking after her toddler and realised I hadn't thought at all how much one has to both physically interract with kids, and also prevent them from doing things they want to. So you have to help dress them, wash them, feed them, carry them, arrange them in seats, hoik them over obstacles. And you also have to stop them eating the cat, sticking their fingers in the neutron bomb, walking under the tractor. Which all adds up to a peculiar degree of physical symbiosis, and responsibility, that you don't have in most adult relationships.
So while I can think 'I would never want to hit a child', I can also see that I would never want to restrict a child's movements, or insist that they ate something they weren't enjoying. It seems weird and freakish to me, as I almost solely interract with adults. And the flipside of that is that I don't have people endangering themselves and relying on me to get them out of it, or pulling my hair and keeping me awake until three in the morning.
All the things I take for granted in adult relationships - that we're both responsible for our own wellbeing, that neither of us will touch each other without asking first, that solutions will be reached by negotiation - seem to be completely different in childcare. So while ideally my children would never be hit, they would also be sparkling angels who would dress themselves, and respond along Hegelian lines when discussing what to have for breakfast.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
10:08 / 18.12.05
If any child of mine made me look... made me look like a fool in public, in front of other people, I'd beat the hell out of them, to be honest. And then probably go for a beer and such with my new friends, Goofy, Donald, Mike, etc.
 
 
Spaniel
10:13 / 18.12.05
Brilliant post
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
10:26 / 18.12.05
I'm pretty sure I was spanked as a kid, but I don't actually remember any occasions of it taking place- it was always threatened as the nuclear option, and I know it wasn't something my parents enjoyed doing. (The old "hurts me more than it'll hurt you" cliche really was true in my case- seeing my mother upset- she never really did angry- was a pretty good deterrent). It can't have happened more than a handful of times in any case. But it definitely wasn't out of the question.
 
 
Jack Fear
13:25 / 18.12.05
A little late to the party here, but let me say in response to Smoothly:

No offense meant, and I have a lot of respect for everyone who has not only admitted they do it, but has described what it actually involves. But I can't read those descriptions without feeling repulsed.

No offense taken. And quite frankly, it squicks me out pretty bad, too. I appreciate your honesty and your bravery in articulating the feelings of unease that the prospect of parenting raises in you. And I didn't read your comments as judgmental at all, and some of the vehement reactions smacked of defensiveness to me.

But I understand your feelings of doubt and worry, because I share them, on a daily basis. Parenting toddlers is a brutalizing experience, because you're dealing with someone who's, well, a brute: pre-literate, barely verbal, prone to wild mood swings and thoughtlessly destructive. The thing is—and it's a damnably difficult thing—to deal with them on a level they understand, sometimes communicating through violence, without descending to their level.

Let me further note that the window of spanking is fairly brief: as a child grows older, more reasonable, more verbal, more in control of hirself, events are far less likely to escalate to a Level 6. Our older child is now nine, and we haven't got past a Level 4 since she was about five.

Anybody who hits an older child, or a child younger than 3, or who does so capriciously, or forcefully, or in anger, or drunk, or without long considered escalation procedures and plenty of room for everybody to back down, anybody for whom violence is a first resort or a recreational activity, anybody who uses implements or screams, is at best a desperate failure so lacking in the tools for proper parenting that s/he may as well be trying to cut down a tree with a butter knife, and at worst a sadistic fuck who needs to be removed from any situation involving children, forcibly and far, preferably to Siberia.

So saith The Fear.
 
 
ibis the being
15:26 / 18.12.05
Here's the study I was referring to -

Study Shows Spanking Fuels Aggression, Anxiety
 
 
Spaniel
18:04 / 18.12.05
Brilliant post

Just to be clear, that was in response to Ex's thought provoking post.
 
 
Spaniel
18:09 / 18.12.05
Parenting toddlers is a brutalizing experience, because you're dealing with someone who's, well, a brute: pre-literate, barely verbal, prone to wild mood swings and thoughtlessly destructive

I have to say I'm really not looking forward to that particular phase in the development of my child. Whilst I share Smoothly's feeling about hitting children, resisting the urge to smack a remorseless, rampaging toddler must be a herculean task.
 
 
alas
18:17 / 18.12.05
I was looking for that old psychology study that suggested that kids who are corporally punished as a child tend to be more conservative and attracted to authoritarian political figures. Does anyone know what that study is and whether it's still credible? I think I heard about it a psych or sociology class in college, and have heard it vaguely referenced since then as one of those studies we've all heard of, but my web-fu isn't working today.

Anyway, while looking for that, I came across a chapter entitled "Raising Real Children," from George Lakoff's recent work, Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think.

Lakoff's book as a whole focuses on the tendency of conservatives (he's focusing on the US context) tend to apply a "Strict Father" model of the family to politics and political figures, while liberals tend to view the role of government through the metaphor of the "Nurturing Parent." The former tend to be authoritarian, while the latter seek to be "authoritative."

Here's how he's defining those two categories:
The Authoritarian Model
*Attempting to shape, control, and evaluate the behavior and attitudes of one's children in accordance with an absolute set of standards.
*Valuing obedience, respect for authority, work, tradition, and preservation of order.
*Discouraging verbal give-and-take between parent and child.

The Authoritative Model
*Expectation for mature behavior from child and clear standard setting.
*Firm enforcement of rules and standards using commands and sanctions when necessary.
*Encouragement of the child's independence and individuality.
*Open communication between parents and children, with parents listening to children's point of view, as well as expressing their own; encouragement of verbal give-and-take.
*Recognition of rights of both parents and children. "Firm enforcement" and "sanctions" do not include painful corporal punishment.


Obviously, it's that last point that's mainly in dispute, here: I don't think anyone's advocating an authoritarian family model, but to what degree can any form of corporal punishment be a part of an authoritative, nurturing approach to family? "Painful" is a particularly interesting word in this context.

And, in answer to grant's question above: I just meant that the classic "guilt trip" that parents are likely to use ("Don't you feel bad about what you just did?" "Aren't you going to say 'I'm sorry'?" "Do you see all the work I had to do because you failed to ..." "After all your father and I have done for you, you decided to ...") can be manipulative and cloying. (And that I have heard similar phrases come out of my own mouth is at least as embarrassing as the urge to smack a child in a moment of passion.)

My college students love to talk about these experiences, when I'm teaching basic Foucault, and will say: "damnit, sometimes I wished they'd have just hit me!" While I suspect that many such students don't really know what it can feel like to be really hit, I do think they've experienced emotional manipulation.

Thus, I was just trying to say that while I'm opposed to smacking and spanking for good reasons, those good reasons are entangled with some class issues (which I think may be also relevant to Lakoff's argument). I think Grant and I basically agree: We were a "time-out" family, too. Those time-outs are important both for the child and the parent to have some time to get distance and clarity--maybe to see some alternatives--and cool off. I'm of the good-enough school, however, and believe that it's the structure of the relationship that's most important--occasional failures are not the end of the world.

So: I don't see time outs as cloying or manipulative, although I suppose any tool in the parental arsenal could be somehow misused if one is of a sadistic bent...which would mean being not primarily focused really on nurturing the child's growth but on reasserting one's own power. It is terrifying that it's not always easy to tell when one has crossed the line between those two points.

Which, I'm finding, is a challenge that doesn't necessarily go away even once the child has gone off to college; it doesn't come out in the physical punishment, probably, but in terms of "I'm paying your tuition bills, and while that's the case, you'll . . . ."
 
 
Nobody's girl
21:35 / 18.12.05
Coo, leave a thread for 5 minutes and look what happens. I'm not gonna read all the thread before I post 'cos (as my baby has just demonstrated, in fact) I will get interrupted and just not bother as the baby saps my will to do anything other than lie on the couch with a glazed expression. The point of this rambling intro is please don't jump down my throat if I'm covering old ground.

I don't think hitting your children is right under any circumstances. I suspect that at many points in my life as a parent going I'll find it difficult to stick to this policy, but I simply cannot convince myself the alternative is justifiable.

I don't believe I can teach my child that violence is wrong if I hit her. I think parents should role model behaviour they wish their kids to display as best they can.

I find cold-blooded, after the fact hitting really creepy. In the moment I have one hell of a temper and don't trust myself to use good judgement or reasonable force.

Plus, every time I think about this debate I just get Loudon Wainwright III's very sad song "Hitting You" playing on repeat in my head-

Hitting You

Long ago I hit you
We were in the car
You were crazy in the backseat
It had gone too far
And I pulled the auto over
Hit you with all my might
I knew right away that it was too hard
And I'd never make it right

I was aiming for your buttocks
But I struck your outer thigh
You had on a bathing suit
And right before our eyes
Suntanned skin turned crimson
Where the hand had hit
And my palm stung from hitting you so hard
That I hurt it

Against the law in Sweden
Charges can be filed
Here it's all too common
A parent hits a child

On your face I saw the shock
And then I saw the pain
Then I saw the look of fear
The fear I'd strike again
Then I saw your anger
Your defiant pride
Then I saw one teardrop
The rest you kept inside

I said I was sorry
I tried to clean the slate
But with that blow I'd sown a seed
I saw it was too late

These days things are awful
Between me and you
All we do is argue
Like two people who are through
I blame you, your friends, your school
Your mother and MTV
Last night I almost hit you
That blame belongs to me

Long ago I hit you
We were in the car
You were crazy in the backseat
It had gone too far
And I pulled the auto over
And hit you with all my might
I knew right away that it was too hard
I'd never make it right

I almost put this song in Ganesh's thread about uncomfortably intimate songs, it breaks my heart.
 
 
Nobody's girl
21:59 / 18.12.05
As for toddlers, yes they are dreadfully infuriating. I suspect that the time children are most likely to be hit is during the toddler years as they are unable to understand much verbally, parent gets worn out by the boundless mischevious energy and despairing resorts to the ultimate sanction.

It's been a while since I've cared for toddlers and I am rather aprehensive, but hopefully my avid "House of Tiny Tearaways" watching will come in handy. I'm only watching it for parenting tips, not because I fancy Dr. Tanya. Honest.
 
 
Loomis
10:15 / 19.12.05
I neither have nor want children so this is a moot issue for me, but I wonder at the demonisation of parents who smack, possibly because there seems to be an assumption that a smack is always hard and painful, which isn’t the case. A single measured smack on the bottom such as Jack Fear describes is not beating or harming a child. It’s more symbolic than anything, and I don’t think it teaches children that problems can be solved with violence. If the worst that results from that is children growing up to deal with their problems through spanking then think of the rise in employment in the fetish industry.

One thing that surprises me is that mainstream society seems to be growing more aware of emotional abuse and the problems resulting from it, at the same time as parents are told to use this on children as an alternative to physical contact which is seen as much worse. Why is that? I’m not particularly in favour of smacking, but I don’t see the evil results of limited uses of it. I certainly don’t agree with the uncritical championing of emotional torture.

When I was at school, our school was fairly unusual in that hitting had not yet died out entirely. There were a small handful of teachers who used “the strap”, which was a length of leather that would be delivered onto an outstretched palm. It hurt like hell for a few minutes and was something to be avoided, yet it was usually preferred because it was over quickly, there was no discomfort between teacher and pupil, it was a case of knowing the punishment, getting caught, accepting it and moving on for both parties who both knew the rules. And it wasn't delivered in anger. In contrast, being shamed by the teacher, being made to sit by yourself, sent out of class, standing alone in the hallway, praying that the headmaster wouldn’t catch you, being made to stay late in pointless detentions writing lines like Bart Simpson, these things were all far more scarring and likely to lead to more bad behaviour because it made the teacher the enemy and the pupils wanted revenge for the embarrassment.

Now I’m obviously not at expert and I’m glad that I won’t have to make the laws on the subject, but I was hit a lot as a child and I can tell you there’s a massive difference between an enraged parent kicking you for a minor infraction and a single open-handed smack on the bottom.
 
 
ibis the being
21:50 / 19.12.05
It’s more symbolic than anything, and I don’t think it teaches children that problems can be solved with violence.

What does it teach then? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I really think it's important to answer that question. Children are like sponges, always learning and often mimicking behavior, as anyone who's heard a two-year-old scream "SHIT!" knows all too well. I certainly don't want to demonize those who spank, I don't think they're evil people at all - my dad is one (he still has young children) and he's a great dad - I just think it's a highly problematic and ultimately ineffective method of discipline.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
22:28 / 19.12.05
I think there's a huge difference between smacking as the "naughty step" (within a hierachy of discipline, having had that explained to you and not being hurt by it physically) and hitting a child so it causes pain. In retrospect, having been smacked, I think smacking was kinder than for instance being sent to my room or put on a step and being sent to coventry. Isolation as a punishment for a child seems to be immeasurably cruel and I'm not sure it's positive to let children know that being alone is a bad thing. I regard it as worse as I quite like being alone and I'm not sure I would if I'd been told off in that way.
 
 
Tom Tit's Tot: A Girl!
08:30 / 20.12.05
If that were the point of punishments such as the "Naughty Step" - to teach a child that being alone is bad - then perhaps your point would be germaine. However, the point is to teach the child that certain behaviours are unacceptable (unasseptable, as Super Nanny might say) and result in your exclusion from enjoyable activities. This is a fairly basic lesson of socialization, as if I break the rules of a society I will be excluded. Kids understand this form of punishment, and even if they do enjoy their own company, if used consistently and fairly it's far more effective than physical punishment, and doesn't result in kids with a fear of isolation, regardless of your concern. I was punished mainly in this fashion, and I enjoy being alone no more or less than most people I know.

Having recently become a father and being someone that works in childcare, I have cause to think about the topic at hand perhaps rather more than most. I am opposed to smacking or spanking, not because I think it is inneffective (as, like any discipline, if used consistently it works) or because it automagically causes emotional scarring. I think there's the learning of a power dynamic there, that when in a position of power it is alright to harm those you disapprove of and are weaker/smaller than you. I am also a pacifist, and wish to teach my child to not resort to violence.

I also work with kids that are punished in this fashion, and universally they don't seem to bear a grudge. Rather, as sounds maybe the case in the situation related by wed, children that are spanked/smacked are quiet around and desperately seek the approval of the parent that smacks them. I don't think this is a positive thing, having seen it in action, because these children usually have an overwhelming need to please those in authority, are dependant and not as individualistic/likely to strike out on their own or take the initiative as the other children. Plus they're far more likely to resort to physical violence when frustrated.

Also is the question of even-handedness, in that if your child misbehaves while you are under the influence of alcohol, are you comfortable with the possibility that you might use too much force? Or will you not smack and show inconsistency? Because either is damaging to a system of punishment. Drunkenness doesn't potentially make the Naughty Step hurt more.

I also think there's an issue of personal growth here for me. Smacking is an instant, instinctual reaction and is therefore easy. I think in many ways that smacking is a lazy and unimaginative form of punishment, the easy way out/quick fix for a negative behaviour.

If I am incapable of overcoming my violent impulses, how can I help my child overcome hers? If I hit my child, how can I teach my child not to hit other children without being an automatic hypocrite?

So, I don't think it's ever a good idea to hit your kids. Ever. I also don't think that parents who do so are somehow less human, rather that they are doing something that is ultimately poor parenting practice and of questionable moral grounding, that's all. They aren't evil or something, just wrong in my personal opinion.
 
 
Loomis
08:35 / 20.12.05
What does it teach then? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I really think it's important to answer that question.

Nina's pretty much answered it for me. Not all physical contact is painful or violent, ibis. Is it wrong to grasp a child's arm forcefully? Is it wrong to slap a child on the wrist when he reaches across the table to pull his sister's hair? Humans are physical as well as mental, and I don't see the need for this mind/body division, where it's fine to mentally scar a child but any physical contact is negative.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
09:41 / 20.12.05
Smacking is an instant, instinctual reaction and is therefore easy

Perhaps it would be for you. I was never smacked instinctively as children, I was warned more than once and asked politely and then sternly to calm down before I was smacked.

Drunkenness doesn't potentially make the Naughty Step hurt more.

Of course it does. How is a child meant to understand a drunk adult's incoherence? If you're really drunk how can you even be sure that your child needs to be disciplined? Being punished for nothing is far worse than being lightly smacked when you're really bad because you lose faith in the perspective of your parents. These things are about proportion- you don't hurt a child because you don't want it to become reclusive or violent but that's the result of abuse as possible with the naughty step as with the fist, not a light tap on the bottom that acts symbolically. No one here is arguing that hitting is right.
 
 
Tom Tit's Tot: A Girl!
09:56 / 20.12.05
From hitting, to smacking, and now "light tap", eh?

So, it's more like a game of tig than something that would cause pain?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
10:07 / 20.12.05
Well I never felt a twinge, it really was a light tap and if it's symbolic enough that's really all a smack needs to be.
 
 
Tom Tit's Tot: A Girl!
10:17 / 20.12.05
See, I would really disagree with that. Without a negative consequence, it's hardly negative reinforcement. Most kids don't get that "symbolic gesture" that you refer to, in my experience.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
10:19 / 20.12.05
Why is the naughty step naughty Tom?
 
 
Loomis
10:20 / 20.12.05
How do you define pain TTT? Anything other than pleasure? Is discomfort the same as pain? Is low-level pain like a pinch the same as being punched in the face? Smack yourself on your thigh right now. Would you call that pain? Does it hurt? Does it smart? Is it uncomfortable? Which word would you prefer? Surely you have to admit that there are degrees.

And I have to disagree on the old saw being used here that smacking* teaches kids that it's okay to harm people weaker than you. You could say the same thing whenever you deny your child anything or punish them in any way. You are controlling them, restricting them, making them unhappy, all because you are stronger than them. Aren't you teaching them that might makes right by doing that?

* as Nina said, no one has condoned hitting. We're not talking about physical intimidation and putting children in fear for their safety.
 
 
Spaniel
10:58 / 20.12.05
Aren't you teaching them that might makes right by doing that?

Well, if we assume that you are, then surely it follows that by smacking your child (however lightly) you are teaching your child that physical force is a useful methodology for controlling any given situation.
 
 
Tom Tit's Tot: A Girl!
11:08 / 20.12.05
Yeah, sure, degrees, yes.

But if I told you to give someone a "light tap" are you going to smack their ass? No, because that phrase is an intentional understatement used to reduce the potential impact of smacking a child in this case.

Aren't you teaching them that might makes right by doing that?

All parent/child relationships will contain an element of teaching the child that authorities can and will do to you what they want - however if my child learns that the powerful can punish them, take their privileges, I can live with that. Unfortunately it's a symptom of the world these days, politics, economics; it's how they work. I want my child to be able to accept that fact and perhaps, if it grates, try to change those facts.

However I do not want my child to accept or be blase about the authorities hitting them, beating them, spanking them, or otherwise causing pain to their bodies. It's not acceptable for anyone to hit, slap, spank, or "tap" me without my permission, and it therefore should not be acceptable for my child to have these indignities visited upon them, by me or anyone else. Obviously, you don't have to agree with me, but also, you don't have to raise my child.

* as Nina said, no one has condoned hitting. We're not talking about physical intimidation and putting children in fear for their safety.

So what about beating a child's ass with a belt? Because while it can leave welts and even scars, nobody will accuse you of trying to kill your child with such an action. The child is not likely to think he is going to die/be unsafe either. Is that acceptable?

Ultimately, if physical punishment does not intimidate on some level, it's not functional - if the pain is not meant to be avoided (intimidating) it's not a useful negative reinforcement.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
11:19 / 20.12.05
Aren't we getting a bit faux-psychology here? One action doesn't equate to teaching unless it's backed up in some way. If a child is taught that force is serious and this is backed up by force only being used in serious circumstance then you have a totally different lesson to the one that results from impulsive smacking. Likewise institutional violence holds a different lesson about authority then violence in the home would and only the consistent application of authority over a child.

We're getting into developmental psych here and none of us know enough about it to make any judgments outside our own experience.
 
 
Spaniel
11:22 / 20.12.05
Very true. I know absolutely fuck all about developmental psychology.

I was just getting carried away.
 
 
Tom Tit's Tot: A Girl!
11:22 / 20.12.05
Except that I, y'know, work with children. So I see the impact of parenting every day. But clearly that's not applicable, because...?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
11:22 / 20.12.05
The negative reinforcement can come before or after the physical punishment though. It's just a physical embellishment like the bloody naughty step.

So what about beating a child's ass with a belt? Because while it can leave welts and even scars, nobody will accuse you of trying to kill your child with such an action. The child is not likely to think he is going to die/be unsafe either. Is that acceptable?

That is physical intimidation actually.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
11:25 / 20.12.05
So I see the impact of parenting every day. But clearly that's not applicable, because...?

Well it rather depends on the type of work that you do.

Have you observed the full developmental process of a child from birth to adulthood without a specific emotional connection to that child and studied theory alongside that?
 
 
Tom Tit's Tot: A Girl!
11:29 / 20.12.05
So that's the only way to be knowledgeable about children? Then stop child abuse advocates, therapists, teachers... all cannot comment about child rearing? Then why are you coming here to discuss this, if nobody here has the relevant credentials?

From now on I'll submit a CV before sharing my experiential information.
 
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
  
Add Your Reply