I am no advocate of corporal punishment, and favour every other form of correction being tried first before recourse to this brutal method, which is more suitable for creatures that can only be made to feel through their skin. If the corporal punishment of girls is as rare as I think it is, the question hardly merits further consideration; so I shall be interested to see what others have to say on this point.SIR, — Dr. R. L. Kitching invited opinions on the above question in your issue of December 22nd, 1934. During my sixteen years’ experience as a school medical officer in the West Riding, Yorkshire, Lancashire, Swindon, and Gosport I have had no complaint from parents or others on the corporal punishment of girls, though quite frequently on its application to boys. In fact, I was under the impression that the big girls never were caned, and I have been frequently told by numerous teachers and girls themselves that they are not. I have even protested against the unfairness of caning boys and sparing the girls. With regard to Dr. Kitching’s two objections to caning girls: (1) “It must happen that some of the girls who are caned are suffering severe menstrual pain at the time, so that the pain inflicted must be more severe than was intended, and therefore more severe than is safe”: surely the same might be said of a boy who is caned while suffering from toothache, or any other ache, or of a highly sensitive and thin-skinned victim, or of a hefty hitter whose intentions are nicer than his blows. Then again, the safety line is not easily defined or discernible; some children may be damaged by blows which would have little effect on the tougher and less sensitive. Much the same may be said of Dr. Kitching’s second objection — namely, “Some of the girls must be suffering from menstrual nervous strain, and the added strain may be more than the girl can safely bear.” All will agree, I think, that it is undesirable to increase nervous strain, whatever its cause or whatever the means. But both sexes may suffer from nervous strain, and physical pain is by no means the only or most potent way of increasing it. If caning is to be barred on this ground then any other cause of emotional disturbance should be also. I have heard many children say they would infinitely prefer the stick to an upsetting talk on their misbehaviour. I cannot therefore agree that Dr. Kitching has given sufficient reasons for any discrimination between the sexes, but I do agree with him that the cane should be the last and not the first resource of the teacher. I think this is the general opinion of the teachers themselves, except, perhaps, those in the public schools, where the worst features of mediaevalism are apt to be perpetuated or shed but slowly and reluctantly. Certainly, in the elementary schools at least, one hears of more humanity and less barbarity than was the case not so many years ago. – I am, etc., G. W. FLEMING, Medical Officer of Health. Gosport, Jan. 2nd. ___________________ SIR,- The correspondence on the above subject, up to the present, has been so one-sided that I feel that something must be said for the opposite point of view. First, however, I must state most emphatically that I loathe and detest cruelty to children of either sex, and my subsequent remarks, therefore, relate only to corporal punishment moderately administered. The main point I should like to bring out is to ask the question why corporal punishment is said to be beneficial to boys and yet harmful to girls. Can the female sex bear pain less easily than the male? I do not think so, and in any case most child-bearing women have far more pain to bear than any man. Then, surely, if a girl commits an offence for which a boy would receive corporal punishment it is only equable that she should receive the same punishment. In these days of equality of treatment for the sexes I cannot see how this can be gainsaid. In the mixed schools referred to by Dr. Kitching (Journal, December 22nd, p. 1178) this is of obvious importance. Dr. Kitching mentions the menstrual epoch. I cannot follow him at all. Menstruation is a normal physiological process, and could be much better sustained by the adolescent girl if her mother did not make such a fetish of it. Normal menstruation does not produce any invalidity at all, and its neurotic accompaniments are all too often the result of maternal suggestion. Then to state, as Dr. Fox does (January 5th, p. 38), that epilepsy may follow corporal punishment is surely unsubstantiated by evidence. Epilepsy is not limited to the female sex, and all I can say is that if Dr. Fox is right I should have expected to see our public schools full of epileptic boys, due to the combined ministrations of the head master, the house master, and the prefects to the corporal needs of the boys. Lastly, with reference to the letter of Mrs. Harriet Smith (January 5th, p. 39), I can only say that I feel considerable sympathy with the Durham miner, who was doing his best in his non-psychological way to prevent his daughter becoming a bad girl. I am afraid that the average parent has not the expert training in psychology which would allow him or her to deal by suggestion with all the offences of their girls. What else could the miner do when moral suasion had failed? How often do girls go wrong and the parents are blamed for their lack of authority? A mere “don’t” may be sufficient to control some girls, possibly coupled with a reasoned argument explaining the correct conduct. But is it likely that a Durham miner would be able to make such means of correction sufficiently strong to alter the conduct of some headstrong girl? It is not, and, moreover, parents a great deal better educated also find the greatest difficulty in controlling their children. It may be said that corporal punishment is degrading. If it is the same statement applies to both sexes. But no one suggests that the public school boy is degraded; he gets his share of corporal punishment. Such punishment is very definitely a deterrent — and to many obstinate and self-willed children the only deterrent — to wrongdoing. Solomon’s advice, I feel certain, was not limited to one sex, and I contend that it holds true to-day. I am, etc., F. A. BELAM, M.D. Guildford, Jan. 6th.