Smacking your child

[Saint_clark]

The thing is loads of things were done years back before we knew better. Smacking children can actually do them harm in the future so not sure why anyone would want to do it. There are just as effective alternative methods of discipline that don't involve violence.

 

To some, perhaps. But everyone is different and some children aren't going to back down with threats of the naughty step or having their toys locked away.

[Saint_clark]

What about kids snacking kids?! Just seen this posted on Facebook;

 

https://fbcdn-video-a.akamaihd.net/cfs-ak-prn1/v/611141/732/3581411693187_50747.mp4?oh=1a417ada486b4c4babaec06e441ddc02&oe=5019CB20&__gda__=1343867680_23385a4e2ed3844573554f3224a223bb

 

Wow, that is horrendous.

[Frank's cousin]

But this thread isn't about a small proportion of parents who can't control themselves. Most normal people are able to understand the difference between a light slap on the back of the legs to uncontrollable rage and lashing out in anger at a small child. Normal people can control their tempers, especially with small children. I find the obsession that a slight tap on the legs is one step away from violent abuse and Franks suggestion that people who are slapped as children grow up desperate to avenge their parents by hitting them back when they are older rather strange.

 

You really are a plonker at times - not quite sure what your fascination is with trying to wind me up, but please at least read and understand what other posters are trying to say before responding with drivel

 

To clarify:

 

1. Yes, I did say there is an established causal link between kids who are beaten/abused that go on to beat and abuse their own - a cycle that is accepted

- this led to posing the question over whether there were any parents out there that smacked their kids, who were NOT smacked themselves as children? Given that most who say they do now, usually suggest that they were and it 'never did them any harm'....

 

Legislation often seems drachonian to 'normal' and 'sensible' folk, but too often we forget that legislation (not just in this case either but in so many in which the Mail reader expresses outrage against a PC 'gone mad' /Big Brother society) is NOT designed infringe on liberties of the normal and sensible, but to protect those exposed to the minority that cannot control tempers or worse.

 

2. Is smacking 'abuse'? All depends on your definition of 'Abuse' - Of course a light slap on the bum is not in anyway near the level of what is classified as criminal abuse, yet is also banned in some 30+ Countries, 20 across Europe.

 

3. Studies are inconclusive as they have to be by there very nature, observational and retrospective (as opposed to testing and repeating hypotheses which is the normal scientific research route) and as such are unrepeatable with same set of subjects which would validate findings etc, but most do indicate there is an increase in anger issues in those that were smacked as child... to what level I dont know or even if its necessarily a major issue.

 

4. I suggested that although smacking undoubtedly works, is it more for parents benefit, as it works quicker and takes less time than talking and repeating and repeating, especially in young children where reason/understanding requires greater time investment and patience?

 

5. Given most countries in Europe have banned smacking and in most cases banned corporal punishment in schools many years before we did, how come the Swedes and the Germans for example, have LOWER youth crime and behaviour issues than we do? Yes, Youth problems can probably be linked directly to lack of discipline and teaching in the home, but given the evidence from countries like Sweden and Germany, it would suggest that discipline can be installed in children without smacking, and that in our case there are other social factors influencing this, with a far greater imapct than the removal of corporal punishment.

 

6. 'Quaking with fear' - never said this, but its a common theme with your responses to pick on a single word or phase and manipulate to get a reaction - but I will respond anyway. I was making what I believe to be a valid point - reinforcing discipline is a necessary step in a childs development - in this country we have a choice, we can use a smack or we can use some other punishment (both reinforced by reason/discussion) - smacking does cause a short element of pain - not a huge amount but usually enough to cause a few emotinal tears - so how do the kids learn? They associate doing that thing wrong with a smack, and its the 'fear' of the smack that reinforces the behaviour... that is just common sense. My point was that is this the BEST way to reinforce positive behaviours? through 'fear' or should we try and reason or use other punishments?

 

7. Finally, I also posed the question to which no one has provided IMHO a satisfactory answer (although Pap was at least willing to try to sensibly), repeated from Norway Saints post: Given that it's clear that there ARE suitable and workable alternatives, why is there a need to smack a child, or even a desire to ensure parents retain a right to do so should they wish to?

 

 

I am not judging anyone who smacks their kids, my parents did it to me, and they are loving normal parents, but times and attitudes change and they probably did it because it was the accepted norm. But the question on why its necessary remains.

[norwaysaint]

I've given you a clear example of one of the two times where my eldest got a slap, including the context and the severity of the punishment. I am open to other ideas, so I'd like to know what you'd have done differently to immediately take authority and defuse a potentially violent situation.

 

I don't know your children so I couldn't possibly say, but there seems to be a constant insistence on this thread that hitting is a necessary last resort when all else fails. somebody just above stated that it's needed because some other children just don't respond to other methods.

 

This is clearly wrong and has been proven to be wrong time and again. I'll repeat it, in many countries, certainly Norway, Sweden and Denmark, somebody else mentioned Germany, the option on hitting a child was taken away years ago. Yet parents in these countries have still managed to raise children perfectly well. I have never heard a single parent bemoaning the fact that they can't hit their children, yet the children aren't running riot, disrespecting authority and knowing no boundaries. it turns out hitting them wasn't some necessary last resort at all. it turns out that there are always other methods that children will respond to. It's not child-led anarchy over here you know. so, bearing this in mind, why still hit?

 

There's a good chance that hitting children will be illegal in Britain one day, do you really believe you'd become utterly unable to enforce boundaries if it does? If so I really despair at your communication abilities and also feel embarrassed that other countries will have proved themselves more competent at raising children.

 

For the record, I was hit as a child (I refuse to use the very relative phrases "slapped", "lightly slapped" or any others that are far too opinion based, not often, but it was used. I might have fallen into the same pattern of automatically using physical punishment myself if I hadn't emigrated and realised it's utterly unnecessary. My dad has seen how we raise our kids and has said he regrets how he was as a parent and that it's clearly better and more effective this way, but he was just doing what his parents did and he never really knew any other way. I think that's widely the case and people find it hard to move on.

 

just think, if your children would be taken away from you if you did it, are you sure you wouldn't manage to find an effective alternative? And if you could, doesn't that make you question ever hitting in the first place?

[Frank's cousin]

I don't know your children so I couldn't possibly say, but there seems to be a constant insistence on this thread that hitting is a necessary last resort when all else fails. somebody just above stated that it's needed because some other children just don't respond to other methods.

 

This is clearly wrong and has been proven to be wrong time and again. I'll repeat it, in many countries, certainly Norway, Sweden and Denmark, somebody else mentioned Germany, the option on hitting a child was taken away years ago. Yet parents in these countries have still managed to raise children perfectly well. I have never heard a single parent bemoaning the fact that they can't hit their children, yet the children aren't running riot, disrespecting authority and knowing no boundaries. it turns out hitting them wasn't some necessary last resort at all. it turns out that there are always other methods that children will respond to. It's not child-led anarchy over here you know. so, bearing this in mind, why still hit?

 

There's a good chance that hitting children will be illegal in Britain one day, do you really believe you'd become utterly unable to enforce boundaries if it does? If so I really despair at your communication abilities and also feel embarrassed that other countries will have proved themselves more competent at raising children.

 

For the record, I was hit as a child (I refuse to use the very relative phrases "slapped", "lightly slapped" or any others that are far too opinion based, not often, but it was used. I might have fallen into the same pattern of automatically using physical punishment myself if I hadn't emigrated and realised it's utterly unnecessary. My dad has seen how we raise our kids and has said he regrets how he was as a parent and that it's clearly better and more effective this way, but he was just doing what his parents did and he never really knew any other way. I think that's widely the case and people find it hard to move on.

 

just think, if your children would be taken away from you if you did it, are you sure you wouldn't manage to find an effective alternative? And if you could, doesn't that make you question ever hitting in the first place?

 

Thanks Norway - excellent post IMHO.

[Whitey Grandad]

But why slap a child on the legs when alternative methods of non violent discipline can work just as well?

 

What do you do when the child insists on undoing its seatbelt and trying to open the car door on a motorway? Or trying to get a closer look at that train passing through the station?

[norwaysaint]

What do you do when the child insists on undoing its seatbelt and trying to open the car door on a motorway? Or trying to get a closer look at that train passing through the station?

 

Are you suggesting hitting a child is the only way to stop them undoing a seatbelt or falling onto train tracks? Do you believe that children over here are just dropping like flies onto motorways and railways because we won't hit them? Why on Earth would I hit my children to teach them those lessons? What you do to teach the child depends on the child and on your own ability to communicate with them, but hitting them seems like a pretty unlikely method.

 

One of the most important and effective ways to be a good parent is simply to be a good role model, if I hit anybody in front of my children, I would think myself a very poor role model. I've told them hitting is wrong, I can't start doing it myself or I send out a very bad message "Hitting is wrong unless I'm having real difficulty getting my point across, then it's acceptable."

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Thanks Norway - excellent post IMHO.

 

Totally agree, times change. There really is no need to hit children as there are many other effective ways of getting your point across. Even more - how can it be right for a 14 stone grown man to hurt a 2 stone 3 year old for example?

[Thedelldays]

Totally agree, times change. There really is no need to hit children as there are many other effective ways of getting your point across. Even more - how can it be right for a 14 stone grown man to hurt a 2 stone 3 year old for example?

what does size matter what it is a tap across the back of the legs..?

[pap]

I don't know your children so I couldn't possibly say, but there seems to be a constant insistence on this thread that hitting is a necessary last resort when all else fails. somebody just above stated that it's needed because some other children just don't respond to other methods.

 

This is clearly wrong and has been proven to be wrong time and again. I'll repeat it, in many countries, certainly Norway, Sweden and Denmark, somebody else mentioned Germany, the option on hitting a child was taken away years ago. Yet parents in these countries have still managed to raise children perfectly well. I have never heard a single parent bemoaning the fact that they can't hit their children, yet the children aren't running riot, disrespecting authority and knowing no boundaries. it turns out hitting them wasn't some necessary last resort at all. it turns out that there are always other methods that children will respond to. It's not child-led anarchy over here you know. so, bearing this in mind, why still hit?

 

There's a good chance that hitting children will be illegal in Britain one day, do you really believe you'd become utterly unable to enforce boundaries if it does? If so I really despair at your communication abilities and also feel embarrassed that other countries will have proved themselves more competent at raising children.

 

For the record, I was hit as a child (I refuse to use the very relative phrases "slapped", "lightly slapped" or any others that are far too opinion based, not often, but it was used. I might have fallen into the same pattern of automatically using physical punishment myself if I hadn't emigrated and realised it's utterly unnecessary. My dad has seen how we raise our kids and has said he regrets how he was as a parent and that it's clearly better and more effective this way, but he was just doing what his parents did and he never really knew any other way. I think that's widely the case and people find it hard to move on.

 

just think, if your children would be taken away from you if you did it, are you sure you wouldn't manage to find an effective alternative? And if you could, doesn't that make you question ever hitting in the first place?

 

It's a good post, but it doesn't really answer my question.

 

You keep saying that there are plenty of ways and that people manage to raise their children perfectly well without having to slap them. I know this from my own experience. As I have been at pains to point out, it has been an extremely infrequently used sanction. The vast majority of the time, it just isn't necessary.

 

Your continued point about the legality of smacking in other countries is a little naive, in that your points seem to presume that because it's illegal, it doesn't go on. Chances are that there are parents still hit their kids, only now they get to dovetail it with a bit of emotional blackmail ( "don't tell anyone" ). I think that's a potentially worse recipe for trouble. Our laws, clearly delineating the difference between discipline and assault, are better in that respect, unless you want to put people in jail for slapping their kid's arses when they've been naughty.

 

That's the problem with your position, if I'm completely honest. There's no room for discretion. You're also so entrenched in your position that you're probably missing the fact that your personal morals aside, physical sensation is something we all learn from. Unless you're a complete idiot, you'll only burn yourself on a hot pan once in your life. That pan won't take you aside and explain that touching it is a bad idea, but you will learn from the pain and hopefully emerge a wiser person.

 

I'm not really going to launch into a passionate defence of smacking, hitting, or whatever you want to call it - because I'm not a believer in it as a matter of course. But I have no regrets about slapping my kids at the times I have. They have never been beaten, and I've never been personal about it. In my opinion, what it achieved was an immediate cessation to the events going on at the time, plus gave them something to think about if they ever tried something similar again.

 

Once again, still waiting for the norwaysaint school of parenting, with specifics.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

what does size matter what it is a tap across the back of the legs..?

 

Because its akin to bullying? Kids are small and weak physically, its basically cowardly. I still don't know why any adult feels the need to smack, there are loads of non-violent ways to effectively enforce discipline.

[Frank's cousin]

It's a good post, but it doesn't really answer my question.

 

You keep saying that there are plenty of ways and that people manage to raise their children perfectly well without having to slap them. I know this from my own experience. As I have been at pains to point out, it has been an extremely infrequently used sanction. The vast majority of the time, it just isn't necessary.

 

Your continued point about the legality of smacking in other countries is a little naive, in that your points seem to presume that because it's illegal, it doesn't go on. Chances are that there are parents still hit their kids, only now they get to dovetail it with a bit of emotional blackmail ( "don't tell anyone" ). I think that's a potentially worse recipe for trouble. Our laws, clearly delineating the difference between discipline and assault, are better in that respect, unless you want to put people in jail for slapping their kid's arses when they've been naughty.

 

That's the problem with your position, if I'm completely honest. There's no room for discretion. You're also so entrenched in your position that you're probably missing the fact that your personal morals aside, physical sensation is something we all learn from. Unless you're a complete idiot, you'll only burn yourself on a hot pan once in your life. That pan won't take you aside and explain that touching it is a bad idea, but you will learn from the pain and hopefully emerge a wiser person.

 

I'm not really going to launch into a passionate defence of smacking, hitting, or whatever you want to call it - because I'm not a believer in it as a matter of course. But I have no regrets about slapping my kids at the times I have. They have never been beaten, and I've never been personal about it. In my opinion, what it achieved was an immediate cessation to the events going on at the time, plus gave them something to think about if they ever tried something similar again.

 

Once again, still waiting for the norwaysaint school of parenting, with specifics.

 

I wont dispute the fact that you get an immediate cessation of the actions etc. I think the effectiveness is not in doubt. I apprecite that no one has given specifics of how those situations that require an imediate cessation are dealt with without the 'smack' etc - I cant comment, because thankfully to date that situation has not arisen (one hideous moment when at 4 she suddenly took off heading for the dual carriage way still gives me nightmares, but managed to sprint like no 40 year overweight smoker should do, unless asking for an MI) - but despite no examples of what is used, the evidence from those countries that have banned it suggests something IS being used and that its is very effective - thos ecountries, especially the nordics and Germany, have lower youth issues, crime etc than we do, and I dont see any data suggesting all toddlers and youg kids are at higher risk of injury or worse from mesiing about in ways they should not be doing for their own good.

 

I think the IMHO, if smacking etc was the ONLY way to ensure certain positive behaviours are reinforced or negative once punished to stop them, Then I would have no issue with it at all - as we need to install these lessons in our children. Its just that the evidence suggests that there are equally effective if not better ways that dont involve it - certainly from other countries where youth crime, ASBOs etc are far lower than here.

 

I dont know exactly what they are, but I guess whatever techniques are used replaced/evolved when the smacking was banned and has proven to be equally effective. It suggests that at this current time, we want to retain the option, because we dont know any other way/more effective way of dealing with teh issue? I am not trying to be holier than thou on this as I dont know wwhat it is either, and have so far been lucky enough not to need to think of one, but would interested to know if in all honesty this is the reason why some do wish to retain the option? Its not meant as a criticism, just an observation

[The9]

These days people worship their kids. Some parents genuinely believe that their kids are incapable of misbehaving, so in love with this reflected image of themselves that objective analysis of a situation involving their offspring becomes impossible. I suppose that's to be expected; genetic imperative kicking in, perhaps. Yet it can cause all kinds of problems for teachers and kids who fall foul to their outbursts.

 

To be fair, they are generally very, very stupid people.

[pap]

I wont dispute the fact that you get an immediate cessation of the actions etc. I think the effectiveness is not in doubt. I apprecite that no one has given specifics of how those situations that require an imediate cessation are dealt with without the 'smack' etc - I cant comment, because thankfully to date that situation has not arisen (one hideous moment when at 4 she suddenly took off heading for the dual carriage way still gives me nightmares, but managed to sprint like no 40 year overweight smoker should do, unless asking for an MI) - but despite no examples of what is used, the evidence from those countries that have banned it suggests something IS being used and that its is very effective - thos ecountries, especially the nordics and Germany, have lower youth issues, crime etc than we do, and I dont see any data suggesting all toddlers and youg kids are at higher risk of injury or worse from mesiing about in ways they should not be doing for their own good.

 

I think the IMHO, if smacking etc was the ONLY way to ensure certain positive behaviours are reinforced or negative once punished to stop them, Then I would have no issue with it at all - as we need to install these lessons in our children. Its just that the evidence suggests that there are equally effective if not better ways that dont involve it - certainly from other countries where youth crime, ASBOs etc are far lower than here.

 

I dont know exactly what they are, but I guess whatever techniques are used replaced/evolved when the smacking was banned and has proven to be equally effective. It suggests that at this current time, we want to retain the option, because we dont know any other way/more effective way of dealing with teh issue? I am not trying to be holier than thou on this as I dont know wwhat it is either, and have so far been lucky enough not to need to think of one, but would interested to know if in all honesty this is the reason why some do wish to retain the option? Its not meant as a criticism, just an observation

 

The problem with evidence from other countries is not the evidence itself, Frank's Cousin, but its applicability here. From your post, you seem to be correlating the no smacking laws in Germany with their lower rates of youth crime. If I wanted to play the data from other countries game, I'd point you in the direction of Singapore, which still has corporal punishment in schools, has a punitive approach to violent crimes and one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

 

There are a number of reasons for higher incidences of youth crime here. I doubt it's because some parents smack their kids.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

To some, perhaps. But everyone is different and some children aren't going to back down with threats of the naughty step or having their toys locked away.

 

If an adult can't win a battle of wills against a 3 or 4 year old they probably shouldn't have had kids in the first place.

[pap]

Because its akin to bullying? Kids are small and weak physically, its basically cowardly. I still don't know why any adult feels the need to smack, there are loads of non-violent ways to effectively enforce discipline.

 

Name one, then.

[Frank's cousin]

Sorry, but I was not suggesting a link between HIGHER youth issues and smacking, but that previously on this thread the point had been made that without smacking we would see levated youth crime, issues etc as smacking was a necessary component of discipline etc. All I am suggesting is that there is evidence to suggest its not necessary to effect a lower level of crime if alternatives are used.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Name one, then.

 

 

What, you can't imagine one for yourself? Really?

 

Well I've kept the peace in my house through a combination threatening to take and taking away privelages, raising my voice, making them go to bed early, sending them to their room, and putting them on the naughty step. I'll always let them know why they're being naughty, the consequence of carrying on and that it's their choice to behave better.

[pap]

What, you can't imagine one for yourself? Really?

 

Well I've kept the peace in my house through a combination threatening to take and taking away privelages, raising my voice, making them go to bed early, sending them to their room, and putting them on the naughty step. I'll always let them know why they're being naughty, the consequence of carrying on and that it's their choice to behave better.

 

I just wanted to know if you did, to be honest.

 

So do you do all of that if your child is misbehaving in a restaurant?

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

I just wanted to know if you did, to be honest.

 

So do you do all of that if your child is misbehaving in a restaurant?

 

Well you use whatever is practical at the time. If you adopt a sensible approach over the long term then you rarely need to resort to more stringent measures. If the worst came to the worst I'd and halt the meal, pay up and leave and deal with it at home.

 

To turn it round - is the first thing you'd do if your child was misbehaving in a restaurant to hit them?

[pap]

Well you use whatever is practical at the time. If you adopt a sensible approach over the long term then you rarely need to resort to more stringent measures. If the worst came to the worst I'd and halt the meal, pay up and leave and deal with it at home.

 

To turn it round - is the first thing you'd do if your child was misbehaving in a restaurant to hit them?

 

Nope, I'd probably glare at them.

 

I've actually sat in a restaurant though, when two parents were obviously keen on "explaining" stuff to their kids. Biggest pair of numpties I've ever seen in my life. For a start, their kids didn't even need disciplining - yet they brayed through the entire breakfast explaining why "something was wrong" or telling them that they were being "very naughty".

 

It's good to know that in a similar situation, you'd have the courtesy to walk out and spare people your technique. I feel more confident about eating in restaurants, for one.

[doubleonothing]

I was smacked as a child. Also had the wooden spoon and for swearing I had my mouth washed out with soap.

 

Sound beatings are the answer! I was soundly beaten and it didn't' do me any harm!

 

In all seriousness I can see myself smacking my kids (if I have them) if they really deserve it. Would like to think of it as a last resort that would be a very rare thing. However as mentioned earlier in the thread your thoughts can change when you actually have them.

 

Mate of mine was saying he has smacked his daughter's hand when she has gone to touch something dangerous but that was purely to stop her from touching it

[Guan 2.0]

Before wading in to this debate, i think it's important to remember lashing out (smacking kids), and using measured physical discipline as part of an immediate punishment of last resort are very different things, the latter i'm in favour of.

[Frank's cousin]

Nope, I'd probably glare at them.

 

I've actually sat in a restaurant though, when two parents were obviously keen on "explaining" stuff to their kids. Biggest pair of numpties I've ever seen in my life. For a start, their kids didn't even need disciplining - yet they brayed through the entire breakfast explaining why "something was wrong" or telling them that they were being "very naughty".

 

It's good to know that in a similar situation, you'd have the courtesy to walk out and spare people your technique. I feel more confident about eating in restaurants, for one.

 

Thing is Pap, I for one, would not take my kids out to eat to a Restaurant (proper like) until they were old enough to behave, or knew how to. To me that is part and parcel of the process. So we are svaing the 3star michelin until they are older and currently slum it with 1 star places

[pap]

Thing is Pap' date=' I for one, would not take my kids out to eat to a Restaurant (proper like) until they were old enough to behave, or knew how to. To me that is part and parcel of the process. So we are svaing the 3star michelin until they are older and currently slum it with 1 star places [/quote']

 

It's an interesting position Frank's Cousin, but it doesn't really stand up to the "one of your kids gets a strop on" scenario, which I believe can be quite common.

[The9]

Any chance the lower crime and youth offending figures are due to better levels of education, or, say, a higher standard of living and less disenchantment in Sweden and Germany than the UK, rather than anything to do with smacking kids at all ?

[Frank's cousin]

Any chance the lower crime and youth offending figures are due to better levels of education, or, say, a higher standard of living and less disenchantment in Sweden and Germany than the UK, rather than anything to do with smacking kids at all ?

 

 

Most likely - you cant really seperate out all the variables and determine a causal link, but you can at least use it to demonstrate that no smacking has not caused youth problems in excess of what there may have been prior to an ban. In effect, it demonstrates that behaviour CAN be controlled and discipline installed despite no smacking. You get good and bad parents everywhere - I suspect we do have a higher proportion in this country than in others though - the Thatcher disenfranchised generation grown up without guidance or encouraged to maintain their education.... waits for fall out

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Nope, I'd probably glare at them.

 

I've actually sat in a restaurant though, when two parents were obviously keen on "explaining" stuff to their kids. Biggest pair of numpties I've ever seen in my life. For a start, their kids didn't even need disciplining - yet they brayed through the entire breakfast explaining why "something was wrong" or telling them that they were being "very naughty".

 

It's good to know that in a similar situation, you'd have the courtesy to walk out and spare people your technique. I feel more confident about eating in restaurants, for one.

 

Blimey you're patronising

[norwaysaint]

It's a good post, but it doesn't really answer my question.

 

You keep saying that there are plenty of ways and that people manage to raise their children perfectly well without having to slap them. I know this from my own experience. As I have been at pains to point out, it has been an extremely infrequently used sanction. The vast majority of the time, it just isn't necessary.

 

Your continued point about the legality of smacking in other countries is a little naive, in that your points seem to presume that because it's illegal, it doesn't go on. Chances are that there are parents still hit their kids, only now they get to dovetail it with a bit of emotional blackmail ( "don't tell anyone" ). I think that's a potentially worse recipe for trouble. Our laws, clearly delineating the difference between discipline and assault, are better in that respect, unless you want to put people in jail for slapping their kid's arses when they've been naughty.

 

That's the problem with your position, if I'm completely honest. There's no room for discretion. You're also so entrenched in your position that you're probably missing the fact that your personal morals aside, physical sensation is something we all learn from. Unless you're a complete idiot, you'll only burn yourself on a hot pan once in your life. That pan won't take you aside and explain that touching it is a bad idea, but you will learn from the pain and hopefully emerge a wiser person.

 

I'm not really going to launch into a passionate defence of smacking, hitting, or whatever you want to call it - because I'm not a believer in it as a matter of course. But I have no regrets about slapping my kids at the times I have. They have never been beaten, and I've never been personal about it. In my opinion, what it achieved was an immediate cessation to the events going on at the time, plus gave them something to think about if they ever tried something similar again.

 

Once again, still waiting for the norwaysaint school of parenting, with specifics.

 

Okay, I'll bite on this one more time then I'm done with it. The main reason I've joined in on this debate when I usually steer clear is that this whole issue is really so obvious that I'm confident that while this thread might make one or two people reconsider hitting their children, I don't believe anyone will be going the other way and deciding they need to start hitting, because no good reason has really been given and can't be. I would also like to point out that in none of my posts have I mentioned abuse, physical harm, crime rates or anything similar.

 

Your comment that I'm naive to believe that Norwegian parents aren't secretly smacking their children only shows how deeply entrenched it is in British culture that you can't picture a place where it isn't in the culture. suggesting that people here secretly hit children is about the same as saying most British people secretly hit their wives, that's about right for how it's seen here.

 

I have taught young children here and in Britain and read stories where smacking occurs. British children accept it as normal, but children here are shocked to hear about it happening. I teach about English speaking countries on my English courses for 16-18 year olds now. They ask me regularly if it's really true that British parents hit their children and they want to know why, it's very clear this is an alien idea to all of them. Explaining why, I can't tell them that that that's the only way to stop children doing something wrong, that it's a necessary last resort and that it's the only way to teach about boundaries, because they would laugh at me. They all grew up learning these things and they've never been hit.

 

Again referring to your comment that it's the only way to teach children not to touch a hot pan, well we managed it and I have known (literally) hundreds of children over here who seem to have learned it without being hit. Maybe our communication from the start has been better.

 

As a teacher over here, it's my duty by law to report if I suspect that any child is being hit, not abused, just being hit at all. In all of my time here there have only been a couple of suspected cases and both were immigrant parents. I've known a lot of parents over here, many of them immigrants and there has been a huge consensus that the laws against child-hitting are excellent. A lot of people are like me and might have fallen into the pattern of automatically accepting it as an option, but quickly realising we would have been wrong and it's really not necessary.

 

I find it a bit odd that you want examples of how to bring up children without hitting them. Surely you know there is no miracle solution to parenting and it's a constant thing that depends on parent and child and a relationship they build up right from the beginning. How you communicate with your children and reprimand them might be completely different from me and mine. I have explained thing honestly and carefully to my children right from the start. i don't like to do this because I think it sounds patronising, but you asked what my style of parenting is. I try to educate them as we go. I try to give them as much praise as possible for doing the right thing so that they are keen to do what's right and react quickly if they're told something isn't right. They respond to my tone of voice, because I only use certain tones when it's something immediate or dangerous, and when I'm wrong I admit it. Most importantly I try to set them a good example. If I say hitting is wrong, and I have, there is absolutely no way I can hit them or anybody else. these are some of the examples that come to mind, most of what I do I'm probably not really doing that consciously. Have you even seen ONE of those annoying programs about getting kids to behave where the "nanny" figure has said "Yeah, then you'd probably better just hit them, then they'll understand."?

 

Somebody else mentioned seat belts or car doors and falling under trains. Well, by the time they had seat belts they could undo themselves they were very aware of the dangers. When they were little I would never have left them alone by a train track.

 

My wife (Norwegian) just asked me what I'm writing and she actually laughed about what you've written and she assures me that hitting a child is seen as far worse than hitting your wife and that there is absolutely no chance that it is widespread in private, it's just an utterly alien idea in Norwegian society. She asked me three times if it genuinely is legal in Britain and i can understand why. The idea that that small children learn better from being hit while older children and grown ups are protected by law is ludicrous.

 

I can see that it's too ingrained in your culture for you to step outside of it and see that millions manage very well without ever hitting their children, but I genuinely hope one or two people have been given reason to think it over again. I'll finish by once more repeating the same question. Hitting may not cause physical damage, but if it's been shown that whole countries manage to raise children with clear boundaries and a sense of right and wrong and have managed to keep their children safe and well behaved WITHOUT hitting them, why hit? The only possible answer is that you just prefer doing it that way, which I find either strange or lazy.

[Turkish]

Nope, I'd probably glare at them.

 

I've actually sat in a restaurant though, when two parents were obviously keen on "explaining" stuff to their kids. Biggest pair of numpties I've ever seen in my life. For a start, their kids didn't even need disciplining - yet they brayed through the entire breakfast explaining why "something was wrong" or telling them that they were being "very naughty".

 

It's good to know that in a similar situation, you'd have the courtesy to walk out and spare people your technique. I feel more confident about eating in restaurants, for one.

 

I was in the toilet in Tescos a while back and I heard a father tellling his little boy, who was no more than 6 that he had sinned and whatever it was he had done was the second sin he had committed that day. Truely odd behaviour.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Great post NorwaySaint

[pap]

Great post NorwaySaint

 

Totally agree on quality of the post. Think that norwaysaint and I may be irreconcilable on the place of corporal punishment in the disciplining of children, but a very eloquent post which provides some food for thought.

[scotty]

I was in the toilet in Tescos a while back and I heard a father tellling his little boy, who was no more than 6 that he had sinned and whatever it was he had done was the second sin he had committed that day. Truely odd behaviour.

 

 

In a way, that could be viewed as another form of abuse, albeit psychological. Putting that sort of pressure on a kid of that age??

[Dig Dig]

People keep saying that's it's ok as a "last resort". What happens if it doesn't work, do you just contine beating the **** out of them?

[Thedelldays]

People keep saying that's it's ok as a "last resort". What happens if it doesn't work, do you just contine beating the **** out of them?

 

Yes, that is what you do. You punch them as hard as you can.. Right on the nose

[hypochondriac]

IMO people who smack as a last resort do not have the parenting skills necessary to get their child to behave through non violent means

[Dig Dig]

Yes, that is what you do. You punch them as hard as you can.. Right on the nose

 

Ok, I'll remember that. If that doesn't work I'm sure the people's elbow square in the ribs would also work a treat. Only as a last resort though and only if they do something dangerous like touch a hot pan.

[pap]

People keep saying that's it's ok as a "last resort". What happens if it doesn't work, do you just contine beating the **** out of them?

 

This is an idiotic question which does a disservice to any parent that has used mild corporal punishment to discipline their child at their discretion. It's the shock, rather than the pain, which is effective.

 

If someone is laying into their kids on a constant basis (as you suggest here), hardly likely to be a shock, is it? It's also likely to be assault and abuse, which is something else no-one here is defending.

 

So what's your point?

[Dig Dig]

This is an idiotic question which does a disservice to any parent that has used mild corporal punishment to discipline their child at their discretion. It's the shock, rather than the pain, which is effective.

 

If someone is laying into their kids on a constant basis (as you suggest here), hardly likely to be a shock, is it? It's also likely to be assault and abuse, which is something else no-one here is defending.

 

So what's your point?

 

Don't take your guilt out on me. It was just a question. What happens if the "shock" doesn't work?

[Thedelldays]

Don't take your guilt out on me. It was just a question. What happens if the "shock" doesn't work?

 

Then you try something else?

[Bearsy]

I ain't got kids or nothing (or at least i ****ing hope not!) but I sometimes watch Supernanny USA on tv. I quite like it seeing all the badly behaved kids and how she gets them in line or whatever! In this one episode there was these dumb parents and they was punishing their kids by putting hot liquids in their mouth. Supernannys didn't like that! She was like so what happens when it ain't working no more? Do you make the liquids hotter? Do you make it boiling? Do you start using sulphuric acid?

 

Anyways what she done is teach them all about the naughty step or whatever and made them all close again as a family. It was pretty emotional!

[hypochondriac]

This is an idiotic question which does a disservice to any parent that has used mild corporal punishment to discipline their child at their discretion. It's the shock, rather than the pain, which is effective.

 

If someone is laying into their kids on a constant basis (as you suggest here), hardly likely to be a shock, is it? It's also likely to be assault and abuse, which is something else no-one here is defending.

 

So what's your point?

 

That statement is just ridiculous to me. In this day and age, there is no reason at all for parents to use mild corporate punishment or any sort of physical violence towards children. I was smacked as a child BTW, wooden spoon on the back of the legs.

[BadgerBadger]

Smacking, hitting or any sort of physical shock tactics = lazy parenting

[pap]

Don't take your guilt out on me. It was just a question. What happens if the "shock" doesn't work?

 

Don't know. The shock has always worked.

 

Most people seriously discussing the "for" case have explained their positions pretty clearly. It all falls well outside the destructive little scenario you've dreamt up.

 

The chances of me feeling guilty about disciplining my kids when they were misbehaving is about as likely as you feeling guilty for trying to get a rise out of people on a lonely Sunday night.

[hypochondriac]

Don't know. The shock has always worked.

 

Most people seriously discussing the "for" case have explained their positions pretty clearly. It all falls well outside the destructive little scenario you've dreamt up.

 

The chances of me feeling guilty about disciplining my kids when they were misbehaving is about as likely as you feeling guilty for trying to get a rise out of people on a lonely Sunday night.

 

It's very sad that you felt you had no option other than to be violent towards you children to get them to do what you want.

[hypochondriac]

Smacking, hitting or any sort of physical shock tactics = lazy parenting

 

Put much better than me. Exactly.

[pap]

That statement is just ridiculous to me. In this day and age, there is no reason at all for parents to use mild corporate punishment or any sort of physical violence towards children. I was smacked as a child BTW, wooden spoon on the back of the legs.

 

I have done it three times in sixteen years of parenting. Clearly, I don't generally see it as necessary, I don't like it when I see parents doing it all the time, but I don't regret using it the times I have - and frankly - I haven't seen any long-term harm in those who have received it.

 

Opportunist moralising. Do you have children, I wonder?

[The9]

Ok, I'll remember that. If that doesn't work I'm sure the people's elbow square in the ribs would also work a treat. Only as a last resort though and only if they do something dangerous like touch a hot pan.

 

Tch, the People's Elbow is no kind of finishing move.

[Dig Dig]

Don't know. The shock has always worked.

 

Most people seriously discussing the "for" case have explained their positions pretty clearly. It all falls well outside the destructive little scenario you've dreamt up.

 

The chances of me feeling guilty about disciplining my kids when they were misbehaving is about as likely as you feeling guilty for trying to get a rise out of people on a lonely Sunday night.

 

I'm sorry that your Sunday is lonely Pap but obviously this isn't the thread to discuss that.

 

It was a simple question, not trying to get a rise just trying to understand where ones mans "mild corporate punishment" becomes another mans abuse. Must be a very thin line I would imagine.

 

As a big strong man I cant fathom using physical intimidation as a means to control my children regardless of the fact that I might only be seeking a shock factor. Some dog owners use the same techniques on their dogs with devices like the electric collar. Doesn't hurt the dogs apparently but causes them significant distress and therefore are being made illegal throughout the UK.

[pap]

I'm sorry that your Sunday is lonely Pap but obviously this isn't the thread to discuss that.

 

It was a simple question, not trying to get a rise just trying to understand where ones mans "mild corporate punishment" becomes another mans abuse. Must be a very thin line I would imagine.

 

As a big strong man I cant fathom using physical intimidation as a means to control my children regardless of the fact that I might only be seeking a shock factor. Some dog owners use the same techniques on their dogs with devices like the electric collar. Doesn't hurt the dogs apparently but causes them significant distress and therefore are being made illegal throughout the UK.

 

It's not a thin line at all, Dig Dug. It doesn't matter what "one man's mild corporal punishment" is. The law clearly defines what is abuse and what isn't. Leave a mark - you've assaulted your kid. How clear does the law need to be?

Edited 5 August, 2012 by pap