Smacking your child

[scotty]

If I rubbed your hand and said, don't do that, could I, would I be charged with assault?

 

I seem to recall that touching somebody without their consent is illegal. Could be wrong on that.

[pap]

Surely you aren't trying to conflate the separate issues of whats legal; whats provable and whats right as an excuse?

 

Would you get someone arrested if they assaulted you without leaving a mark?

 

I'm just illustrating that in order for a comparison to be relevant, feasibility helps.

[Frank's cousin]

Would you get someone arrested if they assaulted you without leaving a mark?

 

I'm just illustrating that in order for a comparison to be relevant, feasibility helps.

 

But surely the issue here is not about the challenges in securinga conviction, but in the fact that its wrong/illegal? Its true, unlikely to see a conviction for an assult that leaves no mark - but does that make the assult any less of an assult (from a legal perspective or a moral one)? I dont believe it does, if the law says its not allowed...just that the mechanism of enforcing the law and punishing the guilty party (which is fair and just) does have problems with such issues due to the difficulty of providing alevel of evidence to satisfy a third party (the Jury) that it took place... but surely this is all a separet debate?

[BadgerBadger]

Let's bring it away from where the abuse line is, what's legal or linking it to beating the wife. In it's simplest terms smacking a child and by this I mean a simple slap on the leg or hand is a lazy solution to a problem, the child does not do as you wish which makes you angry and that then manifests itself physically. Not a good role model for kids is it.

 

What I try to do is reason with my kids, have done from a very early age against the advice of many saying you can't reason with an 2 year old, well maybe not entirely but it makes for a great foundation and you'll be amazed how quickly they pick it up.

[pap]

But surely the issue here is not about the challenges in securinga conviction' date=' but in the fact that its wrong/illegal? Its true, unlikely to see a conviction for an assult that leaves no mark - but does that make the assult any less of an assult (from a legal perspective or a moral one)? I dont believe it does, if the law says its not allowed...just that the mechanism of enforcing the law and punishing the guilty party (which is fair and just) does have problems with such issues due to the difficulty of providing alevel of evidence to satisfy a third party (the Jury) that it took place... but surely this is all a separet debate?[/quote']

 

I think you're jumping the gun with the conviction angle. People need to press charges for that to even happen.

 

There is also no way that any such case would ever see a jury trial. Think ABH is the "lowest" crime they cover there, which is above and beyond the "mark" standard.

[Bearsy]

The problem with reasoning with kids is if they're smarter than you you're ****ed!

[Saint Fan CaM]

I've only read the last page of this debate, so my only clear view of opinions is that Pap is up against the rest of the debators and the arguement has reached a point of 'black and white'...'yes and no'...'wrong and right'. My experience from raising four children to adulthood is that there is no such digital aspect to this - having a variable approach to disciplining a child is the key to success and any attempt from the outside to moralise in a generic sense is flawed logic. I particularly despair of the 'PC brigade' categorising physical punishment as 'hitting' - this is entirely an emotional response to attempt to elicit sympathy for their cause.

 

Administering a controlled smack as an ultimate punishment is not wrong, providing afterwards it is backed with clear rationale guidance on why the line was crossed, what your expectations are for future behaviour and a clear show of love and care. As many people recognise, children do understand graded levels of discipline - as a society we have dumbed down many areas of life and this IMHO is just another example.

 

I will offer up a little of my own experience albeit very condensed - I have two boys, one is 27 and one is five years younger. My first son experienced what I would consider a fully graded level of discipline including smacks. My younger son experienced a more 'relaxed' attitude to handing out smacks - i.e. for various reasons we went with the modern concensus that it's better not to smack. I'm happy to report both my sons have grown into responsible, caring, intelligent, law-abiding citizens. However, it has been a tougher journey for my younger son - he has had trouble throughout his teen years taking responsibility for his own actions ("it's everybody elses fault") and he has had real trouble respecting authority and listening to the voice of reason/experience. His personality reflects a significant proportion of kids nowadays - those whose parents don't have the time to administer a graded approach because they're too busy working etc. And for the worst case examples it's just easier to leave it to the authorities to pick up the pieces.

[Dig Dig]

Would you get someone arrested if they assaulted you without leaving a mark?

 

I'm just illustrating that in order for a comparison to be relevant, feasibility helps.

 

Whilst technically it is illegal, the scenario you provided probably wouldnt get too far within the legal system. I know that you didn't like my point about the wife beating and of course I'm not comparing you or anyone else to people who do this but the general point I'm making is that if you saw a man even half slap or smack a women it would be seen as abhorrent and disgraceful and completely unacceptable... Lasting mark or not.

 

If everyone is entitled to a level of protection from ANY kind of physical abuse, why are children now the ONLY exception. I know all parents have a responsibility to discipline their children when necessary but my question would be why there needs to be a physical element to it? As I've said it seems very archaic to me, especially when other techniques which need a level of patience and consistency have been proven to be very effective.

[BadgerBadger]

The problem with reasoning with kids is if they're smarter than you you're ****ed!

 

LOL - That's the point that I lock them in the loft for an hour

[pap]

Let's bring it away from where the abuse line is, what's legal or linking it to beating the wife. In it's simplest terms smacking a child and by this I mean a simple slap on the leg or hand is a lazy solution to a problem, the child does not do as you wish which makes you angry and that then manifests itself physically. Not a good role model for kids is it.

 

What I try to do is reason with my kids, have done from a very early age against the advice of many saying you can't reason with an 2 year old, well maybe not entirely but it makes for a great foundation and you'll be amazed how quickly they pick it up.

 

Why do you assume anger is a part of this, BadgerBadger? It's been a fairly common point that has been made throughout the thread.

 

It's dangerous to link the two, and in many cases, demonstrably untrue. I never thought of my headmaster as an angry man, yet he was expected to dish out corporal punishment when it was warranted.

 

Similarly, my late grandmother, who couldn't get about much, and one of the least angry people I've known, routinely called her kids to her rocking chair after they were naughty, claiming "if you don't come here and take a slap now, you'll get one later".

 

What is the evidence that the discipline we're talking about is borne of parental anger and loss of control?

[Frank's cousin]

I've only read the last page of this debate, so my only clear view of opinions is that Pap is up against the rest of the debators and the arguement has reached a point of 'black and white'...'yes and no'...'wrong and right'. My experience from raising four children to adulthood is that there is no such digital aspect to this - having a variable approach to disciplining a child is the key to success and any attempt from the outside to moralise in a generic sense is flawed logic. I particularly despair of the 'PC brigade' categorising physical punishment as 'hitting' - this is entirely an emotional response to attempt to elicit sympathy for their cause.

 

Administering a controlled smack as an ultimate punishment is not wrong, providing afterwards it is backed with clear rationale guidance on why the line was crossed, what your expectations are for future behaviour and a clear show of love and care. As many people recognise, children do understand graded levels of discipline - as a society we have dumbed down many areas of life and this IMHO is just another example.

 

I will offer up a little of my own experience albeit very condensed - I have two boys, one is 27 and one is five years younger. My first son experienced what I would consider a fully graded level of discipline including smacks. My younger son experienced a more 'relaxed' attitude to handing out smacks - i.e. for various reasons we went with the modern concensus that it's better not to smack. I'm happy to report both my sons have grown into responsible, caring, intelligent, law-abiding citizens. However, it has been a tougher journey for my younger son - he has had trouble throughout his teen years taking responsibility for his own actions ("it's everybody elses fault") and he has had real trouble respecting authority and listening to the voice of reason/experience. His personality reflects a significant proportion of kids nowadays - those whose parents don't have the time to administer a graded approach because they're too busy working etc. And for the worst case examples it's just easier to leave it to the authorities to pick up the pieces.

 

First up, its a good debate and respect to Pap for sticking his neck out and standing his ground. I do disagree with respect to it not being black and white - and sorry but the 'PC brigade' is a bit lame - you either see this as acceptable or not - and the argument some of us are posing is that those who see it as acceptable, I would hazard a guess are those who would say they do it and it never did them or their kids any harm... well its is unlikely we would get any posters who would say they did it and it DID do their kids some harm... but thats a moot point.

 

This is not a PC issue, but a moral debate - it remains a moral debate rather than one based on scientific evidence as although many studies draw the same conclusions, with any observational or retrospective analysis, its always impossible to draw robust consclusions that stack up to the same levels of evidence required for scientific acceptance.

 

...But its also about what is ingrained in our culture as acceptable - in the UK it still appears that it is yet in other countries they have shifted this in one generation, aided by a ban... and use other techniques - the question then remains that if its possible to raise kids without it and they dont suddenly all turn out bad - as evidenced in those countries that have banned it - why is there still a need or justification for it? I think that's a fair question and one which has yet to be answered - it wont get answered though as those on the 'smack side' believe its a right for them as parents and dont want the 'PC brigade' telling them how to be a act...

Edited 6 August, 2012 by Frank's cousin

[Frank's cousin]

Why do you assume anger is a part of this, BadgerBadger? It's been a fairly common point that has been made throughout the thread.

 

It's dangerous to link the two, and in many cases, demonstrably untrue. I never thought of my headmaster as an angry man, yet he was expected to dish out corporal punishment when it was warranted.

 

Similarly, my late grandmother, who couldn't get about much, and one of the least angry people I've known, routinely called her kids to her rocking chair after they were naughty, claiming "if you don't come here and take a slap now, you'll get one later".

 

What is the evidence that the discipline we're talking about is borne of parental anger and loss of control?

 

Thing is I dont think it matters whether the smack is planned, or at a moment of anger - we dont need to differentiate between for either the moral argument, or the practical question as to whether its necessary?

Edited 6 August, 2012 by Frank's cousin

[BadgerBadger]

Why do you assume anger is a part of this, BadgerBadger?

 

because I only assume that anger is what leads people to dish out physical punishment, alternatively a considered use of physical punishment is not exactly an endearing character quality in my book, essences of an insecurity maybe........

[pap]

because I only assume that anger is what leads people to dish out physical punishment, alternatively a considered use of physical punishment is not exactly an endearing character quality in my book, essences of an insecurity maybe........

 

Not entirely sure any of those assumptions are valid. I gave examples of people charged with giving out corporal punishment. We've also seen accounts of those who admit to disciplining their child. Fans of wanton rage walked away in utter disappointment.

 

I accept that there is a link between anger and violence. I don't accept your assumption that all corporal punishment is linked to anger. I've seen enough examples of it bring administered by various people to discount your claim.

 

The earlier point about things being black and white was spot on. Despite wanting to stay within the framework of legal corporal punishment, you're making massive generalisations about the characters of those that think differently to you. They must be angry. They must be insecure. You're ascribing traits to them in order to discredit them, thus validating your argument. Textbook straw man, really.

 

The moralising and judgment from your side of the argument (not just you) has been immense, which only really works if you turn everything up to 11. Mild discipline becomes abuse, or perhaps more colourfully, beating the sh!t out of a kid.

 

The funny thing is, I'm not even against your position. You have every right to raise your kids as you see fit, and if you've managed to raise them right without mild discipline, my hat is genuinely off to you.

 

While I respect your position, I think the way that posters on here have represented it has been vile. You had a chance to give your tips for slap-free parenting. Several chose to attack and pass judgment instead. Is this the sort of thing you teach your kids when you're not slapping them?

[Saint Fan CaM]

because I only assume that anger is what leads people to dish out physical punishment, alternatively a considered use of physical punishment is not exactly an endearing character quality in my book, essences of an insecurity maybe........

 

You think that because, by suggesting they have "essences of insecurity", you believe people who smack their children derive some personal advantage from doing so - this is incorrect. Graded punishment means pro-actively informing the child of the consequences of a certain inappropriate action or behaviour and holding to those pre-defined rules, with the ultimate sanction being a smack. The method undoubtedly results in less repeat offences. I have witnessed non-smacked children drive parents to distraction because they do not learn from the repeated administration of 'soft' sanctions.

 

Children learn from graded punishment. In my experience children who are continually threatened with 'soft' punishments such as 'sitting on the stairs', 'going to bed early', 'not having McDonalds' or 'I'll take away your iPad' etc. do not take these so called punishments seriously because often it becomes a game - i.e. "how much can I get away with?". There's no real learning involved IMO because it's all about loss of advantage or privelage, rather than understanding that crossing a specific significant boundary will result (either immediately or eventually) in real punishment. Quite different of course.

[BadgerBadger]

I didn't link all physical punishment with anger Pap and I take exception to your tone - trying to link me to other posters 'vile representations', 'attacks' and suggest that I might teach my kids in this way, there's no need for that at all. I may have passed judgement that it's 'lazy parenting' but that's what a forum is about and I put forward my case without malice or point scoring.

I also made reference to your point that physical punishment can be delivered without anger, agreed but I pointed out that I don't see that as an endearing quality, the 'insecurity' bit was maybe too subjective for this debate and a little misleading and I don't agree with CaMs view that I think people derive personal advantage from it because I don't.

 

I'm not or have been going anywhere near the abuse/excessive punishments links that people have done on this thread, I'm discussing the very basics of the simple idea that punishment in the physical form is either the best or only way to deal with kids, I don't believe it is.

There's time's where I've totally lost my rag and probably come across quite threatening and in some cases some people would say that the a smack on the arm would have been more effective and less traumatic for the kids.

Look if people want to smack their kids on the hand, arm etc to enforce their methods to control/teach their kids, good luck to them, I know this will not cause any serious issues but I do think it's an option that's taken too easily and is ultimately not the way forward.

 

I'm not saying that all non smacked kids will turn out better than smacked kids or vice versa or that I'm on some moral crusade to say that I know best, far from it, I've got alot of learning to do yet and it's hard enough bringing up kids as it is but it will always be from my original standpoint.

Edited 7 August, 2012 by BadgerBadger

[hypochondriac]

pap- if it were to become illegal in this country, would you then consider it wrong? Is your opinion entirely dependant on the fact that in the eyes of the law it is currently legal?

[pap]

If it were illegal in this country, I would consider it unlawful. There are plenty of laws that I believe are wrong or unnecessary, so no, my idea of right and wrong doesn't mirror the current state of the statute books.

 

I note that you still haven't answered my question about your chosen method of discipline. How do you discipline your kids, hypo?

 

Do you do what you do here - ask questions yet provide no answers?

[pap]

I didn't link all physical punishment with anger Pap and I take exception to your tone - trying to link me to other posters 'vile representations', 'attacks' and suggest that I might teach my kids in this way, there's no need for that at all. I may have passed judgement that it's 'lazy parenting' but that's what a forum is about and I put forward my case without malice or point scoring.

I also made reference to your point that physical punishment can be delivered without anger, agreed but I pointed out that I don't see that as an endearing quality, the 'insecurity' bit was maybe too subjective for this debate and a little misleading and I don't agree with CaMs view that I think people derive personal advantage from it because I don't.

 

I'm not or have been going anywhere near the abuse/excessive punishments links that people have done on this thread, I'm discussing the very basics of the simple idea that punishment in the physical form is either the best or only way to deal with kids, I don't believe it is.

There's time's where I've totally lost my rag and probably come across quite threatening and in some cases some people would say that the a smack on the arm would have been more effective and less traumatic for the kids.

Look if people want to smack their kids on the hand, arm etc to enforce their methods to control/teach their kids, good luck to them, I know this will not cause any serious issues but I do think it's an option that's taken too easily and is ultimately not the way forward.

 

I'm not saying that all non smacked kids will turn out better than smacked kids or vice versa or that I'm on some moral crusade to say that I know best, far from it, I've got alot of learning to do yet and it's hard enough bringing up kids as it is but it will always be from my original standpoint.

 

I was very careful to stick in a "not just you" qualifier to my post. I'm more than happy to concede that compared to some of the other lines of debate, your comments don't get anywhere near the vilest of them. Still, there's little point taking offence to my tone when this is what I have to work on.

 

because I only assume that anger is what leads people to dish out physical punishment, alternatively a considered use of physical punishment is not exactly an endearing character quality in my book, essences of an insecurity maybe........

 

Apologies if you feel I've misrepresented your position, but the problem with these quick-fire responses is that they leave too much open to interpretation.

 

No-one is saying that physical punishment is the best or only way to manage children, mate - and having seen a longer, more considered version of your position, there's little to disagree with apart from that chief assumption.

[jawillwill]

My punishment would somehow refelct their "crime". For example, if they hit their brother, I would (justifiably) punch them. If they don't eat all their dinner, I starve them for a week or two. If they don't do their homework, I make them work in a sweat shop for a few weeks. If they use bad language, I just tell the **** to **** the ****ing **** off.

[Special K]

My punishment would somehow refelct their "crime". For example, if they hit their brother, I would (justifiably) punch them. If they don't eat all their dinner, I starve them for a week or two. If they don't do their homework, I make them work in a sweat shop for a few weeks. If they use bad language, I just tell the **** to **** the ****ing **** off.

 

[norwaysaint]

Pap, one question that's been posed a few times is whether or not you teach your kids that hitting is wrong. I'm assuming you don't teach them that, but that you tell them hitting is sometimes okay?

 

Having taught my kids that it's wrong, I could never hit them.

 

Also, do you believe you couldn't raise your children properly if you lived in a country where it's illegal? If you could still raise your children just as well, how does that affect your belief that children sometimes have to be hit?

 

On top of this, if, like most Norwegians, you'd never been hit as a child and none of your friends had ever been hit, do you think you'd ever even consider striking a child?

 

I'm not looking for arguments, I just genuinely don't get why you think it necessary when it's clearly been shown that millions of people manage without. And if it's not necessary, don't you really think people should avoid it?

[trousers]

I'm not getting why some people are so interested in how other parents choose to bring up their children.

[pap]

Pap, one question that's been posed a few times is whether or not you teach your kids that hitting is wrong. I'm assuming you don't teach them that, but that you tell them hitting is sometimes okay?

 

Having taught my kids that it's wrong, I could never hit them.

 

Also, do you believe you couldn't raise your children properly if you lived in a country where it's illegal? If you could still raise your children just as well, how does that affect your belief that children sometimes have to be hit?

 

On top of this, if, like most Norwegians, you'd never been hit as a child and none of your friends had ever been hit, do you think you'd ever even consider striking a child?

 

I'm not looking for arguments, I just genuinely don't get why you think it necessary when it's clearly been shown that millions of people manage without. And if it's not necessary, don't you really think people should avoid it?

 

Is it really important that you 'get' my opinion on it? I've explained myself plenty. Do I really have to answer hypothetical questions on how I'd feel if I were born in Norway to sate your curiosity?

 

One thing that I can answer is whether I teach my kids that hitting is wrong. Answer: not really. First off, it would make me more of a hypocrite than I already am. Second, if any other kids try slapping mine around, and they defended themselves, I wouldn't consider that wrong either.

[Scummer]

Pap, one question that's been posed a few times is whether or not you teach your kids that hitting is wrong. I'm assuming you don't teach them that, but that you tell them hitting is sometimes okay?

 

Surely there are lots of things that children are told they aren't allowed to do but adults can? Drinking, smoking, ironing, opening the front door, mowing the lawn, etc. I don't see why a child would see it as such a contradiction when seen alongside a lot of other rules they are taught to adhere to but adults partake in.

 

 

Oh yeah, my kids aren't allowed to **** the babysitter either.

[pap]

Surely there are lots of things that children are told they aren't allowed to do but adults can? Drinking, smoking, ironing, opening the front door, mowing the lawn, etc. I don't see why a child would see it as such a contradiction when seen alongside a lot of other rules they are taught to adhere to but adults partake in.

 

 

Oh yeah, my kids aren't allowed to **** the babysitter either.

 

I have two problems with this post. First, I didn't think of it myself. Second, it's inspired yet more input from me

 

For those that teach your kids that "hitting is wrong", how do you reconcile the day-to-day violence that your kids see? Stuff like boxing and MMA is fairly obvious, but there are loads of films in which super-heroes knock the crap out of each other. Do you pause the film whenever someone lands a blow, just to tell your kids that "hitting is wrong"?

 

What about the armed forces, surely the ultimate "hitters"? What do you tell your kids about them?