Ban smacking, children's tsar urges

[Countdown]

WinstonWolf said:

I wouldn't presume to speak for them. When I've smacked my own kids it is because I believe it is the correct course of action at the time.

Have you tried talking to them? Explaining what they are doing is unacceptable? They might not understand the first or second time but behaviour management is an ongoing process.

WinstonWolf said:

So how do you discipline your children?

It's rare that I need to "discipline" them, even the 8 year old knows what Mummy and daddy consider acceptable or unacceptable. However when she is naughty it would have been simply a matter of no TV, extra homework, no Moshi monsters, no Nintendo, and early to bed.

Slapping my kids would probably upset me more than it upsets them.

[Countdown]

WinstonWolf said:

It may be that neither Twiglet nor Countdown are parents, but I'll let them answer that for themselves as I wouldn't be so presumptuous.

Father of 4. I also help to run an after schools club for nursery age / primary school aged children. It does take effort and skill controlling behaviour without resorting to smacking. A smack is the lazy solution and rarely the best.

In my opinion

[Countdown]

lincsls2 said:

Countdown said:

WinstonWolf said:

Do you have children and do you also accept that the state knows how to address their needs better than you?

Do you think those who "smack" do so primarily for the benefit of the child or primarily because it's the quickest and easiest way for the parent?

Question not answered.

With regards to the State "knowing" better than parents - it was the State that decided it was best for kids to go to School, it was the "State" that decided having a teacher caning your kids was inappropriate, it was the State that decided sending small kids up chimneys was not a great idea. So, yes, sometimes the "State" does know a child's needs better than it's parents.

[Jinx]

Countdown said:

With regards to the State "knowing" better than parents - it was the State that decided it was best for kids to go to School, it was the "State" that decided having a teacher caning your kids was inappropriate, it was the State that decided sending small kids up chimneys was not a great idea. So, yes, sometimes the "State" does know a child's needs better than it's parents.

Interesting take on History. I think you'll find private education was around before the state wished to extend this to the entire populace?

[lincsls2]

I am interested to know if the anti-smackers have ever had a good old play fight with their kids? Where a light tap/slap/headlock/kick etc are all part of it?
The kids normally give more than they get and its mighty good fun! No harm comes of it and a few calories are burnt. It may also help them defend themselves in the future.
Would a ban on smacking stretch to a ban on play fights?

Edited by lincsls2 on Thursday 2nd January 12:55

[WinstonWolf]

Countdown said:

WinstonWolf said:

I wouldn't presume to speak for them. When I've smacked my own kids it is because I believe it is the correct course of action at the time.

Have you tried talking to them? Explaining what they are doing is unacceptable? They might not understand the first or second time but behaviour management is an ongoing process.

WinstonWolf said:

So how do you discipline your children?

It's rare that I need to "discipline" them, even the 8 year old knows what Mummy and daddy consider acceptable or unacceptable. However when she is naughty it would have been simply a matter of no TV, extra homework, no Moshi monsters, no Nintendo, and early to bed.

Slapping my kids would probably upset me more than it upsets them.

Bloody hell, talking to them and explaining. Why the heck didn't I think of that...

What if no TV, extra homework, no Moshi monsters, no Nintendo, and early to bed didn't work?

[Countdown]

Jinx said:

Interesting take on History. I think you'll find private education was around before the state wished to extend this to the entire populace?

I know, but the majority of parents still thought having kids working rather than going to school was better for the kids. It wasn't. (This was my response to WW asking if the State knows what is better for a child than the parent)

[Countdown]

WinstonWolf said:

Bloody hell, talking to them and explaining. Why the heck didn't I think of that...

No idea. Maybe because, like other parents, a quick smack got the kids to behave?

WinstonWolf said:

What if no TV, extra homework, no Moshi monsters, no Nintendo, and early to bed didn't work?

I've no idea. Maybe it was just me and Mrs C playing good cop / bad cop but I don't remember ever being in a situation where we had to hit one of them.

Let me turn it around - what would you do if the "gentle slap" didn't work? Assuming they're being really troublesome - how far would you go / how hard would you hit your child in order to get their compliance?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

WinstonWolf said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

turbobloke said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

If a Jehovah's Witness used that line to withhold a life saving blood transfusion from their child...

Regardless of personal opinions which we can all hold in good conscience, you might have worded that somewhat differently by saying that, at present, medical staff can apply for a child to be made a Ward of Court where parents refuse permission for a life-saving blood transfusion. Parents are almost always represented in Court so their views are considered. In other words, current legislation is adequate. Just as it is in the context of this thread.

The thrust of WW's post was to say that as the parent, flesh and blood, he knows what's best for his child, not the state. If that's true, it must be absolute. My point was to illustrate that parents are not always the best judge of what's best for their children, and indeed that state has a duty to lay down rights to protect children from crap parents.

If you want to find an argument to justify smacking, then "I'm the parent and I know what's best" doesn't cut it.

Do you have children and do you also accept that the state knows how to address their needs better than you?

Yes, I have 2 sons, see my post 28 December.

There are many instances when the state knows better than me on bringing them up. I trust the state to educate them, and assume the teachers the state employs are better equipped that I am to deal with that. I trust their healthcare to professionals. I hope they know better than I what is required. I expect the state to step in when required and take children away from crap parents.

But given that you've made it clear that parents have the right to allow their children to die when a simple procedure could save them, there is little point in debating the issue with you. In my view, that marks you out as a borderline loony!

[WinstonWolf]

Countdown said:

WinstonWolf said:

Bloody hell, talking to them and explaining. Why the heck didn't I think of that...

No idea. Maybe because, like other parents, a quick smack got the kids to behave?

WinstonWolf said:

What if no TV, extra homework, no Moshi monsters, no Nintendo, and early to bed didn't work?

I've no idea. Maybe it was just me and Mrs C playing good cop / bad cop but I don't remember ever being in a situation where we had to hit one of them.

Let me turn it around - what would you do if the "gentle slap" didn't work? Assuming they're being really troublesome - how far would you go / how hard would you hit your child in order to get their compliance?

So you would let a child do what they wanted if sending them to bed didn't work?

[anonymous-user]

the accused said:

el stovey said:

the accused said:

That's an impossible question, like the question of the age of consent to sex. Depends on the offspring and the situation and many other things too.

If you came home to find your 17 year old schoolchild son had punched his mother in the face would you: a) call the police b) give him a lengthy lecture on your opinions of the morality of use of violence c) kick his ass hard.

Yeah too right, easiest thing to do is give him a good slap. That will sort his violence out. Erm so if your son is violent towards his mother, it's best to beat him up?

Obviously you think c) isn't an option.

So what WOULD you do? Or how WOULD you deal with a violent bullying little kid, or one with a penchant for hurting animals etc etc? Long lecture? Call the social work department? Psychological punishment?

My kids aren't like that in the first place. If for some reason one of them did something like that I'd try and understand why they did it and probably punish them by withholding stuff they likes, if they kept doing it, I'd take them to a child psychologist and get to the bottom of their behaviour. I certainly wouldn't hit them though.

Thinking that hitting your own child will stop them being violent and hitting other people is a bit thick really.

These hypothetical scenarios are a bit stupid as good consistent parenting where you reward good behaviour and punish bad, stops most of these problems in the first place. If you make an effort as a parent, you're very unlikely to get a 17 year old that attacks their own mother.

I know it's easier just to hit them but it's usually just the last resort of the feckless.

[WinstonWolf]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

WinstonWolf said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

turbobloke said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

If a Jehovah's Witness used that line to withhold a life saving blood transfusion from their child...

Regardless of personal opinions which we can all hold in good conscience, you might have worded that somewhat differently by saying that, at present, medical staff can apply for a child to be made a Ward of Court where parents refuse permission for a life-saving blood transfusion. Parents are almost always represented in Court so their views are considered. In other words, current legislation is adequate. Just as it is in the context of this thread.

The thrust of WW's post was to say that as the parent, flesh and blood, he knows what's best for his child, not the state. If that's true, it must be absolute. My point was to illustrate that parents are not always the best judge of what's best for their children, and indeed that state has a duty to lay down rights to protect children from crap parents.

If you want to find an argument to justify smacking, then "I'm the parent and I know what's best" doesn't cut it.

Do you have children and do you also accept that the state knows how to address their needs better than you?

Yes, I have 2 sons, see my post 28 December.

There are many instances when the state knows better than me on bringing them up. I trust the state to educate them, and assume the teachers the state employs are better equipped that I am to deal with that. I trust their healthcare to professionals. I hope they know better than I what is required. I expect the state to step in when required and take children away from crap parents.

But given that you've made it clear that parents have the right to allow their children to die when a simple procedure could save them, there is little point in debating the issue with you. In my view, that marks you out as a borderline loony!

Coming from you I take that as a compliment.

[Countdown]

WinstonWolf said:

So you would let a child do what they wanted if sending them to bed didn't work?

Depends on what they wanted to do.

It IS possible to control a child without hitting them.

[WinstonWolf]

Countdown said:

WinstonWolf said:

So you would let a child do what they wanted if sending them to bed didn't work?

Depends on what they wanted to do.

It IS possible to control a child without hitting them.

I agree completely. The problem is the case for banning smacking fails completely as you have to use extreme methods for your case to work which none of us actually support. What you want outlawed is already illegal, a gentle smack is just fine.

[s2art]

the accused said:

There's every indication of a healthy faith in behaviour modification by positive and negative reinforcement being shown here. So PSYCHOLOGICAL intervention is seen as the panacea for addressing child misbehaviour But isn't that the whole point of the smack? The smack isn't to HURT the child or do some physical damage. The smack associates a momentarily unpleasant experience with the offending behaviour. The aim being to modify the behaviour by associating it with the unpleasant experience.

Seems reasonable. As humans have been smacking their kids, to warn or discipline, for the past 100,000+ years, and for that matter so do many of the big mammals, it would be foolhardy to abandon the practice. Evolution counts.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

s2art said:

Seems reasonable. As humans have been smacking their kids, to warn or discipline, for the past 100,000+ years, and for that matter so do many of the big mammals, it would be foolhardy to abandon the practice. Evolution counts.

Humans and other big mammals have an evolutionary history and attacking the weak and vulnerable of their species. Perhaps we should allow that too. After all, if granny can't take care of herself when confronted by a gang of youths, why should the state intervene?

[anonymous-user]

the accused said:

There's every indication of a healthy faith in behaviour modification by positive and negative reinforcement being shown here. So PSYCHOLOGICAL intervention is seen as the panacea for addressing child misbehaviour But isn't that the whole point of the smack? The smack isn't to HURT the child or do some physical damage. The smack associates a momentarily unpleasant experience with the offending behaviour. The aim being to modify the behaviour by associating it with the unpleasant experience.

Right but the 'momentary unpleasant experience' is either pain or humiliation. I'm not sure thats positive negative reinforcement. It also teaches kids that it's OK to hit people when they do something you disagree with. Look at all the people who think it's OK to hit their kids because their own parents hit them.

Smacking is simply used by people who are either too angry or can't be arsed finding better methods to teach their children stuff.

[deadslow]

el stovey said:

Smacking is simply used by people who are either too angry or can't be arsed finding better methods to teach their children stuff.

Its big assumptions/accusations like that which make this discussion pointless.

[anonymous-user]

Gang rape and cannibalism are also natural occurrences in the world of mammals. So are death by disease, starvation, and all sorts of fun stuff. I feel no instinctive urge to smack my child, and on the contrary feel a strong urge not to. We are cultural beings, and smacking is, I think, a cultural practice. The use of corporal punishment varies widely across cultures and through time.

I am not suggesting that my daughter is perfect or that I am super-Nanny. Lots of children grow up well without being smacked. Lots of children grow up well being smacked. Physical stimuli can certainly modify behaviour, no one suggests otherwise, but the results are not always predictable. Some children grow up badly and a strong body of medical opinion suggests that this is partly, at least, because of being smacked. Morals apart, I'd rather not risk screwing up my child.

As for the use of pain, the objective may be to deliver a message, but the medium chosen is the infliction of physical discomfort, mild or severe, transient or not.

[lincsls2]

el stovey said:

Smacking is simply used by people who are either too angry or can't be arsed finding better methods to teach their children stuff.

Not constructive. Is that all you can be arsed to come up with?
Perhaps when a parent occasionally slaps their child it is because they feel it is the most appropriate action at that time. You probably wouldn't agree, that would be your opinion, doesn't mean you'd be right though.