Ban smacking, children's tsar urges
Discussion
johnfm said:
Rovinghawk said:
johnfm said:
What? You threaten children with violence?
A smack doesn't necessarily involve beating the crap out of the child, you know.Doing so to strangers is bad enough. Doing it to children is pretty low. Doing it to your own children is pretty much an admission of an inability to communicate and dressing it up as 'just a smack' is trying to justify an adult hitting a child.
Weak as piss, as we'd say where I'm from.
hedgefinder said:
well, I for one can only speak from personal experience.
All 3 of my kids have been lightly smacked if they misbehave and usually now just the threat of it makes them change heart on the rare occasions that they do act up. I can honestly say they are amongst the best behaved children I see out and about.
Then you compare this to my sisters kids ...never been smacked in their lives and they certainly are the most unruly pair who basically control their parents lives.. my sister repeatedly says no, dont do that or stop it... repeated until she is blue in the face and they pay absolutely no attention.
Its all the proof I need to be honest.
And lets be straight here there is a world of difference between discipline and physical abuse.
What exactly is it about hitting your children that makes it an effective way of teaching your children something? Obviously they don't want to be smacked but why? Is it pain or humiliation or some other negative stimulus? All 3 of my kids have been lightly smacked if they misbehave and usually now just the threat of it makes them change heart on the rare occasions that they do act up. I can honestly say they are amongst the best behaved children I see out and about.
Then you compare this to my sisters kids ...never been smacked in their lives and they certainly are the most unruly pair who basically control their parents lives.. my sister repeatedly says no, dont do that or stop it... repeated until she is blue in the face and they pay absolutely no attention.
Its all the proof I need to be honest.
And lets be straight here there is a world of difference between discipline and physical abuse.
I know that your post makes it look like you haven't really put any thought in to it at all, but why smack them instead of trying to bring them up without having to hit them? Would it be better to not have to hit them or don't you think it's possible based on the fact that your sister's children are naughty?
johnfm said:
"Don't do X or I will hit you" or "Do X or I will hit you" is the threat of violence.
There you go again with the emotional overreaction- a small smack to reinforce a message is very different to knocking hell out of someone. The words 'reasonable' & 'proportionate' might be involved.Rovinghawk said:
There you go again with the emotional overreaction- a small smack to reinforce a message is very different to knocking hell out of someone. The words 'reasonable' & 'proportionate' might be involved.
How is the "small smack" reinforcing a message? Why on earth do you need to hit them to reinforce a message. Can't you reinforce a message without having to physically hurt them. Edited by el stovey on Wednesday 1st July 23:33
el stovey said:
How is the "small smack" reinforcing a message? Why on earth do you need to hit them to reinforce a message. Can't you reinforce a message without having to physically hurt them.
More than 2000 years ago, Plato used to give his students a small smack whenever he made a crucial point. It reinforced the learning experience, and it worked.Edited by el stovey on Wednesday 1st July 23:33
s2art said:
el stovey said:
How is the "small smack" reinforcing a message? Why on earth do you need to hit them to reinforce a message. Can't you reinforce a message without having to physically hurt them.
More than 2000 years ago, Plato used to give his students a small smack whenever he made a crucial point. It reinforced the learning experience, and it worked.Edited by el stovey on Wednesday 1st July 23:33
s2art said:
johnfm said:
Rovinghawk said:
johnfm said:
What? You threaten children with violence?
A smack doesn't necessarily involve beating the crap out of the child, you know.Doing so to strangers is bad enough. Doing it to children is pretty low. Doing it to your own children is pretty much an admission of an inability to communicate and dressing it up as 'just a smack' is trying to justify an adult hitting a child.
Weak as piss, as we'd say where I'm from.
Controlling children by getting a Doberman to bite them? WTAF?
Johnfm, I agree with what you say about labelling. The pro smackers twist language to maintain that smacking is somehow a use of violence that isn't a use of violence. If a position can only be defended by resort to euphemisms and evasions, that may say something about the position.
Oh well, at least we haven't had "I smack with love" for the last few pages.
Johnfm, I agree with what you say about labelling. The pro smackers twist language to maintain that smacking is somehow a use of violence that isn't a use of violence. If a position can only be defended by resort to euphemisms and evasions, that may say something about the position.
Oh well, at least we haven't had "I smack with love" for the last few pages.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 2nd July 07:20
el stovey said:
There's so much wrong with that post that I don't know where to start.
The dog should know it is at the bottom of the order, that's your job to teach it. Your dog should never be growling at your child, that's your job again, as is not letting your child annoy the dog. You shouldn't be letting your dog growl or your child annoy it and you shouldn't need to slap your child's legs. Are you really a dog owner and a parent? f
king hell.
My, how it must be difficult for you to see us plebs from your ivory tower.The dog should know it is at the bottom of the order, that's your job to teach it. Your dog should never be growling at your child, that's your job again, as is not letting your child annoy the dog. You shouldn't be letting your dog growl or your child annoy it and you shouldn't need to slap your child's legs. Are you really a dog owner and a parent? f
king hell. Warning a child how to read how a dog is reacting to them playing with it is a bad thing? Have you seen my dog? No, didnt think you had. Look up Bolognese then tell me how vicious they are.
We also have a parrot, it does bite, no matter how many times we tell it not to it still does. Funny that, ITS A f
kING ANIMAL AND THEY BITE SOMETIMES! Still doesnt stop my son wanting to get it out the cage though and it stand on his shoulder.Never had to slap my sons legs either, hes pretty well behaved and if he plays up ends up in his room with no tech. Or are you going to criticise me for removing his human rights to a Hudl next?
Breadvan72 said:
Controlling children by getting a Doberman to bite them? WTAF?
Johnfm, I agree with what you say about labelling. The pro smackers twist language to maintain that smacking is somehow a use of violence that isn't a use of violence. If a position can only be defended by resort to euphemisms and evasions, that may say something about the position.
Oh well, at least we haven't had "I smack with love" for the last few pages.
Many years ago at one of my (at the time) partners birthday parties, one of our guests, (the writer James Mitchell who wrote the Callan series, and when the Boat comes in) and I were having a discussion, when my partners daughter butted in, and to `attract' James`s attention bit him on the arm sufficiently hard to draw blood. James calmly asked her to stop doing it, but she carried on. I told her stop, and tried to pull her away, but she just dug her teeth in even deeper. Then her Mum came in from the kitchen, saw what was going on, and gave her daughter a much deserved clump, which removed her from Jame`s arm. If the child had been mine, I would have done the same.Johnfm, I agree with what you say about labelling. The pro smackers twist language to maintain that smacking is somehow a use of violence that isn't a use of violence. If a position can only be defended by resort to euphemisms and evasions, that may say something about the position.
Oh well, at least we haven't had "I smack with love" for the last few pages.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Thursday 2nd July 07:20
Children need to understand what it feels like to be physically hurt. and what is happening when they are hurting someone else. Otherwise (like many bullies) they come to believe that they can go around hurting other people, and that nothing or nobody will do anything (physical or otherwise)to hurt them back.
Some children are so wilful they absolutely will NOT respond to talking alone, and often despise the weakness of a simpering `don't do that Jonnie it isn't very nice' type parent, when little jonnie is kicking the sh*t out of another kid. people are not talking about beating a child up, but a short sharp slap, when the child is being an utter nasty, selfish, in some cases dangerous a^se is exactly what is required to bring them to their senses.
I utterly despise those parents who let their kids rule the roost, doing what they like, and hurting others, being rude, and damaging others property, because they are too weak to properly control their offspring. through some misguided probably Spock inspired messed up thinking.
This ban smacking mullarkey is just another example of big state dictation in peoples lives.
As a parent, I found it essential in matters of disciplining a child to do what you say you will do. So if you tell them they will get no treats if they persist in their misbehaviour for whatever reason , then they get no treats, simple as that.
In the case of my two, I reserved a smack as an unltimate deterrent , the fact that I only had to use it once in both their cases , shows that it can be a very effective punishment.
Kids will be willful, and downright challenging, they often know themselves what they are doing is wrong, but they can and do deliberately challenge the pecking order. Having a deterrent to maintain reasonable order is helpful, and helps a stable family life.
I'm pleased to see that my kids, apply very similar parenting to what they received , to their kids, so if it ain't bust, don't fix it.
As a parent, I found it essential in matters of disciplining a child to do what you say you will do. So if you tell them they will get no treats if they persist in their misbehaviour for whatever reason , then they get no treats, simple as that.
In the case of my two, I reserved a smack as an unltimate deterrent , the fact that I only had to use it once in both their cases , shows that it can be a very effective punishment.
Kids will be willful, and downright challenging, they often know themselves what they are doing is wrong, but they can and do deliberately challenge the pecking order. Having a deterrent to maintain reasonable order is helpful, and helps a stable family life.
I'm pleased to see that my kids, apply very similar parenting to what they received , to their kids, so if it ain't bust, don't fix it.
el stovey said:
What exactly is it about hitting your children that makes it an effective way of teaching your children something? Obviously they don't want to be smacked but why? Is it pain or humiliation or some other negative stimulus?
I suspect it's a bit of both, and not wanting to be hit again. At least, that's what is was for me when I was young.el stovey said:
I know that your post makes it look like you haven't really put any thought in to it at all, but why smack them instead of trying to bring them up without having to hit them? Would it be better to not have to hit them or don't you think it's possible based on the fact that your sister's children are naughty?
Well, everyone has different methods for disciplining their children. What seems clear about this latest outbreak of discussion is that people who are anti-smacking are quite evangelical about it with more than a smidge of morally superior high horse overtones. I don't think it's helpful in the slightest to suggest parents who smack children for discipline are poor parents or one step away from Myra Hindley.I don't smack mine, but that's not to say I've never been tempted to. If she's persistently naughty I have to shout sternly for her to sit down on the spot (she's three next week). At this point she knows she's done wrong and tears inevitably flow. She doesn't have quite the same fear of my wife though, and my wife has to use the threat of me to persuade her to do things.
I'm sure some could construe this is emotional abuse - shouting at a child such that it illicits crying as a response. However sometimes when you say no, no, no NO NO when she's doing something that needs to stop immediately she doesn't actually stop, no matter how rationally I try to explain the consequences and alternatives.
So, is emotional abuse better or worse than physical? Is the implied threat from a stern shout any less 'abusive' than a swift slap on the wrist or legs? I don't know, but I'm not going to judge anyone for taking either approach.
Cheese Mechanic said:
This ban smacking mullarkey is just another example of big state dictation in peoples lives.
As a parent, I found it essential in matters of disciplining a child to do what you say you will do. So if you tell them they will get no treats if they persist in their misbehaviour for whatever reason , then they get no treats, simple as that.
In the case of my two, I reserved a smack as an unltimate deterrent , the fact that I only had to use it once in both their cases , shows that it can be a very effective punishment.
Kids will be willful, and downright challenging, they often know themselves what they are doing is wrong, but they can and do deliberately challenge the pecking order. Having a deterrent to maintain reasonable order is helpful, and helps a stable family life.
I'm pleased to see that my kids, apply very similar parenting to what they received , to their kids, so if it ain't bust, don't fix it.
Exactly. Very young children, are no different from animals and like animals must start to test where their boundaries are. For some, verbal enforcement is all that is required to do this, but for others it has be a physical check, words or threats of treats, or freedoms being removed just will NOT work. The trick is knowing how to use the minimum option, in each case to achieve the required behavioural result. Sadly many parents these days, don't know how to do this, and either overdo `control' or use a far too slack method, resulting in a spoiled child.As a parent, I found it essential in matters of disciplining a child to do what you say you will do. So if you tell them they will get no treats if they persist in their misbehaviour for whatever reason , then they get no treats, simple as that.
In the case of my two, I reserved a smack as an unltimate deterrent , the fact that I only had to use it once in both their cases , shows that it can be a very effective punishment.
Kids will be willful, and downright challenging, they often know themselves what they are doing is wrong, but they can and do deliberately challenge the pecking order. Having a deterrent to maintain reasonable order is helpful, and helps a stable family life.
I'm pleased to see that my kids, apply very similar parenting to what they received , to their kids, so if it ain't bust, don't fix it.
Its not something the state should get involved with.But this thread seems to be showing some people still have archaic views on raising children.
In my circle of friends I can't imagine anyone hitting their child for any reason. Molding a child's behavior is about consistency (IMHO) I refuse to believe that consistent violence, or threat of violence is a good way of bringing children up.
In my circle of friends I can't imagine anyone hitting their child for any reason. Molding a child's behavior is about consistency (IMHO) I refuse to believe that consistent violence, or threat of violence is a good way of bringing children up.
ofcorsa said:
Its not something the state should get involved with.But this thread seems to be showing some people still have archaic views on raising children.
In my circle of friends I can't imagine anyone hitting their child for any reason. Molding a child's behavior is about consistency (IMHO) I refuse to believe that consistent violence, or threat of violence is a good way of bringing children up.
Because psychological brain-washing is far less damaging then an small slap to the thigh.In my circle of friends I can't imagine anyone hitting their child for any reason. Molding a child's behavior is about consistency (IMHO) I refuse to believe that consistent violence, or threat of violence is a good way of bringing children up.
Jinx said:
ofcorsa said:
Its not something the state should get involved with.But this thread seems to be showing some people still have archaic views on raising children.
In my circle of friends I can't imagine anyone hitting their child for any reason. Molding a child's behavior is about consistency (IMHO) I refuse to believe that consistent violence, or threat of violence is a good way of bringing children up.
Because psychological brain-washing is far less damaging then an small slap to the thigh.In my circle of friends I can't imagine anyone hitting their child for any reason. Molding a child's behavior is about consistency (IMHO) I refuse to believe that consistent violence, or threat of violence is a good way of bringing children up.
Timmy40 said:
You've just described bringing a child up as a well behaved individual with consistent routines ( vital for children ) whilst avoiding hitting them as damaging psychological brain washing? There are some right wierdos/prats on PH, but I think you possibly top the list with this.
Low grade behavioural manipulation based on induced anxiety over material possessions and privileges or small slap to the thigh? I know what I would chose.Jinx said:
Low grade behavioural manipulation based on induced anxiety over material possessions and privileges or small slap to the thigh? I know what I would chose.
Or you could have worded it "Kids knowing there will consequences of their actions or bullying and physical abuse of children" 
With these feet said:
el stovey said:
There's so much wrong with that post that I don't know where to start.
The dog should know it is at the bottom of the order, that's your job to teach it. Your dog should never be growling at your child, that's your job again, as is not letting your child annoy the dog. You shouldn't be letting your dog growl or your child annoy it and you shouldn't need to slap your child's legs. Are you really a dog owner and a parent? fking hell.
My, how it must be difficult for you to see us plebs from your ivory tower.The dog should know it is at the bottom of the order, that's your job to teach it. Your dog should never be growling at your child, that's your job again, as is not letting your child annoy the dog. You shouldn't be letting your dog growl or your child annoy it and you shouldn't need to slap your child's legs. Are you really a dog owner and a parent? f
king hell. Warning a child how to read how a dog is reacting to them playing with it is a bad thing? Have you seen my dog? No, didnt think you had. Look up Bolognese then tell me how vicious they are.
We also have a parrot, it does bite, no matter how many times we tell it not to it still does. Funny that, ITS A f
kING ANIMAL AND THEY BITE SOMETIMES! Still doesnt stop my son wanting to get it out the cage though and it stand on his shoulder.Never had to slap my sons legs either, hes pretty well behaved and if he plays up ends up in his room with no tech. Or are you going to criticise me for removing his human rights to a Hudl next?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff