Ban smacking, children's tsar urges

[RTB]

I've never smacked my own kids, not that I'm especially against it. I just realised quite early on that I was rather squeamish about hitting small children....

My eldest is well behaved and would never need smacking, my youngest wouldn't be cowed by a smack and would defend himself, in other words you'd just end up fighting with him.

[a]

My opinion about people that smack children is the same as my opinion of Staffordshire Bull Terrier owners.

Many people give well thought-out and reasoned arguments for being a smacker, and for owning a Staffy.
"It can be done in a controlled manner as part of a balanced parenting system"
"They are the gentlest dogs and very maternal towards babies"
"I was smacked when I was naughty, and I grew up into a respectable adult"
"My Staffy wouldn't harm a fly and would only lick a burglar"

... And yet, whenever I see a child being smacked it's done by an angry and out of control parent who is obviously fed up of their child's existance.
... And my dog has been bitten by three Staffies, but never any other breed of dog (one Staffy did it on two occasions, a couple of years apart. The owner obviously forgot me because I got "he's never done that before!" both times)

Maybe it can be done as part of a reasonable parenting approach, but it's not. It's done out of anger, frustration and a deficit of parenting skill.
And maybe Staffies can be owned by experienced dog lovers who genuinely have a connection with the breed, but I've never met one.

If you happen to be one of the extreme few who do it in a controlled manner, then I apologise for the assumptions made above. But be aware that your parenting decisions put you in very poor company.

[julian64]

a said:

If you happen to be one of the extreme few who do it in a controlled manner, then I apologise for the assumptions made above. But be aware that your parenting decisions put you in very poor company.

Unfortunately I think this is the best post on the thread. There are too many people who will never be safe to use a smack, and too many people who believe they are better parents without it. I'd vote against all those that say it should be banned, but really not happy to stand on the side of the majority of people who use it.

As for the chap above who says he wouldn't smack his child as it'd end up in a fight. He really has lost the entire plot. I do worry that attitudes and glib comments like this show the total abdication of most parental responsibility for how their children turn out.

[Hugo a Gogo]

julian64 said:

My relationship with my wife is not an adult-child one so not sure of your argument.

Not sure i understand yours either, you said banning smacking was exactly like banning knives or sulphuric acid. Which one of those is a adult-child relationship?

[a]

julian64 said:

I'd vote against all those that say it should be banned

I do agree with this despite the tone of my post above. If the government is going to interfere with parenting it should be encouraging flexible working, modernising maternity services/advice, etc.

It's too easy to ban smacking, as if that'll solve anything. "Oh I'm not allowed to smack my child any more? Well, I better read some peer-reviewed studies about alternative parenting techniques and apply them to my parenting style, then" - will say nobody, ever.

[SpeedMattersNot]

Kid caught punching another child.

That child needs a good old whack.

Cycle repeats.

[julian64]

Hugo a Gogo said:

julian64 said:

My relationship with my wife is not an adult-child one so not sure of your argument.

Not sure i understand yours either, you said banning smacking was exactly like banning knives or sulphuric acid. Which one of those is a adult-child relationship?

Not sure I believe I'm having to say this but, , the knife debate and sulphuric acid debate has parallels in terms of the decision makers seeing the headlines and deciding on a course of action without any real understanding of the people who carry knives or want to have access to sulphuric acid for completely normal purposes. Bit like banning mopeds because they were preferred transport of the recent attackers. People therefore want to ban smacking because they have no experience of using it properly. Possibly have used it in anger and felt ashamed. Had it done to them badly as a child where it didn't communicate anything except hostility and therefore see all smacking in the same light.

There is no link between knives and acid in the relationship between you and your children

I don't use chastisement in my relationship with my wife because its an adult adult relationship not a child adult one. Therefore the matter doesn't arise. Who would advocate smacking in an adult adult relationship?

I have to say I really don't know whats in your head with the question.

[Hugo a Gogo]

ok, leave out all the other laws that have nothing in common but you don't agree with them, that isn't helping your case

'they' want to ban smacking because it's seen by all professionals as harmful and not helpful

you and one or two others seem to be insisting it's great without any evidence, short of some anecdotes

so please tell me, what is it communicating to the child, and how?

[WinstonWolf]

Hugo a Gogo said:

ok, leave out all the other laws that have nothing in common but you don't agree with them, that isn't helping your case

'they' want to ban smacking because it's seen by all professionals as harmful and not helpful

you and one or two others seem to be insisting it's great without any evidence, short of some anecdotes

so please tell me, what is it communicating to the child, and how?

In the case of a very small child it can be used as the lesser of two evils. Child about to put hand in the fire, smack "no, you will hurt yourself". Child about to run in the road, smack "no, you will hurt yourself".

I've no doubt people will deliberately misinterpret the intention, but it's one of many tools in the armoury to help your children survive.

[Rovinghawk]

Hugo a Gogo said:

'they' want to ban smacking because it's seen by all professionals as harmful and not helpful

Perhaps it's an example of groupthink- any professional who actually believes otherwise won't dare voice their opinion for fear of being seen as a bad person.

[Hugo a Gogo]

WinstonWolf said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

ok, leave out all the other laws that have nothing in common but you don't agree with them, that isn't helping your case

'they' want to ban smacking because it's seen by all professionals as harmful and not helpful

you and one or two others seem to be insisting it's great without any evidence, short of some anecdotes

so please tell me, what is it communicating to the child, and how?

In the case of a very small child it can be used as the lesser of two evils. Child about to put hand in the fire, smack "no, you will hurt yourself". Child about to run in the road, smack "no, you will hurt yourself".

I've no doubt people will deliberately misinterpret the intention, but it's one of many tools in the armoury to help your children survive.

In thise cases I'd grab the child to prevent them hurting themselves. Relying on a tap on the hand seems a little foolish. The idea that a very young child would somehow know that that was the lesser of 2 evils is a bit far fetched

[Hugo a Gogo]

Rovinghawk said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

'they' want to ban smacking because it's seen by all professionals as harmful and not helpful

Perhaps it's an example of groupthink- any professional who actually believes otherwise won't dare voice their opinion for fear of being seen as a bad person.

Mmm, like the vaccines

[WinstonWolf]

Hugo a Gogo said:

WinstonWolf said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

ok, leave out all the other laws that have nothing in common but you don't agree with them, that isn't helping your case

'they' want to ban smacking because it's seen by all professionals as harmful and not helpful

you and one or two others seem to be insisting it's great without any evidence, short of some anecdotes

so please tell me, what is it communicating to the child, and how?

In the case of a very small child it can be used as the lesser of two evils. Child about to put hand in the fire, smack "no, you will hurt yourself". Child about to run in the road, smack "no, you will hurt yourself".

I've no doubt people will deliberately misinterpret the intention, but it's one of many tools in the armoury to help your children survive.

In thise cases I'd grab the child to prevent them hurting themselves. Relying on a tap on the hand seems a little foolish. The idea that a very young child would somehow know that that was the lesser of 2 evils is a bit far fetched

Ah, physical restraint... Exerting your physical prowess once again.

[s2art]

Hugo a Gogo said:

WinstonWolf said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

ok, leave out all the other laws that have nothing in common but you don't agree with them, that isn't helping your case

'they' want to ban smacking because it's seen by all professionals as harmful and not helpful

you and one or two others seem to be insisting it's great without any evidence, short of some anecdotes

so please tell me, what is it communicating to the child, and how?

In the case of a very small child it can be used as the lesser of two evils. Child about to put hand in the fire, smack "no, you will hurt yourself". Child about to run in the road, smack "no, you will hurt yourself".

I've no doubt people will deliberately misinterpret the intention, but it's one of many tools in the armoury to help your children survive.

In thise cases I'd grab the child to prevent them hurting themselves. Relying on a tap on the hand seems a little foolish. The idea that a very young child would somehow know that that was the lesser of 2 evils is a bit far fetched

Except that seems to be exactly how the higher mammals 'teach' their cubs. Perhaps there is an inbuilt 'trust' between child and mother, induced by evolution over ,many generations. Either you believe in evolution or you dont, if you do then look at if from a games theory perspective.

[Oakey]

I go the other way. I grab my child's hand and stick it into the fire, that way he learns a valuable lesson.

[Hugo a Gogo]

WinstonWolf said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

WinstonWolf said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

ok, leave out all the other laws that have nothing in common but you don't agree with them, that isn't helping your case

'they' want to ban smacking because it's seen by all professionals as harmful and not helpful

you and one or two others seem to be insisting it's great without any evidence, short of some anecdotes

so please tell me, what is it communicating to the child, and how?

In the case of a very small child it can be used as the lesser of two evils. Child about to put hand in the fire, smack "no, you will hurt yourself". Child about to run in the road, smack "no, you will hurt yourself".

I've no doubt people will deliberately misinterpret the intention, but it's one of many tools in the armoury to help your children survive.

In thise cases I'd grab the child to prevent them hurting themselves. Relying on a tap on the hand seems a little foolish. The idea that a very young child would somehow know that that was the lesser of 2 evils is a bit far fetched

Ah, physical restraint... Exerting your physical prowess once again.

Yes, exactly like carrying a baby is 'exerting physical prowess '

[a]

Hugo a Gogo said:

Yes, exactly like carrying a baby is 'exerting physical prowess '

As a man who can handle babies, I can advise you this: establish dominance. Look them in the eyes, show your teeth (they don't have any), show your strength by lifting them up and down, pat them on the back in a patronizing way. Ask them nonsensical questions, like "where's the baby?" and answer them before they can, saying "there it is" and pointing at them. Humiliation like this works very well. Hold them in a way that prevents backflips, their preferred escape method. Don't overdo it all though, I have had situations when they shat themselves.

[Shakermaker]

WinstonWolf said:

Ah, physical restraint... Exerting your physical prowess once again.

What are you on?

You DON'T think grabbing hold of your child is the right way to stop them running into the road/putting their hand in the fire, but you DO think that a smack will stop them doing both of those things?

[Randy Winkman]

a said:

julian64 said:

I'd vote against all those that say it should be banned

I do agree with this despite the tone of my post above. If the government is going to interfere with parenting it should be encouraging flexible working, modernising maternity services/advice, etc.

It's too easy to ban smacking, as if that'll solve anything. "Oh I'm not allowed to smack my child any more? Well, I better read some peer-reviewed studies about alternative parenting techniques and apply them to my parenting style, then" - will say nobody, ever.

I don't think there's anything sacred about the parent/offspring relationship that should stop the Govt interfering. In fact, it already does so this issue would just be about altering the rules that are already there.

[Hugo a Gogo]

s2art said:

Except that seems to be exactly how the higher mammals 'teach' their cubs. Perhaps there is an inbuilt 'trust' between child and mother, induced by evolution over ,many generations. Either you believe in evolution or you dont, if you do then look at if from a games theory perspective.

Ffs
Chimps kill each others kids, bonobos shag and wk one another left right n centre, all this plus flinging poo
Games theory. ..